God does exist.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Isn't that exactly what atheists would want to avoid?
...
I think you are safer by saying life had no start, and had no creator.
Interesting assumptions here and I think it highlights a major misunderstanding that many theists hold. Most (though not all) atheists came to be atheists through a skeptical but honest analysis of the available religious and scientific theories, augment, and evidence. Generally speaking, we are far more interested in uncovering the truth than in defending atheism. I know that I can say this of myself. In short, if we were to discover undeniable evidence of God we would be theists... we're more interested in reliable methods and verifiable results than what those results actually mean.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
So life started out unadapted to its environment, and had to adapt to survive?
No, the assertion is that life started out as a chemical process that developed the ability to adapt itself to changes in the environment and to new environments. The environment is in constant change.

The only conlcusion is that earth itself adapted to harbour life.
No, the Earth happens to be suited to the development of life. There is no evidence to warrant the assumption that this is anything other than a random set of conditions.

Is intelligence another adaptation for the sake of survival? Why then hasn't everything on earth - being subjected of an even longer period of evolution, like plants, developed even greater intelligence?
Bacteria evolved into both plants and animals, two separate branchings of evolutionary development. While intelligence is indeed a survival adaptation it is not necessarily the most efficient adaptation. The most successful form of life is the bacteria which is very simple and evolves very rapidly.

If religion is such a primitive need, made redundant by scienctific understanding, why haven't humanity outgrown it yet, and apes started to show signs of it?
Where have apes shown signs of religion?!?

Mice are genetically almost identical to humans, and have existed for much longer according to fossil records. What has hindered their evolution towards intelligence?
Because they fit nicely into their ecological niche. Sharks, dragonflies, and horseshoe crabs are amongst some of the oldest and almost unchanged animal species. They have not needed to change because they are very well suited to their environment. Species will not evolve much unless there is environmental pressure to do so.

In that case we have outgrown adaptation and begun to adapt ourselves artificially, learning, studying, researching - to counteract the inefficiacy of natural evolution.
Intelligence is an evolutionary adaptation that allows the species to adapt and react to the environment on an individual basis. This negates some of the environmental pressures upon that species evolution. To wit: Humans, through intelligence, can create protective clothing and shelter to protect themselves against adverse temperatures. Thus during the ice age man was able to build fires and shelter and wear clothing. If it were not for these skills the environment would have selected humans that were more physically capable of surviving cold weather (fatter, hairier, etc).

Wouldn't death be the first thing life would adapt out of?
Evolution is a function of genetics thus an individual only needs to survive long enough to reproduce. This explains why there are so many genetic disorders that do not develop until people reach advanced age... the trait gets passed along before it can get selected against.

~Raithere
 
Jenyar:

If religion is such a primitive need, made redundant by scienctific understanding, why haven't humanity outgrown it yet, and apes started to show signs of it?

Perhaps because not every member of society has a large enough understanding of science to see it as a viable alternative to religion. Religion gives answeres to important questions such as why we are here, and not everyone cares whether this answer is right or not. In their eyes, it's a better answer than "We don't know yet".
 
Did you know...

That this thread has a total of 1,492 replies so
far. Maybe it's just me but that sure seems like
a whole lotta replies. :eek:
 
Originally posted by croper
"Are there any signs of life that might evolve into apes or humans in a couple of billion years from now?"

Well the whole idea is that species evolve to match the environment. By now, most animals have adapted perfectly to their environments I'd guess. I know the environment is changing, but evolution is a slow process. And won't Earth be swallowed up by the sun in a few billion years anyway?

i sure dont want to talk to parrots anymore, you guys know who you are (xelios, raithere, frenchy)..

But I have a question for the evolutionist...it is common sense that things evolve, i can accept that, what I cant accept is that it exist by "luck"...but lets get passed that for now, im tired of pointing out facts but it cannot be seen...
My question is that if it is so true that we evolve from apes, such as homo-habilis, etc. why then dont I see a species of apes that are almost as intelligent as us? Why is it there are human species then straight down to monkeys, why didnt the gorillas evolve into us? because they are too strong? what about the chimps? because they are too small? Explain this for me....

note: Jenyar, you need to interview some biochemist and check how complex and detailed life form is...You are a man of little faith...they cannot even find cure for cancers, u actually think they can create life? It is much more easier for scientist to create cars from scratch out of using only hammer as instrument, than for them to create life forms and bring my grandpa back to life (or create him :D)....
The moment scientist can create life forms, is the moment I become atheist, thats how impossible it is...there is only one giver of Life, God alone...Again ask some biochemist, one biochemist said "a single cell is as complex as the city of san fransisco and more...." if they can create a whole city in few seconds (to keep it fresh) then the movie frankenstein is now for real ITS ALIVE!!! :D, IMPOSSIBLE....my re-search started when I heard God spoke to me, because my room mate was an atheist...There is a God, that is a fact in my life, i put as much faith to it as i have faith that i can walk...To others they only have faith...
 
