This is a fresh new "Questions for Atheists" thread. Some are old, some are new, some are borrowed, some are blue (?).

Yeah... whatever... anyway...

Here are some probing questions. By the way, I am not pretending to post these as the final blow to atheism. I am not posting "trick questions". I am simply interested in your "take" (opinion) on these diverse subject matter.

One little teentsy tiny request? Please thoughtfully reply to each one (even if you've done it before elsewhere. Hey! today is a new day!). Some of them require *deep thought* (You know you love it) so please watch the knee-jerk answers.

So, put on your thinking caps, cuz here they are...

#1. Has the universe always existed? If yes... explain how you can KNOW this. If no... explain how it began.

#2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).

#3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.

#4. Given the interdependency of the organs of the human body, can you explain which organ evolved first?

#5. Keeping in mind the concept of entropy, how did any minute form of matter exit the "water" and remain exposed long enough to begin the process of macro-evolving over "billions" of years?

#6. If you answered #5, please prove your theory using empirical evidence only.

#7. Did insects evolve? Explain...

#8. How did sexual reproduction evolve?

#9. Which part of the human eye evolved first (pupil, iris, lens, cornea, retina, optic nerve, etc.)?

#10. Explain: If you were God... I know some of you think you already are... ;) ... but seriously, if you were God, what moral laws would you implement to make a society orderly and civil.

Hope this is food for thought for you. I look forward to your responses. Enjoy!!!

-Mike

Right (cracks knuckles), here we go

1 - No, Big bang
2 - It was stored in a compressed form until it became unstable thus causing the big bang
3 - Prove I exsist
4 - None, they evolved in early forms of man
5 - I haven't got a feckin clue about what you said
6 - Read 5
7 - They did evolve. They evolve alot alot slower now as they are well adapted to the environment. Look at the colour changing moths in an earlier thread
8 - X and Y cells need ways to make new cells, as does man and woman
9 - None, evolved in earlier life forms including early man
10 - I'd abolish religion. Its the downfall of society as we know it.

Anymore

Thank you for that, Ekimklaw. :D

You may not understand exactly how effective you've proven to be. I would say, though, that you're focusing just a hair too narrowly to achieve the result that it seems you're shooting after.

But it would seem that such a difficulty is hardly the most important difficulty here.

Seriously, man ... just laugh. It seems everybody's got religion, eh?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

1) I don't know for sure but I believe the leading theory is the big bang.
2) What thor said.
3) He taught many other Greeks at the time who recorded their lessons from him. Plato, most notably. Also, he is mentioned in ancient Greek government books and his death record, I believe, was recorded.
4) No I cannot. I don't know enough about evolution to be sure, but I'm about 99% sure that they sure as hell didn't evolve in humans first.
5) Don't know
6) above.
7) What's to explain?
8) How? As in how does evolution work? Sorry bud, I'm not going into all that. If you want to know why - I'm guessing it's because larger species such as those that evolved were not capable of a-sexual reproduction. Anything multi-cellular like htat needed another way to reproduce.
9) No clue.
10) Hmmmmmm
- No murder despite what any of you believe
- No stealing
- No rape
- No kidnapping (which kinda falls under stealing I suppose)
- No bad art


Ekim you seem to have reached an interesting conclusion (or decision, I don't know which). You seem to think that mearly because atheists can't answer every question - God did it. It's an opinion that has been around about as long as human language has been. Fucking hell, what's that? It's the sun bob. Well how does it work? I dunno, god does it.

Because we don't know every answer only means one thing - we're human and we don't know every answer. Most atheists are fine with that idea. Every now and then you find a theist who says 'well, science can't answer everything yet - therefore there's a god.' Kind of disturbing.

Come now. Check your paranoia ;)

I told you these are NOT trick questions. Some of you are reading between the lines and such. I just want to read atheist's opinions on these topics. That's all.

Don't be so defensive. Just do your best to answer the questions convincingly. Who knows... someone may read your post... lay down his or her scriptures forever, and embrace atheism.

-Mike

Originally posted by tiassa
Thank you for that, Ekimklaw. :D

You may not understand exactly how effective you've proven to be. I would say, though, that you're focusing just a hair too narrowly to achieve the result that it seems you're shooting after.

But it would seem that such a difficulty is hardly the most important difficulty here.

Seriously, man ... just laugh. It seems everybody's got religion, eh?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:


Hmm... Tiassa...

Exactly what is "the result I'm shooting for"?


-Mike

==============================================
Thor wrote:
3 - Prove I exsist
==============================================


I can't. I have faith that you do though.



==============================================
Thor wrote:
5 - I haven't got a feckin clue about what you said
6 - Read 5
==============================================



Well, I've always heard that in the beginning there was a pool of some stuff called "primordial soup" or something. Anyway, at some point (since we are land dwellers) "it" went ashore. In other words "it" exited the water.

It follows that this was one of the "great leaps" of evolution we hear so much about. Now I'm guessing the "thing" (ooze, I've heard it called) must have gone ashore then went back into the water when it got too dry, then gone ashore, etc. back and forth until it preferred dry land. No word yet if it had eyeballs, or lips, or a sense of humor.

But there is something called "entropy". (I'm sure you know what that is). What it basically says is that something like this "spoodge" that came out of the water would tend to "break down" when exposed to an environment it wasn't used to. But evolutionists claim this "gunk" not only didn't "break down", but evolved upwards into a more complex lifeform. Of course we're told that it happened over "billions of years".

This theory is usually glossed over with a lot of fluff about time, and mutations. But I always wondered about entropy as it relates to this helpless little lifeform who started his evolutionary journey turning from a prehistoric wad of sludge into a creature able to write the works of Shakespeare, or orbit the moon.

Then there's the whole question of how the heck scientists know any of this happened to begin with. Maybe in addition to time, the evolutionist needs a heaping helping of faith too.

That's it. Feel free to expound, flame, and trash.

-Mike

Are you saying that if we do not know the answers,we should all believe in BIG BROTHER!

:rolleyes:

==============================================
Tyler wrote:
Ekim you seem to have reached an interesting conclusion (or decision, I don't know which). You seem to think that mearly because atheists can't answer every question - God did it. It's an opinion that has been around about as long as human language has been. Fucking hell, what's that? It's the sun bob. Well how does it work? I dunno, god does it.
==============================================




I just wanted your opinions/views. No biggie.




==============================================
Tyler wrote:
Because we don't know every answer only means one thing - we're human and we don't know every answer. Most atheists are fine with that idea.
==============================================




I'm fine with that too. A simple "I don't know" works well. ;)




==============================================
Tyler wrote:
Every now and then you find a theist who says 'well, science can't answer everything yet - therefore there's a god.' Kind of disturbing.
==============================================




What is more important... *why* a theist believes, or *what* he believes? I simply think science is bad at explaining "origins". Does pretty great with most other stuff. IMO.

-Mike

Originally posted by Ekimklaw
So, put on your thinking caps, cuz here they are...

#1. Has the universe always existed? If yes... explain how you can KNOW this. If no... explain how it began.

Explain how you know it didn't. (The bible is not a credible reference.)

#2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).

It's just always been here and if not who cares it's here now.

#3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.

Were you on crack when you thought this one up?

#4. Given the interdependency of the organs of the human body, can you explain which organ evolved first?

Why do you care which one evolved first? They all work now, don't they? Does it really matter?

#5. Keeping in mind the concept of entropy, how did any minute form of matter exit the "water" and remain exposed long enough to begin the process of macro-evolving over "billions" of years?

No minute form of matter exited the water, they formed into amphibian like creatures and were able to slowly get used to air. Remember a billion years is a long time.

#6. If you answered #5, please prove your theory using empirical evidence only.

I don't feel like going and looking up this shit. Prove Adam & Eve using empirical evidence only.

#7. Did insects evolve? Explain...

Probably, go ask someone who studies insects.

#8. How did sexual reproduction evolve?

Life needs someway to keep going on, these things happen.

#9. Which part of the human eye evolved first (pupil, iris, lens, cornea, retina, optic nerve, etc.)?

Why do you expect athiests to know all about evolution of a specific part of the human body. It all evolved together.

#10. Explain: If you were God... I know some of you think you already are... ;) ... but seriously, if you were God, what moral laws would you implement to make a society orderly and civil.

Hmm...... If I was a God I would let people decide what they want to do for themselves, since I didn't make any of them and have no say in what they do. I'm just a person with an odd name that crazy and stupid people decided to worship.

I hope that clears somethings up for you.:D

"What is more important... *why* a theist believes, or *what* he believes? I simply think science is bad at explaining "origins". Does pretty great with most other stuff. IMO."

Science is doing pretty decent at explaining origins in that it's now offering up logical and provable theories. Think of science 500 years ago. Think of a time when theories were, at best, shaky on how the solar system functioned. Now consider that maybe we're just in that stage (or just past it) for origins.

Mike:
Some of them require *deep thought*

With Jack Handy? :p

#1. Has the universe always existed? If yes... explain how you can KNOW this. If no... explain how it began.

Good question. It all depends on the value of lambda. (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980302.html).

It seems that our universe has not "always" existed. A multiverse or cosmos is another matter entirely.

#2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).

Matter was created in the first few minutes of the big bang, as far as present cosmology knows.

#3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.

Plato's description of his trial, which matches the description another Greek, Xenophon gave of the same trial. Socrates is also mentioned (slightingly) in the comedies of Aristophanes.

There is no "prove" of the existance of another human - yet.

#4. Given the interdependency of the organs of the human body, can you explain which organ evolved first?

Evidence suggests that they evolved as a whole.

