Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Options
1105106108110111334

Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    New moon last night, wasn't it? Things should calm down shortly.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Your posts are rambling and confusing
    Kind sister, you said my post are rambling and confusing. The posts are infact, very clear telling the very purpose "there is God", who is watcher and maker, Who gives sences that you admit my posts are confusing. But u are more confuse to admit that truth. That cofusion will remain in your mind unless you admit it. The confusion which emerges in your mind has also source i.e your mind. So why you think you have no source i.e God. Please tell thy brain you have source you will never find confusion.

    Suppose if your mind / consience asks you this simple question
    What is my source as it is demand of evidence that everything on earth has some source.? (just take example of clock, who assembles its parts and who is its creator)
    The answer from you to your brain will be as follows
    You will tell thy brain that you have no source to satisfy it.Because you believe in theory of confusion against the evidence. Isn't it the irony of confusion in which you are living
    bluewolf wrote: »
    No, it's called protecting the young for survival of the species. We could throw in compassion as well, though I suspect it's more functional than that
    And if they don't protect their young, do you ascribe that to god too? Both the good and the bad?
    Alright, so lets take another example many atheists believe in evidence, Evidence is that a home cat can't protect her kids/cubs/whatever against the lion i.e you can't fight empty handed with a person who is equipped with Guns. A cat can't survive her kid/cubs against the lion than why she puts her life in danger by attacking on lion. This is not true for cat only but all the animals. Animal also believe in theory of love against the evidence and that theory is God. So what is survival of the species against the enemy who is so stronger. If i believe in survival of species than as per theory cat should make run against the lion to survive her. Is it not clear contradiction?, Kind sister.

    I hope you have no question to this. Why thou are still confused.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    dead one wrote: »
    Alright, so lets take another example many atheists believe in evidence, Evidence is that a home cat can't protect her kids/cubs/whatever against the lion i.e you can't fight empty handed with a person who is equipped with Guns. A cat can't survive her kid/cubs against the lion than why she puts her life in danger by attacking on lion. This is not true for cat only but all the animals. Animal also believe in theory of love against the evidence and that theory is God. So what is survival of the species against the enemy who is so stronger. If i believe in survival of species than as per theory cat should make run against the lion to survive her. Is it not clear contradiction?, Kind sister.

    I hope you have no question to this. Why thou are still confused.

    Good grief. What?! :confused: Maybe you should re-post this in your native tongue and we can use Google translate because this language makes no sense!


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,640 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    dead one wrote: »
    Kind sister, you said my post are rambling and confusing. The posts are infact, very clear telling the very purpose "there is God", who is watcher and maker, Who gives sences that you admit my posts are confusing. But u are more confuse to admit that truth. That cofusion will remain in your mind unless you admit it. The confusion which emerges in your mind has also source i.e your mind. So why you think you have no source i.e God. Please tell thy brain you have source you will never find confusion.

    Suppose if your mind / consience asks you this simple question
    What is my source as it is demand of evidence that everything on earth has some source.? (just take example of clock, who assembles its parts and who is its creator)
    The answer from you to your brain will be as follows
    You will tell thy brain that you have no source to satisfy it.Because you believe in theory of confusion against the evidence. Isn't it the irony of confusion in which you are living

    Alright, so lets take another example many atheists believe in evidence, Evidence is that a home cat can't protect her kids/cubs/whatever against the lion i.e you can't fight empty handed with a person who is equipped with Guns. A cat can't survive her kid/cubs against the lion than why she puts her life in danger by attacking on lion. This is not true for cat only but all the animals. Animal also believe in theory of love against the evidence and that theory is God. So what is survival of the species against the enemy who is so stronger. If i believe in survival of species than as per theory cat should make run against the lion to survive her. Is it not clear contradiction?, Kind sister.

    I hope you have no question to this. Why thou are still confused.

    What about animals that eat their young?

    http://www.livescience.com/2053-animals-eat-offspring.html

    Theory of Love (as in, "Mmmm I love eating my children"), or survival of the species as explained in the article?


