Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1 2 ... 339 340
342 343 ... 500 501
TOPIC CLOSED
Author Discussion

GilbertGrape

1,226 posts

74 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
TheEnd said:
carmonk said:
The chicken came before the chicken's egg but the egg came before the chicken.
How hard is it to understand that chickens aren't the sole manufacturers of eggs.

Ostriches for example.. famous eggs, bigger than a chicken.
Snails have eggs too.

If anyone can't figure out how stupid the question of "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" is, they deserve to be shot.
Then I guess the question could read, where did the very first manufacturers of eggs come from, if not from an egg?

TheEnd

14,070 posts

72 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
from things that were very much like eggs, but not quite.

For a more modern aspect, where did bulldogs comes from?

Digby

3,478 posts

130 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
TheHeretic said:
S13_Alan said:
I've found your perfect woman, because this is exactly how you come across - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo
Just check out that blank expression. Not a glimmer of intelligence behind those eyes. Wendy is a star. A stupid star, but a star nevertheless. The fact she is a spokesperson for anyone is a blight on mankind.
She reminded me of her..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

139 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
GilbertGrape said:
Then I guess the question could read, where did the very first manufacturers of eggs come from, if not from an egg?
probably the same way lizards have been observed moving from egg birth, to live births.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/10...

Evolution in action, observed.

The first eggs were probably the simple coming together of ovum and sperm outside the body. Look at any number of eggs that join in this way. Fish mainly do this. The female releases their ovum, and the bloke fishes release sperm into the water. They get together, and the growing, multiplying zygote in the blob is the egg. Those who had an advantage, (sticky exterior, harder exterior, heavier, and so on), could well gain an advantage over the others, and therefore have a bigger chance of survival, therefore a chance to reproduce, and continue those genes. As time goes on, you get different eggs, depending on the animal, and the environment. Harder shells were better for birthing on land. It gave protection from other predators, (although why a predator would struggle to get inside an egg, I don't know. You'd think his 3 spotted laser cannon would be sufficient), the weather, and they could be buried, etc. The eggs that were best at this sort of thing survived, those that weren't, didn't. That is how everything evolves, and eggs are no different.

mattmurdock

1,049 posts

117 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
TheEnd said:
from things that were very much like eggs, but not quite.

For a more modern aspect, where did bulldogs comes from?
Don't worry, Gilbert does a fantastic job of ignoring dogs or any other creature where you can observe changes during a human lifespan. Apparently that is not evolution in any way, God just created dogs with malleable bodies so we could reshape them later (just like Stretch Armstrong).
Advertisement

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

139 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
mattmurdock said:
TheEnd said:
from things that were very much like eggs, but not quite.

For a more modern aspect, where did bulldogs comes from?
Don't worry, Gilbert does a fantastic job of ignoring dogs or any other creature where you can observe changes during a human lifespan. Apparently that is not evolution in any way, God just created dogs with malleable bodies so we could reshape them later (just like Stretch Armstrong).
We crossed a bull, and a dog. Obviously. The mechanism for evolution is there. In a few short years we, as humans, can change dogs to all manner of shapes. This is exactly, GG, the mechanism used in natural selection. The only difference is that rather than humans deciding the characteristics, it is the environment the critter is in. This witless down the dogs to the aspects that are beneficial at that time, and so you get change.

TwigtheWonderkid

11,808 posts

34 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
GilbertGrape said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
GilbertGrape said:
I really don't know the answer to this
God did it. That seems to be your default answer for every other tricky question. hehe
Joking* aside.. my question was legitimate.


Your default answer will probably be along the lines of, timedidit, or, dumbluckdidit.
Actually, if you look on page 340, my post at 16:15, I give a scientific answer to all what came first/who was first questions.

bikemonster

1,188 posts

125 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
GilbertGrape said:
Your default answer will probably be along the lines of, timedidit, or, dumbluckdidit.
The thing is, Gilbert, we have a pretty good idea of how much time is available to be "used" in the explanation.

And we also know that the effects of dumb luck are cumulative, so that benefical characteristics, given time enough, give rise to non-obvious things such as working wings (which have evolved separately and independently with varying degrees of working-ness in insects, birds, mammals and fish) and eyes, which have appeared in several different designs in arthropods and vertebrates.