Last edited:
Why is it there are human species then straight down to monkeys, why didnt the gorillas evolve into us? because they are too strong? what about the chimps? because they are too small? Explain this for me....

Chimps occupy a different niche where higher intelligence might not necessarily be an advantage. Evolution toward intelligence will only occur if it increases the offspring's chances of survival. Evolution does not automatically make things smarter and larger, it only does so if these traits are benficial.

My question is that if it is so true that we evolve from apes, such as homo-habilis, etc. why then dont I see a species of apes that are almost as intelligent as us?

Once upon a time you could have seen such a species of ape. It is theorised that some interbred with us and some died out because they couldn't compete with us. As a species we have pretty much cornered the intelligent ape market.
 
Originally posted by Voodoo Child
Chimps occupy a different niche where higher intelligence might not necessarily be an advantage. Evolution toward intelligence will only occur if it increases the offspring's chances of survival. Evolution does not automatically make things smarter and larger, it only does so if these traits are benficial.

I see what you mean, that's reasonable..


Originally posted by Voodoo Child

Once upon a time you could have seen such a species of ape. It is theorised that some interbred with us and some died out because they couldn't compete with us. As a species we have pretty much cornered the intelligent ape market.

Now this is unreasonable..this is where the error is...
There was "ONCE UPON A TIME" but they "mysteriously died" therefore any theories can be made up for it using our imagination, this theory is no better than the giant purple squid monkey claim....
 
<b>Jenyar</b>:

<i>So life started out unadapted to its environment, and had to adapt to survive? How could it have survived if it had not already adapted? Surely any environment that could exist would have been hostile to it in comparison?</i>

The original organisms (bacteria etc.) were obviously well- enough adapted to their environment to survive. However, many environmental niches were open for exploitation. Random change in the genome led to exploitation of new niches, as well as competition in existing niches. The process of natural selection led to further changes and speciation over time.

<i>The only conlcusion is that earth itself adapted to harbour life.</i>

It would be more accurate to say that life adapted the Earth. For example, our atmosphere would not have a 21% oxygen content if life did not exist.

<i>Is intelligence another adaptation for the sake of survival? Why then hasn't everything on earth - being subjected of an even longer period of evolution, like plants, developed even greater intelligence?</i>

Because there are other possible solutions to the problem of survival. Humans and, to a lesser extent, other animals, have exploited the intelligence niche. Other organisms have taken different routes.

<i>Mice are genetically almost identical to humans, and have existed for much longer according to fossil records. What has hindered their evolution towards intelligence?</i>

Chance and lack of competition in their niche.


<b>croper</b>:

<i>The mice... I'd guess at some stage, pockets of mice stopped evolving because they were perfectly adapted to their environments...</i>

Nothing is "perfectly adapted". Also, nothing has stopped evolving. As long as genetic drift continues, evolution continues.

<i>Now, a band of rogue mice that ventured into a an area with a lot of predators would have benefited from being faster, more powerful. So on average, the faster more powerful individuals did better than the others. Give it a million years, and hey presto - mice become rats.</i>

It's always a tradeoff. Becoming faster and more powerful might cause difficulties in other respects. For example, the larger you are, the more trouble you have fitting through small gaps. There is an environmental niche for small creatures and for larger ones.

<i>As humans we won't evolve because we don't need to adapt.</i>

Are you the same as your parents? Of course we're evolving.


<b>whatsupyall</b>:

<i>But I have a question for the evolutionist...it is common sense that things evolve, i can accept that, what I cant accept is that it exist by "luck"...</i>

You're forgetting <b>natural selection</b>, which has nothing to do with luck.

<i>My question is that if it is so true that we evolve from apes, such as homo-habilis, etc. why then dont I see a species of apes that are almost as intelligent as us?</i>

Because humans have out-competed other species in the same niche, and they are now extinct. Not so long ago, there were two human species: ours and Neantertals. We probably wiped them out.

<i>Why is it there are human species then straight down to monkeys, why didnt the gorillas evolve into us?</i>

What's this about "down to"? We aren't "higher up" than monkeys.

Gorillas and us evolved from a common ancestor. That's why they didn't evolve into us.