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    dead one wrote: »
    Kind sister, you said my post are rambling and confusing. The posts are infact, very clear telling the very purpose "there is God",
    Yeah, I got that part
    But u are more confuse to admit that truth. That cofusion will remain in your mind unless you admit it. The confusion which emerges in your mind has also source i.e your mind. So why you think you have no source i.e God. Please tell thy brain you have source you will never find confusion.
    This is the part that doesn't make any sense.
    I'm confused because of your posts but it's not because of your sentence structure it's because I'm in denial or something?
    No

    What is my source as it is demand of evidence that everything on earth has some source.? (just take example of clock, who assembles its parts and who is its creator)
    My "source" is my parents
    The answer from you to your brain will be as follows
    You will tell thy brain that you have no source to satisfy it.
    That would be silly, I was born, I didn't magic out of nowhere
    Because you believe in theory of confusion against the evidence.
    No I dont
    Alright, so lets take another example many atheists believe in evidence,
    So do you since you've mentioned it since post 1
    Evidence is that a home cat can't protect her kids/cubs/whatever against the lion i.e you can't fight empty handed with a person who is equipped with Guns. A cat can't survive her kid/cubs against the lion than why she puts her life in danger by attacking on lion.
    I've already answered this several times.
    If i believe in survival of species than as per theory cat should make run against the lion to survive her.
    What?

    Dead one perhaps you could do us all a favour and work on your English a bit, I don't think I'm the only confused one


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    dead one wrote: »
    Kind sister, you said my post are rambling and confusing. The posts are infact, very clear telling the very purpose "there is God", who is watcher and maker, Who gives sences that you admit my posts are confusing. But u are more confuse to admit that truth. That cofusion will remain in your mind unless you admit it. The confusion which emerges in your mind has also source i.e your mind. So why you think you have no source i.e God. Please tell thy brain you have source you will never find confusion.

    Suppose if your mind / consience asks you this simple question
    What is my source as it is demand of evidence that everything on earth has some source.? (just take example of clock, who assembles its parts and who is its creator)
    The answer from you to your brain will be as follows
    You will tell thy brain that you have no source to satisfy it.Because you believe in theory of confusion against the evidence. Isn't it the irony of confusion in which you are living

    Alright, so lets take another example many atheists believe in evidence, Evidence is that a home cat can't protect her kids/cubs/whatever against the lion i.e you can't fight empty handed with a person who is equipped with Guns. A cat can't survive her kid/cubs against the lion than why she puts her life in danger by attacking on lion. This is not true for cat only but all the animals. Animal also believe in theory of love against the evidence and that theory is God. So what is survival of the species against the enemy who is so stronger. If i believe in survival of species than as per theory cat should make run against the lion to survive her. Is it not clear contradiction?, Kind sister.

    I hope you have no question to this. Why thou are still confused.

    Oh please, please read The Selfish Gene. I know it's Richard Dawkins but he's also a very good if not brilliant scientist and The Selfish Gene has huge implications on we behave the way we do.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    dead one wrote: »
    Look i give you the evidence
    That's as clear and convincing an argument for god as I've ever seen.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    robindch wrote: »
    That's as clear and convincing an argument for god as I've ever seen.

    It'll be fun when we finally move on from "god exists" to "why you should worship god, not just any of them but my particular one too"
    If I was going to, I'd stick with Kali :pac:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    bluewolf wrote: »
    It'll be fun when we finally move on from "god exists" to "why you should worship god, not just any of them but my particular one too"
    If I was going to, I'd stick with Kali :pac:


    Me to


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,776 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    dead one wrote: »
    What you have, What is evidence that you have soul,

    .....

    That is what majority of christian, jews, athiest are doing as you said

    To keep things short, I will just list my problems with your post:

    You start off seeming to ask me for evidence for a soul, but I dont believe in the soul, why would I have evidence for one.
    Everything you say about the quran is subjective. You say its perfect, that no-one else could create a book like it, I say its incredibly flawed, when looked at from the point of view of its supposed purpose. Its supposed to unite people, to tell them the rules needed to get into heaven, the most important information in existence, if true, and yet its unclear, subjective and self limiting in language and tone.
    Your argument for the veracity and divine nature of the quran is so straightforwardly circular i dont know how you dont get travel sickness when detailing it. You believe in the quran because your god says to and you believe in your god because the quran says to. I explained this already and your response was nonsensical, you tried to point further at the quran to disprove the notion of there being a circular argument (in essence you just made another circular argument).
    You claim magic language is myth, but that makes no sense. This is god you are talking about, there is no "myth" to god, if he wants it, it happens and it becomes truth and reality.
    The bible and Torah greatly contradict the quran, they even greatly contradict each other, thats why there is a difference between christains and jews and muslims. Think about, if even the original texts of the bible and torah and quran all said the same thing, then where did all the differences in the texts come from?