Incidentally, one of the weaknesses which Darwin was aware of when he was writing "On the Origin of Species" was that the Earth was not then thought to be old enough to allow sufficient time to do it. We now know that the Earth is indeed old enough.

And Darwin was no atheist, as I am sure you have heard before. Moreover, his work was to explain evolution. And, as I and others have mentioned before, the fact of evolution says exactly nothing about the existence of god. It does, however, have a great deal to say about the validity of Genesis as a factual record.

Now buck up Gilbert - you're making us antipodeans all look bad.

kingmoosa

365 posts

83 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
Gilbert's question(s) comprehensively answered in a few posts. Educational evolution in action.

Gratitude shortly forthcoming no doubt smile

bikemonster

1,188 posts

125 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
kingmoosa said:
Gilbert's question(s) comprehensively answered in a few posts. Educational evolution in action.

Gratitude shortly forthcoming no doubt smile
Pfffffft.

Now that really would be a revelation!

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

139 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
Thunderf00t on YouTube censorship, and Islamic reaction to criticism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1ho8tunttg

carmonk

7,910 posts

71 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
TheHeretic said:
Thunderf00t on YouTube censorship, and Islamic reaction to criticism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1ho8tunttg
Disgusting.

IainT

9,134 posts

122 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
That offends me, we should ban something.

ChrisGB

1,956 posts

87 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
fluffnik said:
ChrisGB said:
I would suggest the woman could have the kid and give it away if there are reasons to object to abortion but also reasons to want the woman not to have to face the consequences of the sex.
Us blokes can suggest all we want but I reckon we have, at most, a minority say; if a woman does not want to host an embryo it's her call.
We have the means, if we act responsibly, to ensure that the only consequences of sex are big grins, sparkling eyes and perhaps a little extra laundry.
Of course women bear the brunt but they are not acting alone. The men need to face the consequences too.
The what was it 42 million abortions in one year worldwide suggest a lot of irresponsibility then.

fluffnik said:
There is a distinct correlation between sexual repression and violence, I suspect that if we were all honest and open far more joy would be generated than religion has ever managed...
And yet in this violence free, full of sex world, there are 42 million abortions in one year, that is a lot of depriving of future life.
fluffnik said:
Wealth and limiting population go hand in hand.
Perhaps we can leave it at saying that the rich people in the west who are free to shag whenever they like and abort whenever they like shouldn't make any demands on population to poorer countries until those poorer countries have become rich too and free to have fewer kids if they then wish.

Those advocating population control or reduction should of course set the example.

Abortions in New York last year were 50% higher among immigrant groups than among whites, so it is already a form of population control on the poorest. This is not how the world should be.

R300will

3,716 posts

35 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
ChrisGB said:
fluffnik said:
Wealth and limiting population go hand in hand.
Perhaps we can leave it at saying that the rich people in the west who are free to shag whenever they like and abort whenever they like shouldn't make any demands on population to poorer countries until those poorer countries have become rich too and free to have fewer kids if they then wish.

Those advocating population control or reduction should of course set the example.

Abortions in New York last year were 50% higher among immigrant groups than among whites, so it is already a form of population control on the poorest. This is not how the world should be.
The reason the people in poorer countries have so many kids is because they will need at least one to survive and earn enough money to look after them if they make it to old age or get sick.