#5. Keeping in mind the concept of entropy, how did any minute form of matter exit the "water" and remain exposed long enough to begin the process of macro-evolving over "billions" of years?

It is thought that plants colonized the land first....I'm not sure of the question though.

#6. If you answered #5, please prove your theory using empirical evidence only.

Sure. Fossilized plants occur on strata that seems to be land before any other organisms do.

#7. Did insects evolve? Explain...

I do not know, I'm not a biologist, just an enthusiast. :)

This site answers the question:
http://www.biology-online.org/9/3b_insecta.htm

#8. How did sexual reproduction evolve?

Again, not a biologist, just an enthusiast:
http://dorakmt.tripod.com/evolution/sreprod.html
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/19.Evol.of.Sex.HTML

#9. Which part of the human eye evolved first (pupil, iris, lens, cornea, retina, optic nerve, etc.)?

It is doubtful that any part evolved first. As I recall my reading of Dawkins, the eye likely evolved from a light-sensitive spot.

Organisms are not like clocks. You don't have to have each part evolving seperatly and then being put together - rather, species evolve as a whole.

#10. Explain: If you were God... I know some of you think you already are... ... but seriously, if you were God, what moral laws would you implement to make a society orderly and civil.

I'm an antichrist, does that help?

"Do nothing that will harm another human in a real* way without their consent.

I'd probably throw some "be nice to non-human animals and don't hurt the little critters unless necessary" stuff in there too. :)

That's all the moral law I'd institute. People would make their own way, hindered only in that they couldn't harm other people without the other person's consent.

*I.E no "hurt feelings" - physical and financial harm only.

Ekim,

But Ekim these are all trick questions and I am sure you know that, despite your assertions to the contrary. I think you just like watching people jump through hoops.

#1. Has the universe always existed? If yes... explain how you can KNOW this. If no... explain how it began.

Your question is very vague. Define universe?

Taking the first definition in Webster we have: 1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated.

In which case the universe must have always existed. Something infinite must exist otherwise nothing could have begun. This must be true since if there was a point when nothing existed then the universe could not have begun.

#2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).

Why assume it did not exist at some point in time? There is no evidence to support that assumption. Otherwise see the answer to (1).

#3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.

Why?

#4. Given the interdependency of the organs of the human body, can you explain which organ evolved first?

The question is a non sequitur for the stated condition. Why assume that organs evolved in a sequence rather than at the same time? If they are interdependent then that implies the opposite of the trick question.

#5. Keeping in mind the concept of entropy, how did any minute form of matter exit the "water" and remain exposed long enough to begin the process of macro-evolving over "billions" of years?

Again the question is a non sequitur for the condition. The question seems to be ignorant of some basic science principles. This link should help explain why the question makes no sense.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html

#6. If you answered #5, please prove your theory using empirical evidence only.

Follow the above link.

#7. Did insects evolve? Explain...

Why ask? Why wouldn’t they?

#8. How did sexual reproduction evolve?

That is currently being researched.

#9. Which part of the human eye evolved first (pupil, iris, lens, cornea, retina, optic nerve, etc.)?

This is the same trick question as #4.

#10. Explain: If you were God... I know some of you think you already are... ... but seriously, if you were God, what moral laws would you implement to make a society orderly and civil.

Define what you mean by “God”. The question makes no sense otherwise. Current society is already overwhelmingly ordered and civil with a few exceptions. There appears no need of gods.

Cris

Originally posted by Ekimklaw

1. If by Universe you mean the space-time continuum in which we exist. No. The variants of the "Big-Bang" theory are the best explanations we have so far as to how it began. Personally, I enjoy Hawking: http://www.dcd.net/NBP/hawking_origins.html You'll probably enjoy it as well, he discusses God in the last paragraph. Also, here is some information specifically regarding the "Big-Bang" theory. http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/paper_to_html/universe.html

2. There is no such thing as "matter" as most people understand it. The Universe is not atomic; what we observe as matter is actually the intersection and interaction of various forces. See: http://www.friesian.com/particle.htm in particular the paragraph regarding wave/particle duality. And a more basic reference here: http://www.herts.ac.uk/astro_ub/a08_ub.html

3. I cannot.

4. No organ developed "first". Organs developed in conjunction with each other from tissues, which developed from specialized cells. Here's an article about the development of the eye: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html

5. Entropy only applies to a closed system; the Earth is not a closed system. See http://electron4.phys.utk.edu/141/nov19/November%2019.html But this is irrelevant to your question, which is unclear. It sounds as if you are questioning the transition of life from sea to land but life was well developed before this transition occurred. Please clarify your question.

6. No scientific theory is ever absolute. I'll also need a clarification of 5 before I can provide more detail.

(7,8,9 Commentary) I must say that these questions seem to arise from sheer lassitude. The answers to these questions can easily be found online. You might wish to take a look at this site, which answers many of the questions you seem to be getting at: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

7. Explain what? The evolution of insects is a rather large field. Which insect in particular are you interested in? Try looking here: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/evolution%20segues/insect_evolution.htm

8. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/advantage/ and
http://www.utm.edu/~rirwin/391SexEvol.htm

9. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

10. I'll take some time and think about this one further but first off I will state that any moral absolute, particularly one founded in authority rather than reason, is doomed to failure. I would, rather, suggest a relative system based upon logically reasoned ethical principles.


Now that I've gathered your sources for you perhaps you should spend some time reading.

~Raithere

Hey it's my turn now. I will give it a go :D

Originally posted by Ekimklaw
#1. Has the universe always existed? If yes... explain how you can KNOW this. If no... explain how it began.

It began with "bang!!!!" I know this because it is in the back of the book. :D


#2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).

it comes from the first big bang I suppose


#3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.

Some books say he exists so he must exist.


#4. Given the interdependency of the organs of the human body, can you explain which organ evolved first?

Probably skin.


#5. Keeping in mind the concept of entropy, how did any minute form of matter exit the "water" and remain exposed long enough to begin the process of macro-evolving over "billions" of years?

Hmmm.....I am gonna give a rough estimate....I would say 150,000 years give or take a billion years.


#6. If you answered #5, please prove your theory using empirical evidence only.

There are fossils I suppose.


#7. Did insects evolve? Explain...

Yeah, they develop tolerance for insecticide.


#8. How did sexual reproduction evolve?

hmmm.....no idea.


#9. Which part of the human eye evolved first (pupil, iris, lens, cornea, retina, optic nerve, etc.)?

The eye lashes probably


#10. Explain: If you were God... I know some of you think you already are... ;) ... but seriously, if you were God, what moral laws world you implement to make a society orderly and civil.


Well, when I zone residential, industrial, and commerial areas with road adjacent to them, they must move in. They have to use the roads. If there is too much crime I build police stations. I eventually build schools, stadiums, super highways. I always have to remember to build "connections" between neighboring universes. I always have to remember to save games regularly in case the aliens attack or nuclear melt down :D. hahahahahahahah. too much sim city. This is why god doesn't exist. :D


Hope this is food for thought for you. I look forward to your responses. Enjoy!!!

How many points do I get? Did I win?

hmmm.....no idea.

Let me show you?

Originally posted by Xev

Let me show you?

Sure. A practical demostration would be helpful. :D

Actually I just wasn't clever enough to think of anything stupid to say. :rolleyes: :D

Speaking of this:
Re: Mike ... Mike ... Mike .... Oh, Mike ....

Tiassa, Elkimlaw, CUT THAT OUT! The neighbors are complaining. :p

*Hits ceiling with broom*

Joeman:

Sure. A practical demostration would be helpful.

Pay close attention and I'll give you high grades on your orals.

Originally posted by Joeman
Actually I just wasn't clever enough to think of anything stupid to say. :rolleyes: :D

Yeah, isn't that strange when you are to intelligent to think of stupid things?

I'm not claiming to be an atheist, but I'll have a crack at this before I read the other responses.

<i>#1. Has the universe always existed? If yes... explain how you can KNOW this. If no... explain how it began.</i>

I don't know whether the universe has always existed or not. Nor does anybody else. It seems, however, that our observable universe began with a big bang. Whether that was a once-off occurence or part of a series is debatable.

How can we know about the big bang? Through astronomical observations.

<i>#2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).</i>

Probably from a quantum vacuum fluctuation, but that's not a settled question scientifically. Maybe God made it. :)

<i>#3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.</i>

It can't be proved, but the evidence is in favour of it. For example, reliable sources including Plato attest to Socrates' existence.

<i>#4. Given the interdependency of the organs of the human body, can you explain which organ evolved first?</i>

They evolved together.

<i>#5. Keeping in mind the concept of entropy, how did any minute form of matter exit the "water" and remain exposed long enough to begin the process of macro-evolving over "billions" of years?</i>

Life began evolving long before it left the water. The term "macro-evolution" is a Creationist term which is essentially meaningless. It is best to avoid it.

<i>#6. If you answered #5, please prove your theory using empirical evidence only.</i>

Empircal evidence: Life today exists both in the land and in the water. Cells are observed to require a liquid environment. It is fair to infer that the first cells did evolved in water. At some point they must have migrated to land, or else we wouldn't be here.

<i>#7. Did insects evolve? Explain...</i>

Yes. The explanation would be long. Where do you want me to start? How much do you know about evolution?

<i>#8. How did sexual reproduction evolve?</i>

I don't have the required expertise to answer this.

<i>#9. Which part of the human eye evolved first (pupil, iris, lens, cornea, retina, optic nerve, etc.)?</i>

Most probably the optic nerve. Of course, the different parts of the eye evolved together to a large extent. A lens isn't much use if you don't have a retina.