    I believe in a creator of a complex clock, because there is immediate evidence of such a creator, you can see someone do it if you are so inclined. The thing about the complexity in the clock, is thats its all immediately functional (no redundant technology is left in from previous iterations of the clock) and its limitations are purely in terms of human knowledge about design. This does not apply to the human body. we are full of redundant parts and there is no reason for any limitations, not when we are supposedly created by an all powerful designer.
    Everything I use is also has seller. Who sold me my body then? How much did it cost? Do I have a warranty? Who do I complain to if something breaks? What are my resale rights? How do I recycle it?
    Incidentally, you haven't explained why god doesn't need to have been created. The quotes from the quran are just assertions, no evidence and no logic, with authority based on circular logic too. If god doesn't need to be created, then what need does the have to be created.
    You dont make any sense when responding to my point about questioning god. You are saying why dont I read other books, but then say by reading other books, I cant find out the truth? Not that it deals with my point. regardless of who I have or haven't read, why shouldn't I question god?
    Why does god need to give people proof? You already said we shouldn't question god, so why does he feel the need for proof for us? Would it not be infinitely better to ignore our desires for proof and therefore prevent all the suffering that has happened in all of humanities existence?

    You claim that a free society will result in more crime, while a unitheistic society will be more peaceful, but this is bunk on two fields. Firstly, why would a free society devolve into criminal state? A truly free society, that isn't full of morons will inevitably see that maximum freedom is only attainable by everyone following the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). Its only by that will will everyone be as free as possible as much of the time. Secondly, while its possible that a society ruled under one will religion will also be peaceful, that has nothing to do with the veracity of the religion and how strongly the society constrains its people. Think about it, if everyone believes the same complex life encompassing rules and no-one is allowed question any of them, then how would conflict arise?

    So we should fear god, because that is the only way that he has to control us, to stop us doing bad things? I dont think you would find many child psychologists who would accept that kind of child raising environment as being efficient.

    And lastly,
    So you are the only muslim that truly understands the quran are you? the reason no other muslims country, no matter how strongly they adhere to the quran, is a paradise is that they dont truly understand the quran? If noone can follow the quran, even those who most strongly proclaims its veracity, does that no questions its veracity?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,776 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    dead one wrote: »
    why thou are confused, Kind sister!, Who puts limit of confusion in your thoughts. You give me link that "Behavior animal kills their young ones" The behavior doesn't imply on majority of animal, Majority of animals love their kids, even a cat will attack on bear saving its kids. Isn't it true?. The evidence demand that cats can't stand against bears but why cats believe in theory of love. Who puts that theory in the heart of those animal who kill their young ones.

    lioness is no match for bear. This is demand of evidence but love needs no evidence. Please watch below theory against the the evidence.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7MuFDVEUro&feature=related
    Isn't that thing Called God.

    Its called evolution. Most animals have an instinct to protect their young because that ensures the continuation of their genes. In fact most of what everything does is purely to continue their genes. The problem with your example is that mostly animals only stand up to much bigger threats for their own kids, for their own genes. They dont do it for other kids. It would seem odd that gods love is stronger for your own kids, your own genes than for just any. Think of how many problems in the world would be averted if humans weren't subject to this, if peoples inate desire to protect their own kids spread to all children?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭AhSureTisGrand


    J C wrote: »
    In view of what just happened ... this has got to be 'under-stated post of the year' ... just slightly 'pipping' Bluewolf's post that the thread is 'boring'!!!!