Edited by R300will on Sunday 26th February 19:10

ChrisGB

1,956 posts

87 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
gherkins said:
ChrisGB said:
I'm not completely stupid, and I have trouble putting into words what I believe. Faith in no way makes things easier to me. It is true, therefore I try to work it out. I believe, therefore I try to understand.
...
My own answer, already inadequate it seems, is that the universe raises a question about itself that it is beyond the scope of physical investigation to grapple with. This question points to a transcendent creator who has revealed the meaning of our life in Jesus. It is tentative, it is a work in progress, but it tells me there is more to life and cheerfulness than the scientific method.
I apologise if my answer implied you were stupid; obviously you are not given the well-written replies and I wouldn't bother replying to you otherwise. Indeed, this is the problem for most atheists - to try to understand how someone can believe when it is so illogical for us. It does make us come across as arrogant and intellectually "superior".
I agree there is more to life than science, but I would point out that so many things that were once marvelous and mystical have been explained by science. I cannot see the need to have the remaining answers explained by a mystical being. If you were to say you had seen a ghost, I would point out that the brain constantly fills in the gaps in our vision and that we are hardwired by evolution to recognise human faces. Thus, I would need further evidence to believe you. For me, the meaning of life is biological necessity - the prologation of the species. This doesn't mean that I cannot see the beauty and wonder of the world; the simplicity and elegance of DNA replication, for example, is amazing, but also it is beautiful that we can explain it and how it came about.
I think you are still imagining the god you don't believe in as a god of the gaps.
The god I believe in is the reason there is anything at all rather than nothing, and the guide to a good life.
There isn't anything illogical about belief, it is just a different order from the scientific method.
It is illogical to me to say, as a materialist must, that because the scientific method cannot verify it, therefore it doesn't exist. This really doesn't follow.

(And not to quibble, but there is no scientist who can explain how dna came about - I am not saying God did it (he is not god of gaps, he is god of everything, not a competing cause among causes, a whole other category), but I am saying that people who say, as we've been discussing on here, that because life exists here, it is probable elsewhere, are also being illogical. Their thinking involves a fallacy, because they are assuming what they need to show - that life is indeed probable, rather than incredibly unlikely.
Bad thinking in the name of science stems from this.)

ChrisGB

1,956 posts

87 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
gherkins said:
ChrisGB said:
We know that God is, we do not know what he is. This is negative theology, at the heart of the catholic faith. God is mystery, beyond our grasp. What we can reason ourselves to and what we accept in revelation constitute a metaphorical knowledge of God. God is love, but not like any human love we can imagine, God is all-powerful, but that does not mean we are not free, even to the point of rejecting god. etc. etc.

I have no image of God when I pray to God, what could I possibly imagine that would be accurate. To this extent I do not know God, but I accept that I can metaphorically know that he is love, etc.

If you want a neatly packaged god who is just like a big nice bloke, you have the god of three and four year olds that an adult will rightly reject. Sorry that god doesn't conform to your straw man / infantile wish.
Ah - he's mysterious and we can't question him. We have to close our minds and praise him, because he is love. I'm sorry, but this is what sounds infantile.
There's plenty of questioning God in the Bible- read Job or some of the Psalms - 22/3 for example.

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

139 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
ChrisGB said:
There's plenty of questioning God in the Bible- read Job or some of the Psalms - 22/3 for example.
I question him all the time, so much so I think he is entirely made up. Apparently that means I'm going to hell.

ChrisGB

1,956 posts

87 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
CommanderJameson said:
ChrisGB said:
We know that God is, we do not know what he is. This is negative theology, at the heart of the catholic faith. God is mystery, beyond our grasp. What we can reason ourselves to and what we accept in revelation constitute a metaphorical knowledge of God. God is love, but not like any human love we can imagine, God is all-powerful, but that does not mean we are not free, even to the point of rejecting god. etc. etc.
This is a fancy way of saying "we invent god, to be whatever we want it to be".

With a generous dash of "never mind that man behind the curtain".

If god is beyond your grasp, then I can safely discard your bold assertions like "god is love", right? What if god is actually hate?
Just run with that idea then. How do you account for the warmth of the sun on your face? Goodness is a lack of evil? I need a consistent philosophy here, I hope you can help. For goodness to thrive, it is enough for bad people to do nothing, is that how the world works?

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

139 months

[news] 
Sunday 26th February 2012 quote quote all
ChrisGB said:
Just run with that idea then. How do you account for the warmth of the sun on your face? Goodness is a lack of evil? I need a consistent philosophy here, I hope you can help. For goodness to thrive, it is enough for bad people to do nothing, is that how the world works?
Warmth on our face is radiation from that big reaction up in the sky.
The rest is just wishy washy nonsense.
1 2 ... 339 340
342 343 ... 500 501
TOPIC CLOSED