<i>#10. Explain: If you were God... I know some of you think you already are... ... but seriously, if you were God, what moral laws would you implement to make a society orderly and civil.</i>

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is probably not a bad start.

Mike,

In repsonse to your earlier comments:

<i>Now I'm guessing the "thing" (ooze, I've heard it called) must have gone ashore then went back into the water when it got too dry, then gone ashore, etc. back and forth until it preferred dry land.</i>

An alternative is that it sat still in a tidal zone and the tide went in and out over it. It's a bit of a simpler explanation, isn't it?

<i>But there is something called "entropy". (I'm sure you know what that is). What it basically says is that something like this "spoodge" that came out of the water would tend to "break down" when exposed to an environment it wasn't used to.</i>

No, that's not right. I suggest you read up on entropy.

<i>Then there's the whole question of how the heck scientists know any of this happened to begin with. Maybe in addition to time, the evolutionist needs a heaping helping of faith too.</i>

There's this thing called the scientific method, Mike. You might want to research that too.

Ekimklaw: The trick question in this is that you invite a scientific discussion asking people to prove things some of which cannot be proved, after which, even if you refrain from commenting, you expect some to think: "Well those atheists sure dont know what they are talking about"

Allow me to point out two things:

1) The term atheist is insulting to a great part of your audience; what you are talking about is Creationism, but there are millions of God-fearing christians who accept both Big Bang and evolution. After all, God does not become smaller by our realizing that He created a whole universe.

2) It is not possible to discuss religion scientifically. Science is about observations and conclusions. Science has come up with some very good answers to all your questions, but of course few average persons will be able to come up with short explanations.

Religion, on the other hand, is about what you believe. It is entirely thinkable for an almighty god to create the universe in six days with all the species, fossils, stratified rocks, isotopes at various levels of decay, etc. etc. Actually, He could have created it yesterday, if He would, thats what omnipotence is about. If you chose to believe, thats it.

We can, however, discuss religion ethically: If God created the world in six days 6000 years ago, he sure built in a lot of red herrings for the scientits to pursue. Why would he do that? To test our faith??

Why has God given us the ability to observe and learn if we are not supposed to do it? -- Please explain empirically.

Hans

Ekim,

I won't repeat what's already been posted many times over in this thread, so I'll just refer, where applicable, to other people's posts who most closely express my opinion on the points. However, a couple of specific issues I can give some extra plausible speculation on (note: it's merely my own thoughts in addition that what is known, where applicable; I am not a specialist and I don't have much data to back them up.)


#1. Has the universe always existed? If yes... explain how you can KNOW this. If no... explain how it began.


See Cris' and Raithere's posts.


#2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).


Xev and Raithere.


#3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.


Xev, James R


#4. Given the interdependency of the organs of the human body, can you explain which organ evolved first?


Xev, et al.

Though I must mention that not all organs appeared for the first time, at the same time. For example, sweat glands evolved long after most of the other things (they're unique to humans.) But once "sprouted" into existence, organs do continue to evolve together.


#5. Keeping in mind the concept of entropy, how did any minute form of matter exit the "water" and remain exposed long enough to begin the process of macro-evolving over "billions" of years?


Xev, Cris, Raithere, James R.


#6. If you answered #5, please prove your theory using empirical evidence only.


James R.

Plus, it goes way beyond cells needing an aqueous environment. Fluids like endoplasm and blood have a chemistry almost identical to that of seawater.

Also, what Xev said.

Algae and lichens were the first to colonize land. Then came something like liverworts (based on known fossils and genetic geneology of plants.) The first animals on land were probably mollusks (worms) feeding on the first land-borne plantlife. Eventually, descendents of crill turned into crabs which begat spiders. A similar origin is postulated for insects (i.e. krill-like ancestors beginning to make excursions onto land, reducing the number of legs to 6, etc.) First chordates on land must have been fish. Even today we have many species of fish capable of surviving and locomoting on land in dry air for days at a stretch. Some of these eventually transform fins into appendages, gills into lungs and give rise to reptilians. Probably feed mostly on those land-based worms as well as insects (well... and on each other, potentially.)


#7. Did insects evolve? Explain...


Yes. See above.


#8. How did sexual reproduction evolve?


People posted a lot of links with a lot of good info. However, most of those links examine the impacts and patterns of sexual reproduction. I believe you want to know how it emerged for the very first time.

Here I have a plausible theory. But first some background. Sexual reproduction doesn't occur in any single-celled organisms known today so it stands to reason that it evolved in multi-celled organisms. Simple asexual multi-celled organisms typically reproduce by budding, which makes sense as it is the simplest method imaginable. My hypothesis goes like this:

On one particular occasion the "bud" gets a peculiar mutation in it. It develops into a healthy organism but when its turn comes to reproduce, its own "bud" misfires. The chemical changes leading up to budding cause the bud cell's membrane to combine with that of a neighboring cell within that same organism. This new chimer with double the genetic material of its parent is still viable, but gene regulatory mechanisms suppress most of its duplicated genome when it comes time for it to divide and grow into a mature adult. The new adult gives rise to its own children with double its genome, perhaps not all of them viable, and this trend continued for some time. Eventually through selection the process becomes more and more effective, enabling almost all such offspring to survive. The recombination of the parent's genome from two cells into one during reproduction gives this line of organisms slight advantages in terms of greater variability and faster adaptation, as well as facilitating elimination of harmful mutations.

Now, another mutation occurs that causes some of the budding cells to sometimes detach from the parent before recombining with a neighboring cell. This disadvantages the mutant, but perhaps even non-recombined offspring is still capable of giving rise to an adult organism. Regardless, it enables these new offspring to be carried by currents like pollen on wind and sometimes to meet up with other adults. Still retaining their budding-related chemical properties at that early stage, these zygotes combine with a cell of the other adult, sort of parasitically feeding off of it. This results in a sporadic (and for the 'traveling' offspring, parasitic and thus beneficial) recombination of genetic material between adults.

This strengthens the advantages of recombination, allowing this new strain to flourish and multiply, and to evolve much faster. Eventually, as the organisms become more behaviorally complex, they develop more efficient ways of mating that guarantee a greater chance of recombination. The mating becomes so efficient that through another mutation the capacity of non-recombined offspring to mature is eliminated. Now the organisms have to mate in order to reproduce, and you've got what is in essense sexual reproduction.

Further evolution leads to additional efficiencies, specializing the reproductive cells into male and female. But the organisms themselves are still hermaphrodites. Then further evolution gives rise to specialized male/female sexes.


#9. Which part of the human eye evolved first (pupil, iris, lens, cornea, retina, optic nerve, etc.)?


See Raithere's link.


#10. Explain: If you were God... I know some of you think you already are... ;) ... but seriously, if you were God, what moral laws would you implement to make a society orderly and civil.


I would design some real laws. In the sense that they would be absolutely imperative and impossible to breach. With my design, the society will be like an ant colony. There would be a biochemical switch that turns off aggression while switching on empathy and altruism at sight/smell/sound/touch of your own species. The effect would be persistent, escalating and eventually overpowering, similar to the way we can't resist sleep for very long. Compliance with it would also be rewarding (stimulating pleasure centers), hence doubly discouraging any resolve to fight it.

Originally posted by Ekimklaw
Here are some probing questions. By the way, I am not pretending to post these as the final blow to atheism. I am not posting "trick questions". I am simply interested in your "take" (opinion) on these diverse subject matter.

I am taking you seriously, unlike others :)

My answers will be a different perspective.

#1. Has the universe always existed? If yes... explain how you can KNOW this. If no... explain how it began.

Currently, no one can know anything about the origins of the universe, and my theory is that humans will never reach such knowledge.

If the atheists here are scientific, most would be like James R and embrace the Big Bang Theory, since it does have the most supporting evidence from astronomical observations and the purely deductive reasoning/thought approach.

Cris, your hypothesis that you embraced has a extremely miniscule amount of evidence to support that. So why do you choose it? Just because it can conveniently and unhesitatingly eliminate any sure need for a God?

Increan, he asked the question, all you need to do is answer. :)

My take: Atheists have no absolute conclusions for the true origins, so they have a lack of an absolute conclusion.

Theists have a conclusion, but the validity and logic of it is in deep questioning, but the point is, they have a conclusion.

#2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).

We will never know, only hypothesize and believe.

#3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.

I think, Ekimklaw, that you are trying to divulge that people put a double/triple/quadruple standard on Jesus' existence. And yes, they do, negativity.

Originally posted by Ekimklaw
Well, I've always heard that in the beginning there was a pool of some stuff called "primordial soup" or something. Anyway, at some point (since we are land dwellers) "it" went ashore. In other words "it" exited the water.

It follows that this was one of the "great leaps" of evolution we hear so much about. Now I'm guessing the "thing" (ooze, I've heard it called) must have gone ashore then went back into the water when it got too dry, then gone ashore, etc. back and forth until it preferred dry land. No word yet if it had eyeballs, or lips, or a sense of humor.

The life forms that went ashore were rather well developed already. First plant life began the journey. Long after plant life was well established on land animal forms began the process. For examples of plants that are semi-adapted to life on land just visit any beach, you'll notice reeds and various other plants that are able to continue living when the tide leaves them stranded for periods out of water. For animal forms I suggest you look at amphibians and such creatures as the lungfish that fit your scenario.

Is it really such a stretch for you to imagine how these forms, which are only partially adapted to life out of water might gradually develop characteristics that would allow them to exist out of water for longer and longer periods of time? A species of amphibian, for example, that through the generations develops skin that looses moisture less quickly thus allowing it to forage a little further onto land in search of food for which there is no competition.