    Understated? I'll try again then:

    Why do you edit all of your posts?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    bluewolf wrote: »
    My "source" is my parents

    Your parents just meet, As every human meet. They are not true source, You can call them sub source. Even Adam had no father and mother.

    what is source of first human on earth. Don't say it's "Evolution". Even if it was evolution. Who started that evolution. please clear.
    Barrington wrote:
    What about animals that eat their young?

    http://www.livescience.com/2053-animals-eat-offspring.html

    Theory of Love (as in, "Mmmm I love eating my children"), or survival of the species as explained in the article?
    Majority of animals don't eat , Majority is loving in nature. That majority always put itself danger against the greater enemy that contradicts the evidence.
    Its called evolution..........................................

    Isn't evolution "a theory". What is evidence of this theory. Why you are believing in theory which has no evidence. Evolution is also called a religion and i suppose you don't believe in any religion. So why you choose evolution. Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know."
    Evolution is a guess, a speculation, an hypothesis, a theory, a faith.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    dead one wrote: »
    Isn't evolution "a theory".
    Gravity is also a scientific theory, though I doubt you'd be as quick to dismiss it hanging by your fingertips atop a minaret. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    dead one wrote: »
    ....Isn't evolution "a theory".....

    Oh sigh :( Again I repeat please read The Selfish Gene or in fact any publication that explains the theory of evolution. Actually The Greatest Show on Earth is targeted to people of your view point.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    dead one wrote: »

    what is source of first human on earth. Don't say it's "Evolution". Even if it was evolution. Who started that evolution. please clear.
    Evolution from earlier primates

    Isn't evolution "a theory".
    Sure, in the same way gravity is "a theory".
    What is evidence of this theory.
    Why don't you go look it up if you're genuinely interested?
    ...
    Why you are believing in theory which has no evidence.
    ...but I guess that means you aren't.
    Evolution is also called a religion
    No it isn't :confused:
    Evolutionists don't "know" anything about origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know."
    Of course they do, otherwise it would be a hypothesis.
    Evolution is a guess, a speculation, an hypothesis, a theory, a faith.

    No, no, no, yes, no.
    Looks like you don't know what a scientific theory means


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,776 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    dead one wrote: »
    Your parents just meet, As every human meet. They are not true source, You can call them sub source. Even Adam had no father and mother.

    what is source of first human on earth. Don't say it's "Evolution". Even if it was evolution. Who started that evolution. please clear.

    You might be quicker and just ask where the big bang comes from, because ultimately thats what you mean. We can say evolution happens if there is abiogenesis followed by the right conditions, but then you ask were abiogenesis comes from... ultimately it will always go back to where did the big bang come from, how did it start.
    dead one wrote: »
    Majority of animals don't eat , Majority is loving in nature. That majority always put itself danger against the greater enemy that contradicts the evidence.

    But only for their own young, not any others. Love for your young is genetic in nature.
    dead one wrote: »
    Isn't evolution "a theory". What is evidence of this theory. Why you are believing in theory which has no evidence. Evolution is also called a religion and i suppose you don't believe in any religion. So why you choose evolution. Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know."
    Evolution is a guess, a speculation, an hypothesis, a theory, a faith.

    I guess answer each bit of this waffle, but the basic responses to you are:
    read the scientific definition of "theory"
    Read up on the evidence for evolution, here is a start (and dont ask a question and then answer it your self).
    Who said evolution is religion?
    Evolution has nothing to do with "origins" (evolution is the theory of how species arrive from a common ancestor), you are thinking of abiogenesis, the theory of how life arose from non life. Even if there was no abiogenesis, even if life was started by god somewhere in the past, it wouldn't in anyway effect the evidence we have for evolution.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 560 ✭✭✭virmilitaris


    dead one wrote: »
    Your parents just meet, As every human meet. They are not true source, You can call them sub source. Even Adam had no father and mother.

    I'll try and be as blunt as possible.

    - As far as anyone knows we are all members of Homo sapiens sapiens, members of the bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family. All life on this planet has a common ancestor which as far as we know came into being through some form of abiogenesis. And as far back as time itself, the source of everything was the Big Bang where the Universe started to expand into its current state.

    - I don't believe in any deities and even if you could prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that your deity was real I still wouldn't worship it. It's not in my nature to be a slave and I would rather face whatever punishment your religion deems appropriate than to bend my knee for a single second to any celestial dictator, as Mr Hitchens might put it.

    It doesn't matter to me if your religion is true or not. If it's true than it's even more evil than if it were false.