<i>what about the chimps?</i>

Same answer.

<i>The moment scientist can create life forms, is the moment I become atheist, thats how impossible it is...</i>

That day may be closer than you think. :)
 
Now this is unreasonable..this is where the error is...
There was "ONCE UPON A TIME" but they "mysteriously died" therefore any theories can be made up for it using our imagination, this theory is no better than the giant purple squid monkey claim....

It might be unreasonable, however, you should probably decide this after you have reviewed the evidence(or lack of).
 
Originally posted by James R


<b>whatsupyall</b>:

<i>But I have a question for the evolutionist...it is common sense that things evolve, i can accept that, what I cant accept is that it exist by "luck"...</i>

You're forgetting <b>natural selection</b>, which has nothing to do with luck..

Once again you didnt understand what i wrote, natural selection is a theory about the survival to the fittest which contains no evidence (I will clarify this later)...and thats not what I was talking about above. I am talking about the existence of life by "luck" or "chance", the first life forms...I have mentioned this millions of times, but your brain cant catch it, I just dont know why...


Originally posted by James R

<i>My question is that if it is so true that we evolve from apes, such as homo-habilis, etc. why then dont I see a species of apes that are almost as intelligent as us?</i>

Because humans have out-competed other species in the same niche, and they are now extinct. Not so long ago, there were two human species: ours and Neantertals. We probably wiped them out.

We have out competed them? we "PROBABLY" killed them all? why didnt we kill all chimps? shouldnt the chimps more likely to be killed since they are much more lesser intelligent than those closer to human intelligence? Why didnt we kill the gorillas? Your simply saying that we outcompeted them by "luck", am i right?


Originally posted by James R

<i>Why is it there are human species then straight down to monkeys, why didnt the gorillas evolve into us?</i>

What's this about "down to"? We aren't "higher up" than monkeys.

Gorillas and us evolved from a common ancestor. That's why they didn't evolve into us.

What? They didnt evolve into us because we have the same ancestors? What the heck...Explain, we became intelligent andd they didnt because we have the same parents? what the heck are you trying to tell me? explaim...



Originally posted by James R

<i>The moment scientist can create life forms, is the moment I become atheist, thats how impossible it is...</i>

That day may be closer than you think. :)

LOL, once again you have strong faith in human creatures book of revelation said when the beast came into power, they said "WHO CAN FIGHT AGAINST THE BEAST?" Like you, you have so much faith in human success, once again GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PSYCHIC PREDICTION, I ASSURE YOU YOUR FAITH WILL BE CRUSHED IN THE END...I guarantee that, your faith is going nowehere, YOUR HOPE IS GOING NOWHERE, THE WORLD WILL END FIRST BEFORE YOU FIND YOUR ANSWERS....
 
Total Posts: 1,501

muscleman 127
Frencheneesz 115
whatsupyall 111
MarcAC 97
Raithere 76
TruthSeeker 71
Cris 65
Avatar 63
Adam 62
Xelios 58
CounslerCoffee 57
inspector 52
Xev 48
(Q) 42
Jan Ardena 41
GB-GIL Trans-global 34
Neutrino_Albatross 29
VAKEMP 28
Voodoo Child 27
Tyler 19
Dark Master 15
DeSeRt RaT UK 14
Vienna 14
MRC_Hans 13
wesmorris 13
God Is Real 12
Jenyar 11
LIGHTBEING 10
EvilPoet 10
UltiTruth 10
wet1 9

Just click on the post number in the forum to see how many times someone has posted in it. Neat eh?
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by whatsupyall
My question is that if it is so true that we evolve from apes, such as homo-habilis, etc. why then dont I see a species of apes that are almost as intelligent as us? Why is it there are human species then straight down to monkeys
The gap is not as wide as you probably think it is. The primary distinction humans have over other animals is language and the ability to speak. Koko, a mountain gorilla, has been taught sign language. She has a vocabulary of over 1000 signs and understands over 2000 words of spoken English. In IQ tests she scores in the range of 70 - 95 points. The average human score is 100. As to the intelligence of other species, such as dolphins, it is much more difficult to make a determination as their physiology their environment and very likely their psychology is so radically different than ours.

As you can see, these "dumb" animals are not so dumb and the gap is not so wide as most people believe.

~Raithere
 
rait, yeah and she can paint and stuff..LOL, some so-called experts even described her painting as "a figment of her emotions", LOL, whatever...I say she painted because they gave her food if she does it, I dont know about her freaken so-called "intelligence like humans", I believe its all publicity and attention ($$$$)...
 
Originally posted by Raithere
Sure. Here's the quote from my post on 12/18: " Life is a system of interdependent processes that begins to break down if the process is halted... for us to create this from scratch we would have to have the ability to hold such a system together while we were building it."

What exactly are the processes?
At what stage does it become life?

Without evidence it is purely an assumption.

Apart from the fact you are being assumptive by stating that evidence would be needed, you have failed to answer my question which was: “but it could do….right?” :rolleyes:

I find it highly improbable and the assertion to be incredibly presumptuous.

You are being arrogant, you have no idea whether or not the supernatural exists, by your own indirect statement, how could you possibly know whether or not it is “highly improbable,” as you have never experience it.

Given an unsupported fantastical explanation and a plausible mundane explanation I find it much more reasonable and intelligent to choose the mundane explanation.

Your use of the terms mundane and fantastic, is ONLY your oppinion.

An entirely different meaning of the word life that that with which we are using here.

You mean which “you” are using here. ;)

But I could definitely be wrong or forgetting something, could you please give me a synopsis of what you are referring to?

As we have talked about the Gita before, and all your responses were attempted refutations, I must admit I do not have the energy at this moment, to explain it to you, but if you really are interested, look back through our conversations and bring up points, and I will gladly answer them. Or contribute to my other thread “vaishnava guru on christianity” where the mood and flavour is up and running.

The scientists of the west had hypothesized the existence of Sirius-B due to the wobble in 1844.

The claims of the Dogon tribe were facts, as it was later proved.

ost 100 years before Griaule studied the Dogon. Missionaries and explorers could definitely have related this information...

“Griaule's colleague and co-author, anthropologist Germaine Dieterlen, who had lived among the Dogon for most of her life, was asked by a reporter for BBC-TV's Horizon program whether the Dogon could have learned the Sirius information from other Europeans. She called the idea "absurd" and displayed a 400-year-old Dogon object that clearly indicated Sirius and its companion stars.”

visitors often used their astronomical knowledge to impress aboriginal peoples. Columbus, for instance, is known to have used his prediction of a lunar eclipse to impress the Carib people.

Of course that could be a possibility, but it would indicate that the Dogon tribe are liars, and I have no reason to believe that.

There is also the fact that many young men from French West Africa spent time in France during WW1 where they definitely could have been exposed to this knowledge and later related it the Dogon.

It would seem strange that young men at wartime would spend their time talking to a primitive tribe of people about a newly discovered star system.

Although perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I find that you accept fantastical propositions far more quickly than I find reasonable. I could be wrong but I do not see evidence of it in you posts.

As I said before, “fantastic” is relative, I do not find the idea of beings from other worlds fantastic in the least, in fact when I was younger I had an experience with what I later realised was not a human being, but that is another story. :p

Give these mundane facts the fantastic assumption that the information 'must' have come from visiting extraterrestrials becomes a rather absurd proposition.

It is only fantastic because we are ignorant of such things, I suppose to Dogon tribe a microwave oven is fantastic. To me there is nothing fantastic about extratarrestials.
I find the notion that young men in wartime would sit and discuss this whole thing with a tribe, and then for the elders of the tribe to turn it into a religion, fantastic.

I find it rather unlikely that some advanced civilization traveled many light-years across the galaxy to teach a tiny tribe in Africa that Sirius has a companion star.

No disrespect to you Raithere, but so what if you find it unlikely, what do you know? You are a skeptic, it your job to find things unlikely.
How do you know that the tribe and nommas are not connected through lineage.
You say travel many light-years as though it is some big effort because from your perspective it is a big effort, but maybe for the nommos, it is a simple journey.
You automatically use your own experience to judge every experience and what you cannot comprehend you basically dismiss. :(

One would think that such a civilization would have something quite a bit more important to relate to us primitive humans.

That is pure arrogance my friend. If you read about it you will realise that they taught them much more, in fact the dogon tribe are more excited about the sun and moon.

One must also wonder why, if extraterrestrials did indeed visit us once upon a time, why they have not continued their contact with us.

Who knows?
Probably the ones in the past were good and wanted to help some aspects of mankind, and the ones now are very naughty and want to keep mankind in the dark. :rolleyes:

Particularly when we are now, generally, would be so much more able to understand who and what they are and what they would have to say to us.

You mean after we got passed the “I’m a skeptic gimmie the evidence song and dance.”

Only the fact that there are explanations that are far more reasonable.

Again, a relative and personal statement.