But there is something called "entropy". (I'm sure you know what that is). What it basically says is that something like this "spoodge" that came out of the water would tend to "break down" when exposed to an environment it wasn't used to.

No. The second law of thermodynamics states nothing of the kind. I suggest you check the site I provided earlier.

This theory is usually glossed over with a lot of fluff about time, and mutations.

Hardly. The only glossing over that is occurring here is in regards to your education.



Stop wondering. Entropy does not apply to this situation.

[I]Then there's the whole question of how the heck scientists know any of this happened to begin with. Maybe in addition to time, the evolutionist needs a heaping helping of faith too.

An idea is hypothesized. The idea is then measured against empirical evidence and experimentation. In particular, the predictive accuracy of an idea is important. At any time any single piece of evidence that contradicts the theory negates the validity of that theory. It must then either be eliminated or modified (yes, theories evolve too). No scientific theory is ever beyond refutation, however, the refutation must be valid. In the case of evolution there is a plethora of empirical evidence and it has also had tremendous predictive accuracy.

In contrast the Creation hypothesis has no empirical support and no predictive value. There is no evidence whatsoever of creatures being created all at once.

~Raithere

Sorry if I repeat, I do not have time right now to read through all the replies...

#1. Has the universe always existed? If yes... explain how you can KNOW this. If no... explain how it began.
Of course, none of us can KNOW but we can believe. I believe that the universe has always existed. To believe otherwise is to believe that
a) something other than the universe exists which caused its existance or
b) the universe spontaneously came into existance withot reason.
I apply Occam's razor and believe it has always existed. Note that I still do believe in big bang theory...the state of the universe before the big bang is still a mystery...

#2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).
Matter came from the big bang. Note that I do not believe that matter = universe.

#3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.
I could cite many independent literatures that reference Spcrates existance. If this does not meet your criteria for 'proof'...then I cannot not prove it to you.

#4. Given the interdependency of the organs of the human body, can you explain which organ evolved first?
They did not evolve sequencially. Organs that performed many functions evolved into multiple specialized organs.

#5. Keeping in mind the concept of entropy, how did any minute form of matter exit the "water" and remain exposed long enough to begin the process of macro-evolving over "billions" of years?
First, it did not exit the water! I think you are skipping a couple billion ears. Second, the 2nd law of themodynamics only applies to closed systems (the universe). The earth is an open system and the energy provided by the sun can reverse entropy.

#6. If you answered #5, please prove your theory using empirical evidence only.
Flowers bloom.

#7. Did insects evolve? Explain...
Yes they did. How should I explain?

8. How did sexual reproduction evolve?
I am stumped by this one. Must have something to do with DNA and X-Y chromosomes. It probably can be answered at talkorigins.com. I will research....

#9. Which part of the human eye evolved first (pupil, iris, lens, cornea, retina, optic nerve, etc.)?
It did not evolve sequencially. It evolved by gaining in complexity.

#10. Explain: If you were God... I know some of you think you already are... ... but seriously, if you were God, what moral laws would you implement to make a society orderly and civil.
Moral laws must be agreed upon by those who are to abide by them. Forcing moral laws on a society would not work. Therefore, I would let them decide their own moral code.

Important Issues Concerning “Big Bangs”.

A Big Bang DOES NOT offer an explanation for the origin of the universe. The current big bang theory describes an event or more precisely a process. As such this event or process is part of the universe since it is a ‘thing’.

To define an origin of the universe one must first at least explain the cause of the big bang. And no one can do that yet.

Cris

. How did sexual reproduction evolve?
Not the best of answers but here is a bit of an explanation I grabbed from talkorigins.com:

"Sexual reproduction could have evolved in a number of ways, but it probably evolved from selection for the ability to exchange genetic material, for sexually reproducing species seem to resist extinction longer than asexual species. John Maynard Smith wrote a book called (I think) The Evolution of Sex. For what it's worth, I think that sexual reproduction evolved initially as an accident due to the diploid nature of the DNA material, and was conserved in later lineages, but I'm no expert. I recall that it is thought to have evolved several times."

A Big Bang DOES NOT offer an explanation for the origin of the universe. The current big bang theory describes an event or more precisely a process. As such this event or process is part of the universe since it is a ‘thing’.
Yes, that is what I was trying to say.

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~


I am taking you seriously, unlike others :)

My answers will be a different perspective.[/B]

If I'm not mistaken he was asking athiests and you are not an athiest. We were taking him seriously since most of the questions were trick questions and/or just completely irrelevent.

Chosen,

Cris, your hypothesis that you embraced has an extremely miniscule amount of evidence to support that. So why do you choose it? Just because it can conveniently and unhesitatingly eliminate any sure need for a God?It isn’t a hypothesis it is a proof.

The evidence is overwhelming and unmistakable – the universe exists.

I made no mention of anything called god, neither did I exclude any such potential.

As I said earlier, the term universe was not defined. My qualification is that I have taken “universe” to essentially mean everything. If such ‘things’ as god(s) exist then they are clearly ‘things’ and as such would come under the umbrella of the term “universe”.

You appear to be using a different definition. In which case define what you mean by ‘universe’. Also what do you mean by ‘god’? This term is also undefined in this thread. The question made no reference to such a concept.

The proof is very simple – for any event there must be a cause, or it must have been derived from an infinite source. There cannot be a first cause since that must also be explained. If you want to argue for a creator of everything else then you must explain the cause of the creator, and then the cause of the creator of the creator etc., i.e. an infinite series. If such a thing was not caused then that thing has the property of infinity. If there is no creator then everything that exists must have always existed in some form or another, i.e. must be infinite.

Any way you argue for a cause you are forced to provide an explanation. The result is always an infinite series. This does not say that god(s) do not exist only that they are not needed as part of any explanation of cause.

As I said in my post – something infinite must exist otherwise nothing could have begun. I thought this was clear and does not eliminate gods, conveniently or otherwise, and whatever they might be.

Cris

Questions for Ekimklaw;

Our observations indicate the galaxies are all moving away from each other. What reason would God have to do such a thing ? Why put everything in motion ? Why not just create the universe and leave it as is ?

Why would God bother introducing entropy into the universe ? What purpose would it serve to move towards a state of disorder ? Wouldn't God have wanted it the other way round ?

Here's a question,

When is Ekimklaw going to respond to his thread?

Increan,

When is Ekimklaw going to respond to his thread?Here I will defend Ekim. Give him time. The nice thing about message boards is that we can take time to prepare and research well considered posts.

I'd much prefer to see a detailed and well framed post rather than rapid and erroneous chat-room style nonsense.

Cris

Cris,

You spelled my name wrong again.:)

Increan,

Sorry. The update for that subroutine clearly didn't take very well.

I guess it is a bit like many people here putting an H in my name. It's a subconscious action.

'Crean' for example has no meaning to my brain so I guess it does its best to interpret and uses what it does know.

Cris

Hey Xev,

Your post was thoughtful, measured and coherant. And you made some strong points. Thanks! BTW I am in the process of examining those links on reproduction...

Later...

-Mike

==============================================
Cris wrote:
But Ekim these are all trick questions and I am sure you know that, despite your assertions to the contrary. I think you just like watching people jump through hoops.
==============================================


Gee Cris, does that mean you don't trust me anymore?


==============================================
#1. Your question is very vague. Define universe?
==============================================


Go outside tonight (providing that it is a clear night) and look up. That is what I mean by "universe".



==============================================
Cris wrote:
...the universe must have always existed. Something infinite must exist otherwise nothing could have begun. This must be true since if there was a point when nothing existed then the universe could not have begun.
==============================================



I agree.




==============================================

#2. Why assume [matter] did not exist at some point in time? There is no evidence to support that assumption.
==============================================


Fair enough.



==============================================

#3. Why [prove Socrates exists]?
==============================================



Oh, just to see if it's easy or not.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
#4. The question is a non sequitur for the stated condition. Why assume that organs evolved in a sequence rather than at the same time?
==============================================


If they "evolved" at the same time, isn't that "spontaneous generation"? Maybe this was the "Little Bang". In other words "Bang" there're fully functional lungs, heart and brain. Do you understand my problem with this? My whole point is that they could not have evolved any other way than all at once. So we agree.



==============================================
#5. Again the question is a non sequitur for the condition. The question seems to be ignorant of some basic science principles. This link should help explain why the question makes no sense.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html
==============================================



Hey, I didn't make it up. I heard it from Mr. Purcell in Biology 101 at San Antonio College. He said (I'm paraphrasing) "Long ago when primordial ooze first came ashore it had all the elements necessary to life. Then it began to evolve." So I start thinking about factors such as sunlight, heat, radiation, UV rays, cold, wind, etc. and wonder how anything that "came ashore" could survive outside of it's natural habitat long enough to evolve up. Given entropy, it would tend to "degrade". Look at a jelly fish for instance. If this thing washes ashore, does it start evolving up, or decaying? My question was giving you an opportunity to agree or disagree with said hypothosis.

If you do not agree with this scenario, enlighten everyone with an alternative theory about how life FIRST came into being. I'm talking the very start.

And Cris, please worry less about "trick questions" and more about answering the questions. Remember your job is to convince the unconvinced. Not vice versa.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
#7. Why ask [if insects evolved]? Why wouldn’t they?
==============================================



I've NEVER heard anything about insect evolution. If you don't know, just say "I don't know." You don't have to get all snippy.



==============================================
Cris wrote:
#8. [Evolution of sexual reproduction] is currently being researched.
==============================================



It couldn't have evolved. Admit it. Or simply say "I don't know."