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Even if there was no abiogenesis, even if life was started by god somewhere in the past, it wouldn't in anyway effect the evidence we have for evolution.

    I would also like to add that even if evolution was shown tomorrow to be incorrect, this would still not be any evidence FOR a god.
    It is not a case of:
    no evolution -> therefore my god exists

    more like-

    no evolution -> ??? -> ??? -> therefore A god exists -> this god that exists is my specific god


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    dead one wrote: »
    Your parents just meet, As every human meet. They are not true source, You can call them sub source. Even Adam had no father and mother.

    what is source of first human on earth. Don't say it's "Evolution". Even if it was evolution. Who started that evolution. please clear.

    You are biologically predisposed to think like this, so to be honest I don't think people should be as harsh as they are being on you.

    But you should really take some time to try and realize that there is a difference between the mental constructs we produce as part of the biological process of "theory of mind" and the physical reality that under pins human existence.

    Humans are prone to thinking of other human beings as seperate entities to their physical bodies. We do this not just for humans actually, we do this for anything that appears to be animated (such as animals and TV characters).

    Studies into children provide fascinating insight into this. We have a natural tendency to see people on films or tv shows as continuing to exist when the tv is off, even if we rationally know that isn't the case. We imagine dead animals as still existing.

    Theory of mind is an evolved response, it helps us do something that is actually rather difficult, imagine what people are doing when we can't physically see them.

    The unfortunately consequence of this evolved instinct is that we have a tendency to not turn this off at certain points (such as when they are dead). After all why would evolution bother to evolve this aspect of theory of mind.

    This holds for gods as well, we view nature itself as having a mind that exists even if we can't physically see the person holding this mind.

    So you naturally think in the way you to in this quote. But (and I'm not sure you will accept this) that is not a reason to suppose how you imagine things is actually reality.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    Dades wrote: »
    Gravity is also a scientific theory, though I doubt you'd be as quick to dismiss it hanging by your fingertips atop a minaret. :)
    Sure, in the same way gravity is "a theory".
    wrote: »
    Oh sigh frown.gif Again I repeat please read The Selfish Gene or in fact any publication that explains the theory of evolution. Actually The Greatest Show on Earth is targeted to people of your view point.
    I often hear from atheists that “the theory of evolution is as well tested as the theory of gravity”. Strangely though, we never hear physicists saying that the theory of gravity is as well tested as the theory of evolution.:eek:

    I was just reading the genetic similarities and differences between man and chimp but how we don’t really know which differences are the important ones. In point of fact, we don’t really know if the DNA differences are even significant. The only thing we really know is that a chimp is a chimp because its mother was a chimp. Beyond that, it’s nothing but guesswork. Then I thought about how this compares to the theory of gravity. We know enough about gravity so that we routinely spend billions of dollars launching interplanetary unmanned exploratory spacecraft that, with exquisite precision predicted long before the craft is launched, it moves about the solar system, arriving at known points within meters and seconds years after it is launched and after having traveled circuitous routes for billions of miles. Contrast that with how well we can predict what it takes to turn a chimp into a human. That, my friends, is a true example of how well the theory of evolution has been tested. It hasn’t been tested at all. It’s nothing but WAGs and hand waving. Gravity, on the other hand, is indeed well tested. And that’s why you’ll never hear a physicist saying the theory of gravity is as well tested as the theory of evolution.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-and-gravity/


  • Registered Users Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    dead one wrote: »
    I often hear from atheists that “the theory of evolution is as well tested as the theory of gravity”. Strangely though, we never hear physicists saying that the theory of gravity is as well tested as the theory of evolution.:eek:

    That's because people don't run around saying "gravity is only a theory" :rolleyes:
    Are you pasting stuff from http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.uncommondescent.com/humor/theory-of-evolution-as-well-tested-as/&sa=U&ei=mnFuTbuCJ8mxhAemxMRS&ved=0CBEQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGbPX-P9KbQyXEBDEcfLUJPlN10Fg ?


