which came first, the cow or the chicken?

[GeoffP]

we say: proof of god's existence are all of his creations, which are so complex to be done otherwise, besides, every creation needs a creator, you say

Why? Life can simply have evolved or developed on its one.

; no that's actually proof of your wrong and illogical idea of god, if everything needs a creator, then who created god?..we say; no one.. you laugh your asses on us.

Well...

and so now i have a reply.

why can't everything need a creator except the creator of it all... if all those who lay eggs have once hatched eccept that which laid the egg that hatched them all?

just re-read post#27 and down please.

This doesn't relate to an egg. An egg is laid from an animal capable of laying eggs.

 

[swarm]

To the second item... you're likely right.

There's no doubt on that. Being a hybrid leaves one with asymmetrical DNA, which is why hybrids have reproductive issues. It would be very easy to spot.

Currently the theory I'm favoring is that most changes aren't mutations at all, in fact that sort of thing is selected against. Instead change just a combination of environmental / opportunistic reinforcement of natural variation over time (like becoming smaller in an environment that favors smaller) and self selection within the group (like boobies who prefer blue feet splitting off and becoming blue footed boobies).

Thus most groups are mainly stable as long as there is no essential alteration to their environment. During these stable periods their population is high and outliers are averaged back in preventing drift from what is working.

But if the climate changes or they expand into a new area or there is a die off, then in that area the population is suddenly sparse and outliers are now a more significant percent of the population. If an outlier has a significant advantage it will cause drift in that direction and the expression of those genes will increase and speciation from the old stable condition occurs and a new balance point is struck.

In short, DNA is sophisticated self modifying program in which random change is almost never the case.

 

[scifes]

There is zero evidence that humans, the planet, etc. are created but there is lots of evidence that they are naturally caused.

i bet you can knock a mountain goat unconscious with your head.

zero, huh?

That's a subjective judgment. There is no such thing as "too complex" or "too non-complex" objectively.

why not?

There is no evidence a "creator" exists. There is evidence that everything is naturally caused.

i'm happy you said that, as you can see, that is not my point in this thread, my point is that god doesn't need to have a god, which is actually normal and approved by your own scientific logic. i'm not going to debate you if god has evidence or not here.

good job scifes, mission accomplished

 

[scifes]

Why? Life can simply have evolved or developed on its one.

"simply"?

yeah i see soda cans turn alive overnight.

but anyway.

if so, life can also simply be created by someone.

This doesn't relate to an egg. An egg is laid from an animal capable of laying eggs.

??
what do you mean?

 

[GeoffP]

"simply"?

yeah i see soda cans turn alive overnight.

Soda cans are alive? And it happens overnight?

That is kind of incredible. Heck, evolution normally takes millions and millions of years, tens of thousands of generations and trillions of individuals. What do you call this amazing new process?

but anyway.

if so, life can also simply be created by someone.

By what evidence?

??
what do you mean?

That your example is meaningless.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

i bet you can knock a mountain goat unconscious with your head.

Maybe.

zero, huh?

Zero.

why not?

Because "too complex" is a notion in your mind relative to your personal limitations. Reality doesn't have your limitations.

i'm happy you said that, as you can see, that is not my point in this thread, my point is that god doesn't need to have a god, which is actually normal and approved by your own scientific logic. i'm not going to debate you if god has evidence or not here.

good job scifes, mission accomplished

If your point is that a non-existent life form doesn't need to have a non-existent life form then I would agree. But it's kind of a silly point.

 

[scifes]

ah, ok, i can see this is the end of any reasonable argument with you two.:m:

this thread will be my proved answer from now on to anyone who demands god has to have a god.

 

[GeoffP]

Sure. "Proven" in the sense of I think so and can't dredge up a shred of evidence to justify my opinion proven.

 

[scifes]

exactly

now lets troll away in some other place, shall we?

 

[PieAreSquared]

damn...just when I get here you ask trolls to leave

 

[scifes]

hey at least you'll be having company

 

[GeoffP]

exactly

now lets troll away in some other place, shall we?

:shrug: You started it.

I will certainly miss your roundabout hitting on me on my visitor page, though. The axe doesn't swing that way.