==============================================
Cris wrote:
#10. Define what you mean by “God”. The question makes no sense otherwise.
==============================================


Nice dodge. Okay Cris, let me try again. This time I'll put it in terms you would be more comfortable with.

Pretend you are supreme dictator of the world. The Earth is your footstool. Now YOU must make the rules that govern society. What would YOU require as King of the World in terms of basic civil law?

I want to get a feel for what you would require of a civilized orderly society.

I expected more substance out of you Cris.

-Mike

Hello all,

As your resident Christian arrow-catcher, I must say that this has been a very enjoyable thread to read. Many of you defended your views with honor and dignity (Raithere, XEV, James R, Overdoze, The Chosen, Fading Captain, Thor and Tyler) while others of you blew a golden opportunity (Cris, Increan).

Obviously I have not finished looking at all your links. I am convinced by now my stance on "entropy" was very flawed. I will attempt to research this concept better. Thanks all of you who pointed that out. I think I was laboring under a misunderstanding there.

For the record, I will go ahead and answer the questions I posed for you to answer. This way you will know my thoughts on the subject (Yes Cris, I actually used reason). So, here goes:

#1. Has the universe always existed? If yes... explain how you can KNOW this. If no... explain how it began.

answer: I believe the universe had a beginning and that it was created by God for his purpose sometime in the distant past. I am NOT opposed to the "Big Bang Theory". Cuz God caused the "Bang". ;)

#2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).

answer: I believe matter was created by God. Since a void cannot independently cause something to exist, I believe God created matter. To my mind it is the best hypothosis.

#3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.

answer: We are sure Socrates existed because of the testimony of eyewitnesses to his life and teachings. There is NO empirical evidence for his existence. We can use this realization to understand that much MORE evidence exists that Jesus lived. But many claim he is fictional. The point here? Not everything we know is true can be backed up with empirical evidence.

#4. Given the interdependency of the organs of the human body, can you explain which organ evolved first?

answer: None. They all came into being simultaneously. There is no way that any part could exist without the other. Claims that they all grew more and more complex over time also is not sufficient. At some point in the evolutionary process if we go backwards in time, we come to a place where life did not exist. Moving forward in time we are told it "evolved". Specifically how? What did this early form of life use to breath? To digest food? To think? To See? My belief is that is emerged onto the stage of time fully functioning, or "ready made". I believe it was an act of devine creation.

#5. Keeping in mind the concept of entropy, how did any minute form of matter exit the "water" and remain exposed long enough to begin the process of macro-evolving over "billions" of years?

answer: Forget entropy. Things degrade. I will look into this more.

#6. If you answered #5, please prove your theory using empirical evidence only.

answer: skipped

#7. Did insects evolve? Explain...

answer: I agree micro-evolution exists. We always worry about the origins of man, I was just curious about Insect evolution. Thanks for the links.

#8. How did sexual reproduction evolve?

answer: It could not have. Two organisms evolving independently of each other, yet at the same time codependent on each other is flawed in the extreme. If the mutations necessary for procreation were evolving, how did the organism procreate? If they procreated asexually, there would be no need for sexual reproduction, and therefore no evolution toward that. Once again it is clear. Just like the organs, and the eye, males and females were "ready made".

#9. Which part of the human eye evolved first (pupil, iris, lens, cornea, retina, optic nerve, etc.)?

answer: See answer to #8.

#10. Explain: If you were God... I know some of you think you already are... ... but seriously, if you were God, what moral laws would you implement to make a society orderly and civil.

answer: Treat other people the way you would want to be treated.

Thanks everyone.

-Mike

Originally posted by Ekimklaw

One little teentsy tiny request? Please thoughtfully reply to each one (even if you've done it before elsewhere. Hey! today is a new day!). Some of them require *deep thought* (You know you love it) so please watch the knee-jerk answers.


Careful. Some "knee-jerk" answers actually have a deeper implied meaning. ;)


#1. Has the universe always existed? If yes... explain how you can KNOW this. If no... explain how it began.


Yes and no. Physics suggests that the universe began with a BANG some 15 billion years ago. However, to my knowledge, science has not yet determined where the "singularity" that went BANG came from.


#2. Where did matter come from (assuming it did not exist at some point in the past).


I believe there are physics models on how stars can create matter through fusion, but it's above my head.


#3. Prove, citing empirical evidence only, that Socrates existed.


Yahoo has many references to the work he did.


#4. Given the interdependency of the organs of the human body, can you explain which organ evolved first?


Most likely, one (or more) of the simplist ones. Evolution need not be linear.


#5. Keeping in mind the concept of entropy, how did any minute form of matter exit the "water" and remain exposed long enough to begin the process of macro-evolving over "billions" of years?


By virtue of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.


#6. If you answered #5, please prove your theory using empirical evidence only.


We're still here, aren't we?


#7. Did insects evolve? Explain...


Yes. They continue evolve today.


#8. How did sexual reproduction evolve?


Reproduction was necessary with the first cell or there would've been nothing to talk about. Variations on the methods of reproduction allowed for more flexibility to fit the environment.


#9. Which part of the human eye evolved first (pupil, iris, lens, cornea, retina, optic nerve, etc.)?


Photosensitive capabilities are even in plant cells, so it seems to be a fundamental part of evolving from the energy of the Sun. Evolutionary refinement would then come into play to find better ways to make use of this capability.


#10. Explain: If you were God... I know some of you think you already are... ;) ... but seriously, if you were God, what moral laws would you implement to make a society orderly and civil.


That would depend upon my goals for the society. I might suggest the harsh "eye for an eye" type of laws to show there are consequences for transgressions. Or I might suggest the "turn the other cheek" approach to bring about more peaceful coexistence. Or I might not suggest any laws and allow them to find there own way under "free will".

Originally posted by Cris
Chosen,

It isn’t a hypothesis it is a proof.

That the universe is infinite? Go tell that to the scientists for such a "great proof."

The evidence is overwhelming and unmistakable – the universe exists.

Of course! Agreed :)

I made no mention of anything called god, neither did I exclude any such potential.

Good, I *just* asked a question on your stance to WHY you picked that alternative over the finite Big Bang.

As I said earlier, the term universe was not defined. My qualification is that I have taken “universe” to essentially mean everything. If such ‘things’ as god(s) exist then they are clearly ‘things’ and as such would come under the umbrella of the term “universe”.

Ah I see, yes, the universe is "everything" - that is, in the natural realm. Supernatural things are not part of *our* universe but another universe. Clear enough? :)

You appear to be using a different definition. In which case define what you mean by ‘universe’. Also what do you mean by ‘god’? This term is also undefined in this thread. The question made no reference to such a concept.

Yes, I see what you mean.

The proof is very simple – for any event there must be a cause, or it must have been derived from an infinite source. There cannot be a first cause since that must also be explained.

Proof is *that* simple? I don't think so Cris, instantons explain creation (not infinite) from ex nihilo.

You proof makes great sense, but it is only a deductive pure thought approach, it is conceptual and does not rely on any math - therefore it is not a *strong* enough proof to ultimately support your hypothesis.

Then the question you must answer is this, how do you know that it must be derived from an infinite source? How much do we humans understand origins? What do you believe?

If you do answer, then you will step into the realm of faith.

If you want to argue for a creator of everything else then you must explain the cause of the creator, and then the cause of the creator of the creator etc., i.e. an infinite series. If such a thing was not caused then that thing has the property of infinity. If there is no creator then everything that exists must have always existed in some form or another, i.e. must be infinite.

Like I stated, I believe in a creator, that everything came into existence one way or another.

Any way you argue for a cause you are forced to provide an explanation. The result is always an infinite series. This does not say that god(s) do not exist only that they are not needed as part of any explanation of cause.

Your answer is an infinite universe.

My answer is an eternal God.

As I said in my post – something infinite must exist otherwise nothing could have begun. I thought this was clear and does not eliminate gods, conveniently or otherwise, and whatever they might be.

You can *only* conceptualize here. You are assuming, from your knowledge, that something *must* be infinite to exist otherwise nothing could have begun.

How do you exactly *know* this? Instantons?

You do know, it conviently leaves a blank conclusion to absolutely *HOW* things came to be. All of the universe's lower systems have cycles, so how do we know if the universe itself is *not* a cycle?

So if it *is* a cycle, what part of the cycle did it start? A cycle clearly implies a beginning - or else we have the chicken and egg scenario.

Cris, that was a very intelligent hypothesis, but it lacks any solid, more palpable proof.

If you just rest it on your purely thought deductive approach, it becomes a "weak" proof.

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~

Your answer is an infinite universe.

My answer is an eternal God.


And the difference is?? :bugeye:

Mike:

Thanks. :)

answer: We are sure Socrates existed because of the testimony of eyewitnesses to his life and teachings. There is NO empirical evidence for his existence. We can use this realization to understand that much MORE evidence exists that Jesus lived. But many claim he is fictional. The point here? Not everything we know is true can be backed up with empirical evidence.

I consider the things I've cited to be empirical.

I don't think more evidence of Jesus' existance exists, but I do think that Jesus did exist. Vinnie (ilgwarmh) convinced me.

But this does not mean that Jesus was either God, the Son of God (bloody trinity!) or anything more than a human.

answer: It could not have. Two organisms evolving independently of each other, yet at the same time codependent on each other is flawed in the extreme. If the mutations necessary for procreation were evolving, how did the organism procreate? If they procreated asexually, there would be no need for sexual reproduction, and therefore no evolution toward that. Once again it is clear. Just like the organs, and the eye, males and females were "ready made".

Please re-read my link. Your understanding of the theory is flawed. No offense.

It is believed that organisms gradually seperated into gender, before they did they reproduced by conjugation (sp?) and asexual reproduction.

There is a good evolutionary reason for sexual mutation, namely, increasing genetic diversity. Again, my link touches on that.

"answer: We are sure Socrates existed because of the testimony of eyewitnesses to his life and teachings. There is NO empirical evidence for his existence. We can use this realization to understand that much MORE evidence exists that Jesus lived. But many claim he is fictional. The point here? Not everything we know is true can be backed up with empirical evidence"

There's a distinct difference, though. Socrates' life (as well as pretty much any other historical figure you throw up) was recorded during his life by others not connected to him and not all within one giant book that is about him. Jesus' existence was not discussed by ANYONE outside the Bible until after he was dead by a man who had never met him and had been a youngin' or not alive while Jesus lived.

Still, I do believe a man named Jesus probably existed. If not only for the reason that it's highly improbable that the whole stories could have began from absolutely no one.

Xev, Tyler,

Re: Existence of Jesus.

Please read Acharya S and The Christ Conspiracy. Or easier still read tiassa's recent post to Viniie in the 'James the Brother of Jesus' thread.

Of all the volumes of historical writings produced 2000 years ago there are but only a few small paragraphs that allude to a Jesus Christ and even they are highly questionable.

For potentially the most important being in the history of mankind to have not had any reliable historical references is simply not credible.

The volume of writings that have been written since his alleged existence appear to be entirely based on mythology or are mythology.

It seems highly unlikely he ever existed.

Cris

For potentially the most important being in the history of mankind to have not had any reliable historical references is simply not credible.

I think that in his time he was not considered to be an important person. It would still take a couple of hundreds of years to give Christians influence in the Roman empire.

Ekimklaw:

<i>answer: I believe the universe had a beginning and that it was created by God for his purpose sometime in the distant past. I am NOT opposed to the "Big Bang Theory". Cuz God caused the "Bang".</i>

Fair enough. That's consistent with science, so far.

<i>answer: I believe matter was created by God. Since a void cannot independently cause something to exist, I believe God created matter. To my mind it is the best hypothosis.</i>

So, do you believe in many separate acts of creation, or just one? Because if God created the big bang, as you say, there was no need for him to stick around to create matter separately. The big bang theory describes the creation of matter without the need for God.

<i>answer: We are sure Socrates existed because of the testimony of eyewitnesses to his life and teachings.</i>

That does not add up to a certainty. That is merely supporting evidence. There's a difference.

<i>There is NO empirical evidence for his existence.</i>

Sure there is. The writings of Plato, for instance.

The evidence for Jesus, I think, is probably of about the same weight as the evidence for Socrates, by the way. We can't be certain Jesus existed, but it seems likely that somebody with at least some of his characteristics existed. Jeshua, of course, was a very common name.

<i>[All organs of the body] came into being simultaneously. There is no way that any part could exist without the other.</i>

That's true for our modern organs, but not true in the early stages of evolution. It's like saying that a Boeing 747 must have been constructed all at once, since all its parts are interdependent. Obviously, different parts of the aircraft were built at different time, and the aircraft as a whole "evolved" from earlier, simpler aircraft.

<i>At some point in the evolutionary process if we go backwards in time, we come to a place where life did not exist. Moving forward in time we are told it "evolved". Specifically how?</i>

By random change and natural selection.

Or are you asking about abiogenesis here?

<i>What did this early form of life use to breath? To digest food? To think? To See?</i>

Lungs, stomachs, brains and eyes came a fair way down the evolutionary track. The first forms of life had none of those, and many existing forms of life still lack them.

<i>answer: I agree micro-evolution exists. We always worry about the origins of man, I was just curious about Insect evolution.</i>

You haven't read much real science on this, have you? I've already talked about the term "micro-evolution". Try reading something other than Creationist literature. There is an entire scientific field of study called <b>entomology</b> which is dedicated to the study of insects and their evolution.

<i>answer: [Sexual reproduction] could not have. Two organisms evolving independently of each other, yet at the same time codependent on each other is flawed in the extreme.</i>

Do you know that some flowers cannot reproduce without the help of bees? The flowers and the bees evolved quite independently. One is a plant, the other an animal. Yet, they are codependent. Examples like this abound in nature. Look up the word <b>ecosystem</b> in your dictionary.

<i>If they procreated asexually, there would be no need for sexual reproduction, and therefore no evolution toward that.</i>

Evolution doesn't work on the basis of "need". It is partly a random process.

<i>Once again it is clear. Just like the organs, and the eye, males and females were "ready made".</i>

There are many good sites on the web explaining the evolution of the eye. Please make an effort to read at least one of them before making silly comments like this.

==============================================
James R wrote:
So, do you believe in many separate acts of creation, or just one?
==============================================


I believe in 18 acts of creation. Or is it 12?



==============================================
James R wrote:
Because if God created the big bang, as you say, there was no need for him to stick around to create matter separately. The big bang theory describes the creation of matter without the need for God.
==============================================



Okay.




==============================================
James R wrote:
That does not add up to a certainty. That is merely supporting evidence. There's a difference.
==============================================



My point exactly.



==============================================
James R wrote:
Sure there is [empirical evidence for Socrates' existence]. The writings of Plato, for instance.
==============================================





My point exactly.





==============================================
James R wrote:
The evidence for Jesus, I think, is probably of about the same weight as the evidence for Socrates, by the way.
==============================================




My point exactly.




==============================================
James R wrote:
We can't be certain Jesus existed, but it seems likely that somebody with at least some of his characteristics existed. Jeshua, of course, was a very common name.
==============================================




My point exact... oh. Wait. No I disagree.




==============================================
James R wrote:
[Saying that all the organs existed at once is] like saying that a Boeing 747 must have been constructed all at once, since all its parts are interdependent.
==============================================




Last time I checked a 747 didn't have a central nervous system or a brain.




==============================================
James R wrote:
Obviously, different parts of the aircraft were built at different time, and the aircraft as a whole "evolved" from earlier, simpler aircraft.
==============================================




Your correlation between humans and 747's is flawed in the extreme. I think you must realize this. In short 747's are NOT ALIVE.

Flawed as it is though, let's use your anology.

What if when engineers were building the first plane, it was necessary to fly to other parts of the world to have built what it needed to fly?





==============================================
James R. wrote:
By random change and natural selection.

Or are you asking about abiogenesis here?
==============================================



Ahh the wonderful safety of vagueness. Without getting into specifics (which would gut their theories) evolutionists breeze over complications with the comfy phrases "random change", "unlimited time", and "natural selection". Belief in these notions takes almost Christ-like faith.




==============================================
James R wrote:
Lungs, stomachs, brains and eyes came a fair way down the evolutionary track. The first forms of life had none of those...
==============================================



So what did they eat? How did they survive for billions of years? Where is the evidence? Or do you just have faith that it must have happened this way? After all the Biology professor in college said so.




==============================================
James R wrote:
...and many existing forms of life still lack [lungs, stomachs, and brains].
==============================================




Maybe some kinds of fish, or plankton. But humans (and all other mammals) must have them to live.

Face it, when it comes to origins, science is a joke.





==============================================
James R wrote:
You haven't read much real science on this, have you? I've already talked about the term "micro-evolution".
==============================================




Man you hate that term don't you? Well, "micro-evolution" simply means "diversification of species". This idea can be found in Darwin's work called "The Origin of Species". Try not to let little things like terminology get under your skin. If you prefer I could say "limited evolution"? Irregardless...

micro-evolution = diversification within a species (real)
macro-evolution = evolution that creates a new species (fantasy)

Anyway, I do admit that "diversification" occurs, but i totally reject as foolish poppycock the notion that one species can turn into a completely different species over time.

So instead of "micro-evolution" I'll say "limited evolution" and for "macro-evolution" I'll say "complex evolution"





==============================================
James R wrote:
Try reading something other than Creationist literature.
==============================================





I studied Darwin's "Origin of Species", and Huxley's "Evidences as to Man’s Place in Nature". I also read "Human Origins" by Clark Spencer Larsen, among others. In addition to that, I also took 20 hours of biology in college.





==============================================
James R wrote:
There is an entire scientific field of study called <b>entomology</b> which is dedicated to the study of insects and their evolution.
==============================================




Too boring. Plus, I hate bugs.





==============================================
James R wrote:
Do you know that some flowers cannot reproduce without the help of bees? The flowers and the bees evolved quite independently.
==============================================



Are you claiming here that early humans reproduced by pollination, or a similar method? What evidence do you have for that? Or is it another leap of faith?




==============================================
James R wrote:
One is a plant, the other an animal. Yet, they are codependent.
==============================================



Yeah James, thanks. I know the difference between a plant and an insect (bees = insects). I also know that symbiotic relationships has nothing to do with "complex evolution". Yours is a classic "straw man" argument.




==============================================
James R wrote:
Evolution doesn't work on the basis of "need". It is partly a random process.
==============================================




So are you forming a new evolutionary sect? Since when does evolution NOT work by process of need? Ahh blessed randomness. Can you cite any example where randomness produced order?




==============================================
James R wrote:
There are many good sites on the web explaining the evolution of the eye. Please make an effort to read at least one of them before making silly comments like this.
==============================================



Gee. You could have summarized the voluminous conclusive evidence for me so I don't have to spend another 2 hours reading pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about "chance" and "mutations" and "billions and billions of years".


-Mike

In response to Ekimlaw's answers to his own questions

#1
If I were to define the universe as anything in existance(including God) would you agree that the universe has existed for infinity? If yes(which I assume you will) explain the necessity for God when it's just as(if not more plausible) that energy(particles, etc. see other's posts) is the infinite element in this equation.

#2
Why must there have ever been a void? It is more logical to assume that a true void has never existed.

#3
Athenian court records. I am fairly sure they kept them and that they are in existance somewhere. Though I have not sought for their current location, a museum or university is most likely. I personally think Jesus existed, though I haven't fully looked into the theories denying his existance I find a conspiracy that large to be improbable. He was not, however, any sort of supernatural being. He was human, he was crucified, or at least so we've been led to believe, and he died. The end.

#4
Living organisms need not have organs, look at single celled organisms, they exist. Bacteria for instance. Virii and others also fall into this category, I believe. They have no organs, they don't need to breathe...

#5
It seems here you have seen the error of your beliefs on this one matter. Further education may assist you in other areas as well.

#6
skipped

#7
Education is the cure for ignorance and false beliefs. As always.

#8
I see nothing wrong with overdoze's explanation here or Xen's link, and the fact that you so easily denounce both just goes to show you how blinding one can be to reason when one is protecting a long held belief. What many have been trying to say is that sexual reproduction did not start with humans, it was already in place with our ancestors, and our ancestors achieved it exactly as has been explained. In short yes "early humans reproduced by pollination, or a similar method? " If you go back far enough and take the term human to mean all ancestors of the human species, humans were asexual at one point!

#9
I also see nothing wrong with the explanation found when following Raithere's link. Again the blinding of reason...

#10
For ten I shall postulate my own answer.
Harm no other physically or psychologically. Simple is usually best.

Welcome Angelus!

Mike:
I believe in 18 acts of creation. Or is it 12?

Let us know when you decide. :p

What if when engineers were building the first plane, it was necessary to fly to other parts of the world to have built what it needed to fly?

Using this flawed analogy, which is getting weird.....they had ships and trains and all.

So what did they eat? How did they survive for billions of years? Where is the evidence? Or do you just have faith that it must have happened this way? After all the Biology professor in college said so.

They were prokaryotes, likely. You ask what they ate or how they ate without stomachs?

They probably "ate" whatever material was in the primordial ocean. And prokaryotes don't need stomachs to digest stuff.

Fossil evidence is lacking, but it does exist in enough number to make this a credible theory.

Plus, I hate bugs.

*In excited little boy voice*

Bugs are cool, mister.

Out of curiousity, why do you accept microevolution but not macroevolution? Isn't that a bit like saying that you accept that cars have motors, but you don't believe that they are powered by their motors?

Mike,

My responses were direct responses to your comments. Yet your reponses are side-tracks. Why? Are you afraid to tackle the issues head-on?

<i>I believe in 18 acts of creation. Or is it 12?</i>

Fair enough. Seems like a bit of a disorganised God you have there.

<i>Last time I checked a 747 didn't have a central nervous system or a brain.</i>

Yes it does - of a sort. It has many onboard computers and miles of electrical wiring.

<i>Your correlation between humans and 747's is flawed in the extreme. I think you must realize this. In short 747's are NOT ALIVE.</i>

No? What is needed for something to be "alive"? Please define the term "life" or "alive" for me.

<i>What if when engineers were building the first plane, it was necessary to fly to other parts of the world to have built what it needed to fly?</i>

It wasn't. As Xev pointed out, there were other more primitive forms of transport available. Just as in the case of evolution more complex life evolved from simpler life.

<i>Ahh the wonderful safety of vagueness.</i>

Haven't you heard the term "abiogenesis"?

<i>Without getting into specifics (which would gut their theories) evolutionists breeze over complications with the comfy phrases "random change", "unlimited time", and "natural selection".</i>

Do they? Please provide some examples.

<i>So what did [early forms of life] eat?</i>

Each other, mainly.

<i>How did they survive for billions of years?</i>

Individuals did not. Species did.

<i>Where is the evidence?</i>

Some of them are still around today. We can check their genetic code. In other cases, there is fossil evidence.

<i>Or do you just have faith that it must have happened this way?</i>

No faith required. This is science.

<i>Maybe some kinds of fish, or plankton [lack lungs etc..]. But humans (and all other mammals) must have them to live.</i>

Yes, I agree.

<i>Face it, when it comes to origins, science is a joke.</i>

You'll have to provide some evidence to back that up, I'm afraid. Otherwise, it's just your unsupported opinion. You're entitled to it, but it doesn't actually count for much.

<i>Man you hate that term don't you?</i>

Micro-evolution? No, I don't hate it. It just displays a total incomprehension of evolution, that's all. It's the latest in a long line of Creationist fall-back positions. Having failed to prove their case, Creationists are trying to move the goal posts (again).

<i>This idea can be found in Darwin's work called "The Origin of Species".</i>

Please provide a reference to where Darwin uses the term "microevolution" in "The Origin of Species".

<i>Anyway, I do admit that "diversification" occurs, but i totally reject as foolish poppycock the notion that one species can turn into a completely different species over time.</i>

You really haven't thought this out for yourself, have you? I assume you've been reading "Answers in Genesis" or some such publication. Your language is their language.

<i>I studied Darwin's "Origin of Species", and Huxley's "Evidences as to Man’s Place in Nature". I also read "Human Origins" by Clark Spencer Larsen, among others. In addition to that, I also took 20 hours of biology in college.</i>

Read anything recent?

<i>Too boring. Plus, I hate bugs.</i>

I can't help it if you won't educate yourself. Why claim that nothing is known of insect evolution if you don't know anything about it? Seems strange to me.

<i>Are you claiming here that early humans reproduced by pollination, or a similar method?</i>

This is a side-track. You said that no two organisms could be interdependent yet evolve separately. I gave you a counter-example. That disproves your statement.

<i>I also know that symbiotic relationships has nothing to do with "complex evolution". Yours is a classic "straw man" argument.</i>

What, you mean like your straw man that I am claiming that humans reproduced by polination? What's that, Kettle? You're calling the pot black? Hmm....

<i>So are you forming a new evolutionary sect? Since when does evolution NOT work by process of need? Ahh blessed randomness. Can you cite any example where randomness produced order?</i>

No, I'm not forming a new sect. This is standard evolution, Mike. Read up and you might eventually understand it. Evolution <b>never</b> works by "need". It works by natural selection working on variation between organisms. This is very basic stuff.

Where does randomness produce order? Alone, randomness doesn't amount to much. Creationists always conveniently forget that evolution is not a random process. They always leave out natural selection - a very important piece of the jigsaw. That is the ultimate straw man.

<i>Gee. You could have summarized the voluminous conclusive evidence for me so I don't have to spend another 2 hours reading pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about "chance" and "mutations" and "billions and billions of years".</i>

Regarding the eye? Yes, I could summarise the eye's evolution for you, but would it really be worth taking the time? Also, other places do it more conclusively that I could here, and with pretty pictures as well. You can find descriptions in many different books. There are countless internet sites on this. Do you know how to work a search engine, Mike, or would you like me to point you to one site, perhaps? I'll do it if you ask nicely...

(most responses edited out by the author... everyone else pretty well answered them already... commentary left in)

Face it, when it comes to origins, science is a joke.

No. Creationism is the joke. It pretends to have the answers for everything when, really, it has only one answer. "God". An answer, I might add, that doesn't tell us anything about the how or why of things and is of no practicle use at all. Science is humble enough to admit that there are things unknown and things, which are still in contention. Science, when it finds them, has the real answers. If you don't believe this why don't you go to a faith healer next time you're ill instead of the doctor?

Anyway, I do admit that "diversification" occurs, but i totally reject as foolish poppycock the notion that one species can turn into a completely different species over time.

This is just deliberate blindness. You accept that small changes can occur but refuse to accept that small changes add up to tremendous differences over time. If I take a 2 lb block of granite from a mountain and throw it in a lake nothing immense has changed. But what if I do this 10x each day for a million years? Now imagine such minor changes occurring not only for 5 Billion years but being performed by millions and billions of creatures. Sorry Ekim, it's pure reason.

If you don't believe in macro-evolution you need to come up with a mechanism that stabilizes an organism so that such changes cannot build upon each other over time. Otherwise your refusal is simply denying what is obvious. So far nobody has demonstrated such a mechanism.

Ahh blessed randomness. Can you cite any example where randomness produced order?

Actually, I can: put a glass of water in the freezer and take it out a few hours later. Then tell me how the structure of the ice crystals developed from the chaotic and random liquid molecules that were there previously. Or did God make "miracle" ice for you?

Gee. You could have summarized the voluminous conclusive evidence for me so I don't have to spend another 2 hours reading pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about "chance" and "mutations" and "billions and billions of years".

Your attitude here is simply "I don't understand and I can't be bothered with learning so it must be false." Great argument that. While you're looking up the real meaning of the logical fallacy known as the "Straw Man Argument" (because you used it improperly) I suggest you also look up "Argument from Ignorance".

Look, I hate to take such a terse tone but your attitude belies your intent. You gave a list of questions that you thought atheists couldn't answer. But when we give you answers you tell us you cannot be bothered because they're "boring". You also claim to have an understanding of what you clearly do not understand. There are areas where I must concede that there is no more evidence for the Atheistic position than the Theistic position. Evolution is definitely not one of them. If you find Science to be vague it is only because it has been simplified in its explanation. Science is never vague. If you truly want the details they are out there for your consumption.

I suggest that you consider the possibility that evolution is true and that perhaps your God set up the rules whereby these processes take place. Certainly a God capable of creating a Universe as complex and wondrous as this has the ability to create what he desires in a single moment of creation rather than having to constantly "tweak" his creation in order to "get it right". Don't you see how the notion that he has to constantly change things indicates an imperfect God? Shouldn't the study and understanding of how the world works also be an understanding of how God works? God and science are not exclusive; you just have to move beyond an infantile conception of God.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Ekimklaw
Face it, when it comes to origins, science is a joke.

Science = intellectualism. And I admit, it doesn't explain origins good, neither does God.

In fact, I don't think science will ever explain a "true absolute origin" - such knowledge to reach would be of great delectation.

No. Creationism is the joke.

Amen to that Raithere.

#4. Given the interdependency of the organs of the human body, can you explain which organ evolved first?

This is crap, and you should know it. The planet is crawling with creatures in all stages of development from single cells to blue whales. Any level of organ development is viable, and has been viable along the way.

Same with eyes; we see visual organs on all levels from a few light-sensitive cells on the skin of a worm, to the excellent instruments of mammals. You need not theorize or look at fossils to find out how things evolve, all you need is look around.

Hans

==============================================
James R wrote:
My responses were direct responses to your comments. Yet your reponses are side-tracks. Why? Are you afraid to tackle the issues head-on?
==============================================




You call them side-tracks, thereby relegating them to unimportance. I am not affraid to "tackle" your faith in science. At least I have the guts to admit I have faith. You have as much faith as I do, but refuse to admit it.

Faith means "believing in that which you have not seen". Have you seen "complex evolution" occurring? Have you ever seen one species mutate into another? Have you ever seen any of these things you believe occurred 200 billion years ago? No. You have faith that when Dr. Scientist tells you something about a skull being a form of early man, you simply take it on faith. He must be right. After all he is a brilliant scientist. You have faith that it happened because the alternative is to believe in God. And along with a belief in God comes all the additional greif about higher authority and morality and holiness.

It's easier to believe we're all just fancy animals.




==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>I believe in 18 acts of creation. Or is it 12?</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Fair enough. Seems like a bit of a disorganised God you have there.
==============================================



I am now quite sure it was 14 acts of creation. ;)



==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Last time I checked a 747 didn't have a central nervous system or a brain.</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Yes it does - of a sort. It has many onboard computers and miles of electrical wiring.
==============================================




Sir, you really cannot make a direct correlation between an airplane and a living breathing sentient being. I guess the plane's "feet" are the wheels, and his "head" is the cockpit and his "arms" are the wings... come on.



==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Your correlation between humans and 747's is flawed in the extreme. I think you must realize this. In short 747's are NOT ALIVE.</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
No? What is needed for something to be "alive"? Please define the term "life" or "alive" for me.
==============================================




A living organism has cellular activity and also brainwave activity. Additionally, it displays independent motion, reproduction capability, food and/or liquid consumption, growth (cellular activity), and stimulus response. At the human level it also displays self-awareness, and the ability to form both abstract and creative thought.




==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>What if when engineers were building the first plane, it was necessary to fly to other parts of the world to have built what it needed to fly?</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
It wasn't. As Xev pointed out, there were other more primitive forms of transport available. Just as in the case of evolution more complex life evolved from simpler life.
==============================================




I smell burning straw. What are we goin to start debating about early forms of transportation vis a vis air travel? Stick to the main issue. For the sake of focus let us concern ourselves with the origin of humans (mammals). You can trot out any number of parameceum that are one celled and lungless... but let's stick to human origins.

Where is your evidence that mammals existed at any time without the necessary internal organs.



==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Ahh the wonderful safety of vagueness.</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Haven't you heard the term "abiogenesis"?
==============================================



Yes I have. Have you heard of "Borel's Law"?




==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Without getting into specifics (which would gut their theories) evolutionists breeze over complications with the comfy phrases "random change", "unlimited time", and "natural selection".</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Do they? Please provide some examples.
==============================================




Okay... here you go...

"Some scientists say, just throw energy at it and it will happen spontaneously. That is a little bit like saying: put a stick of dynamite under the pile of bricks, and bang, you've got a house! Of course you won't have a house, you'll just have a mess. The difficulty in trying to explain the origin of life is in accounting for how the elaborate organisational structure of these complex molecules came into existence spontaneously from a random input of energy. How did these very specific complex molecules assemble themselves?" (Davies Paul .C.W. [renouned physicist] & Adams Phillip [journalist], "More Big Questions," ABC Books: Sydney, Australia, 1998, pp.53-54, 47-48, 48)


"In spite of recent findings, the time and pace of origin of order Primates remains shrouded in mystery." (Elwyn L. Simons (Dpt of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, USA and Co-Editor of Nuclear Physics)

"...the transition from insectivore to primate is not documented by fossils. The basis of knowledge about the transition is by inference from living forms." (A. J. Kelso (Professor of Physical Anthropology, University of Colorado)

"When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor...The earliest forms that are recognized as being hominid are the famous fossils, associated with primitive stone tools, that were found by Mary and Louis Leakey in the Olduvai gorge and elsewhere in Africa. These fossil hominids lived more than 1.5 million years ago and had brains half the size of ours. They were certainly not members of our own species, and we have no idea whether they were even in our direct ancestral line or only in a parallel line of descent resembling our direct ancestor."
(Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], "Human Diversity," Scientific American Library: New York NY, 1995, p.163)

"[P]erhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; . . . our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather, the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about our past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about." (David Pilbeam, "Book Review of Leakey's Origins," 66 _American Scientist_ (1978): 379 [cited in Bird, 1:226]).

"...the origin of the simian primates is obscure..." (Martin, R. D., "Primate Origins: plugging the gaps" Nature, Vol 363:223-233 (May 20, 1993))


I have more if your interested.



==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>So what did [early forms of life] eat?</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Each other, mainly.
==============================================




Remember you said some things existed a while without stomachs. So why eat "each other"?




==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>How did [creatures with no brains, and stomachs] survive for billions of years?</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Individuals did not. Species did.
==============================================




Species are made up of many individuals.





==============================================
James R wrote:
No faith required. This is science.
==============================================




Either you don't know what faith is, or you don't know what science is. When talking about the scientific explanation of origins, one must have LOTS of faith to believe it. (re-read the above quotes from emanent scientists)



==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Face it, when it comes to origins, science is a joke.</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
You'll have to provide some evidence to back that up, I'm afraid. Otherwise, it's just your unsupported opinion. You're entitled to it, but it doesn't actually count for much.
==============================================




Okay... here you go...

"We do not yet understand even the general features of the origin of the genetic code. The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress." (Orgel, Leslie E. [Adjunct Professor, University of California-San Diego, Resident Fellow, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, California], "Darwinism at the very beginning of life," New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p.151) )


I have more quotes if you want them.




==============================================
James R wrote:
Micro-evolution? No, I don't hate it. It just displays a total incomprehension of evolution, that's all. It's the latest in a long line of Creationist fall-back positions. Having failed to prove their case, Creationists are trying to move the goal posts (again).
==============================================




You are not making sense here. Creationists don't have to "prove their case" with empirical evidence. Why? it is a religion. We admit that we have faith. YOU cannot admit that. You must provide concrete evidence of "complex evolution" which you HAVE NOT DONE. You're the scientist. Not me. So, using science, prove your case. Think of me as a defense attorney. All I must provide in order to nuke evolution theory is reasonable doubt. Which I have done, very easily.



==============================================
James R wrote:
Please provide a reference to where Darwin uses the term "microevolution" in "The Origin of Species".
==============================================





As I wrote in my original post, he teaches the concept of micro-evolution, though he calls it "diversification of species". I don't want to repeat myself. Re-read my previous post where I explained this in detail.






==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Anyway, I do admit that "diversification" occurs, but i totally reject as foolish poppycock the notion that one species can turn into a completely different species over time.</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
You really haven't thought this out for yourself, have you?
==============================================




No James, I'm just a stupid fool. You got me... geez I tried to hide it...



==============================================
James R wrote:
I assume you've been reading "Answers in Genesis" or some such publication. Your language is their language.
==============================================



Here let me turn this one back on you...

I assume you've been reading "Talk Origins" or some such publication. Your language is their language.





==============================================
James R wrote:
I can't help it if you won't educate yourself [about insect evolution]. Why claim that nothing is known of insect evolution if you don't know anything about it? Seems strange to me.
==============================================



I never claimed nothing was known about insect evolution. I just asked about it. I personally have never heard about it. All through college, in the books, etc. I am most interested in human origins. By the way as a young man, I went through a phase where I was a wild-eyed pro-evolutionist. Internally I rejected the notion of God, though I was raised to believe. Then I asked questions no science book or biology teacher could anser (and still can't). Therefore I concluded "God must exist, because we exist". Just a little biographical info about yours truly there. Not that you care. ;)






==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Are you claiming here that early humans reproduced by pollination, or a similar method?</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
This is a side-track. You said that no two organisms could be interdependent yet evolve separately. I gave you a counter-example. That disproves your statement.
==============================================




I asked how human sexual reproduction evolved and you gave an example of pollination. What else am I to conclude? If it had NOTHING to do with human sexual reproduction why did you bring it up?





==============================================
James R wrote:
No, I'm not forming a new sect. This is standard evolution, Mike. Read up and you might eventually understand it. Evolution <b>never</b> works by "need". It works by natural selection working on variation between organisms. This is very basic stuff.
==============================================




This is getting worse and worse. So now instead of things evolving what they need it's totally random mutations, coupled with natural selection and variation.

By the way, when a concept is so basic a fool could understand it, you'll have plenty of customers.




==============================================
James R wrote:
Where does randomness produce order? Alone, randomness doesn't amount to much. Creationists always conveniently forget that evolution is not a random process. They always leave out natural selection - a very im