    If you really want to know more about it instead of spouting empty misinformed rhetoric, perhaps you will look at:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html


    Finally, evolution does not mean atheism nor the reverse.
    Disproving evolution would not in any prove theism. So perhaps you would be better served finding a different line of attack?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,776 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    dead one wrote: »
    I often hear from atheists that “the theory of evolution is as well tested as the theory of gravity”. Strangely though, we never hear physicists saying that the theory of gravity is as well tested as the theory of evolution.:eek:

    Because no one questions the theory of gravity.
    Although the point is not that evolution is as well tested as gravity, its that gravity is a theory. Do you accept that gravity is a theory?
    dead one wrote: »
    I was just reading the genetic similarities and differences between man and chimp but how we don’t really know which differences are the important ones. In point of fact, we don’t really know if the DNA differences are even significant. The only thing we really know is that a chimp is a chimp because its mother was a chimp. Beyond that, it’s nothing but guesswork.

    :confused: Er, who told you that?
    dead one wrote: »
    Then I thought about how this compares to the theory of gravity. We know enough about gravity so that we routinely spend billions of dollars launching interplanetary unmanned exploratory spacecraft that, with exquisite precision predicted long before the craft is launched, it moves about the solar system, arriving at known points within meters and seconds years after it is launched and after having traveled circuitous routes for billions of miles. Contrast that with how well we can predict what it takes to turn a chimp into a human. That, my friends, is a true example of how well the theory of evolution has been tested. It hasn’t been tested at all. It’s nothing but WAGs and hand waving. Gravity, on the other hand, is indeed well tested. And that’s why you’ll never hear a physicist saying the theory of gravity is as well tested as the theory of evolution.

    :confused: Again with the nonsense declarations about what we know. Evolution is tested all the time, every new creature we discover, every new biological trait tests evolutionary theory.We actually have a load of great predictions and useful tools from evolutionary theory. We use evolution theory when examining how pests and diseases react to medicine and drugs, its why we have to make new drugs for things like MRSA, because they evolved to fight the old ones. Animal husbandry uses evolutionary theory to better bring in beneficial traits in a group of animals. A lot of what we use genetics for, mapping pathogens to determine useful vaccines and the like, are based on evolutionary theory. See here for some more.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    bluewolf wrote: »
    You are too smart, Aren't you, I pasted link in my post.
    bluewolf wrote: »
    If you really want to know more about it instead of spouting empty misinformed rhetoric, perhaps you will look at:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
    Thanks i will read it
    bluewolf wrote: »
    Finally, evolution does not mean atheism nor the reverse.
    Disproving evolution would not in any prove theism. So perhaps you would be better served finding a different line of attack?
    I am not proving or disapproving anything, Just proving you also believe in a theory which has no evidence i.e evolution. Isn't it ture. macro evolution (from one type of animal to another type) doesn't happen. there is no evidence for it. if evolution is right, there are 30,000 stars being born every second, yet we've never seen one born. etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    dead one wrote: »
    The only thing we really know is that a chimp is a chimp because its mother was a chimp.

    The egg will accept DNA coding from multiple sources. The egg contains DNA to produce something, what it produces comes from the male DNA.

    Back in prehistory the variety of possible outcomes was potentially endless. As sex took over as the transport protocols this narrowed down whereby today we have only a few species who can pass on genes via sex between themselves and cross-breeding is not as common.

    Yet the principal remains the same, the egg will produce whatever it's fertilised with, so in fact the chimp is a chimp because his father was a chimp.

    That said, human evolution is so far advanced that the human egg will no longer produce much beyond another human.

    As reference the Donkey, Mule, Horse, Shetland Pony, Zebra are all results of cross breeding with the female producing a predominant offspring in the image of its father.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    dead one wrote: »
    I trust you're aware that "uncommondescent" is run by a fundamentalist christian?
    dead one wrote: »
    if evolution is right, there are 30,000 stars being born every second, yet we've never seen one born. etc.
    Yay! JC said this in the BCP thread over the fence years ago, but I was never able to find it.

    Good to see christians and islamists doing the ecumenical thing!


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,776 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    dead one wrote: »
    You are too smart, Aren't you, I pasted link in my post.

    Thanks i will read it

    I am not proving or disapproving anything, Just proving you also believe in a theory which has no evidence i.e evolution. Isn't it ture. macro evolution (from one type of animal to another type) doesn't happen. there is no evidence for it.