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
whatsupyall:

<i>Once again you didnt understand what i wrote, natural selection is a theory about the survival to the fittest which contains no evidence...</i>

I have seen plenty of evidence.

<i>I am talking about the existence of life by "luck" or "chance", the first life forms...</i>

Again, it's not just luck. Chemicals can only combine in certain ways. For example, you can stick two oxygen atoms together and get a stable molecule. You can stick three together and get something less stable. Try to stick four together and it doesn't work.

<i>I have mentioned this millions of times, but your brain cant catch it, I just dont know why...</i>

Maybe I'm just stupid. Then again, maybe not.

<i>We have out competed them? we "PROBABLY" killed them all?</i>

Yes, probably. Scientists don't claim to know everything, unlike creationists. The current evidence points towards that conclusion.

<i>why didnt we kill all chimps? shouldnt the chimps more likely to be killed since they are much more lesser intelligent than those closer to human intelligence?</i>

Because chimps weren't competing for the same resources as Homo sapiens. Neandertal man was.

<i>Your simply saying that we outcompeted them by "luck", am i right?</i>

No. There are many more factors involved than that. You might like to do a bit of reading, if you're interested.

<i>What? They didnt evolve into us because we have the same ancestors? What the heck...</i>

Let me give you a comparable example. Let's say you have a sister. Your parents gave birth to both you and your sister, right? So, you descended from your parents. So, why didn't your sister "evolve" into you, or vice-versa? Answer: You sister is not your ancestor, and you are not your sister's ancestor.

In exactly the same way, no chimpanzee or gorilla was ever the ancestor of a human being. Chimps and humans are more like brother and sister than parent and child.

Get it now?

<i>Explain, we became intelligent andd they didnt because we have the same parents? what the heck are you trying to tell me? explaim...</i>

In a sense, we have the same parents, yes. There are many reasons we became more intelligent than other apes. Human problem-solving strategies were different. Humans were more nomadic. Humans probably at some time in their evolution moved from forests to savannahs. Greater intelligence resulted partly from our environment and partly by chance, but once the ball started rolling, intelligence turned out to be a good evolutionary strategy for human beings, which led to a snowball effect.

When reading the above, please don't focus on the chance aspect and ignore the rest. Chance is a relatively minor player.

<i>Like you, you have so much faith in human success, once again GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PSYCHIC PREDICTION, I ASSURE YOU YOUR FAITH WILL BE CRUSHED IN THE END...</i>

I don't know where you got that idea from. I haven't said anything about my faith or lack of it in human success. And I have made no predictions.

<i>I guarantee that, your faith is going nowehere, YOUR HOPE IS GOING NOWHERE, THE WORLD WILL END FIRST BEFORE YOU FIND YOUR ANSWERS...</i>

Answers to what?
When is the world going to end, and how?
 
Jan,

Raithere: Sure. Here's the quote from my post on 12/18: " Life is a system of interdependent processes that begins to break down if the process is halted... for us to create this from scratch we would have to have the ability to hold such a system together while we were building it."

Jan: <i>What exactly are the processes? At what stage does it become life?</i>

In an animal such as a human being, the blood must circulate to carry oxygen to the body. When it stops, cells die and the system starts breaking down. Surely you know this? Stop breathing and you die. It's not that hard.

<i>The claims of the Dogon tribe were facts, as it was later proved.</i>

Yes, but the Dogon statements were not of an uncommon type, and were rather non-specific. Tribal mythologies often include this type of thing.

<i>I do not find the idea of beings from other worlds fantastic in the least, in fact when I was younger I had an experience with what I later realised was not a human being, but that is another story. :p</i>

I don't find the idea of beings from other worlds fantastic either. I find the idea that they are currently or have ever in the past visited Earth fantastic.

Were you abducted, Jan? Do tell.

<i>You say travel many light-years as though it is some big effort because from your perspective it is a big effort, but maybe for the nommos, it is a simple journey.</i>

If that is the case, why aren't we being visited today?

(What's a nommo?)

<i>Probably the ones in the past were good and wanted to help some aspects of mankind, and the ones now are very naughty and want to keep mankind in the dark.</i>

That's a rather <i>ad hoc</i> rationalisation, don't you think?
 
Originally posted by James R


<i>I am talking about the existence of life by "luck" or "chance", the first life forms...</i>

Again, it's not just luck. Chemicals can only combine in certain ways. For example, you can stick two oxygen atoms together and get a stable molecule. You can stick three together and get something less stable. Try to stick four together and it doesn't work.

<

As i was saying a million times, science only researches things that already exist, but does not know how it exist to begin with......
 
Back
Top