    Your proof is nonsense. Macro evolution is the same as micro evolution, only the timescale is different (see this brilliant post from The Mad Hatter in a different thread, showing how ludicrous the notion that they are different is). Evolution is happening, every biological organism tests it (by existing, any biological organism tests its claim that every biological organism has a common ancestor).

    You betray your extreme ignorance in this by holding onto the idea that because we dont predict how to change a chimp into human, that it means we have no evidence for evolution. Firstly because you wouldn't say that the fact we dont know how to create a gravity machine for the purpose of building planets is proof that the theory of gravity has no evidence, and, much more fundamentally, evolution doesn't say that humans came from chimps.
    dead one wrote: »
    if evolution is right, there are 30,000 stars being born every second, yet we've never seen one born. etc.

    I dont get your point. There have been a great many things that occurred or existed that we didn't see until we saw them, that doesn't mean they didn't exist before we saw them. Bacteria didn't pop into existence the day the microscope was invented.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    dead one wrote: »
    I was just reading the genetic similarities and differences between man and chimp but how we don’t really know which differences are the important ones. In point of fact, we don’t really know if the DNA differences are even significant.

    You ask a question and then answer it incorrectly. Doesn't point to you really being all that interested in this subject to be honest.

    "We" know that humans and other apes share important similarities by studying the DNA and the phenotypes produces by the DNA.

    For example


    dead one wrote: »
    The only thing we really know is that a chimp is a chimp because its mother was a chimp. Beyond that, it’s nothing but guesswork.

    What are you defining as "beyond that"? A chimp is a chimp because it has chimp DNA. In the broadest sense you are right, because it has chimp DNA because its parents had chimp DNA. But the entire chimp DNA genome has been sequences (you can download it off the internet if you like). Any biologists can study any gene in the genome and study the phenotype connected with that gene or gene sequence.
    dead one wrote: »
    We know enough about gravity so that we routinely spend billions of dollars launching interplanetary unmanned exploratory spacecraft that, with exquisite precision predicted long before the craft is launched, it moves about the solar system, arriving at known points within meters and seconds years after it is launched and after having traveled circuitous routes for billions of miles. Contrast that with how well we can predict what it takes to turn a chimp into a human.

    Again, entire human genome has been sequenced, as has the entire chimp genome. We know as much about the process as we know about flinging spaceships into orbit. Which is why we routinely spend billions of dollars on medical research that relies on evolutionary theory for the research to work.

    If evolution was wrong this research wouldn't produce any results and would be a waste of money. Clearly since bio-research firms have been doing this research for over 30 years it isn't a waste of money.
    dead one wrote: »
    It hasn’t been tested at all.
    The hundreds of bio-research firms who spend billions of dollars a year using evolutionary theory may disagree.

    Can I ask do you work in biological research? I'm curious how you are in a position to say that all these scientists are wasting their time and their companies money, or how the results they have already produced are some sort of collective delusion?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    Because no one questions the theory of gravity.
    Although the point is not that evolution is as well tested as gravity, its that gravity is a theory. Do you accept that gravity is a theory?

    Yes off course. God is also a theory according to many people and also evolution is theory. You believe in evolution but not in God.
    :confused: Again with the nonsense declarations about what we know. Evolution is tested all the time, every new creature we discover, every new biological trait tests evolutionary theory.We actually have a load of great predictions and useful tools from evolutionary theory. We use evolution theory when examining how pests and diseases react to medicine and drugs, its why we have to make new drugs for things like MRSA, because they evolved to fight the old ones. Animal husbandry uses evolutionary theory to better bring in beneficial traits in a group of animals. A lot of what we use genetics for, mapping pathogens to determine useful vaccines and the like, are based on evolutionary theory. See here for some more.

    Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. That's why you are supporting it. But it is very fact that evolution is just theory which has no evidence. isn't it [SIZE=+1]Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion. I remember once u said about circular argument.[/SIZE]


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    dead one wrote: »
    if evolution is right, there are 30,000 stars being born every second, yet we've never seen one born. etc.

    I'm not quite sure if this is a metaphor or something (what does biological evolution have to do with the birth of stars?) but we saw a star being born last year

    http://www.phenomenica.com/2010/06/astronomers-witness-birth-of-star.html


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement