plaetton:

This is very interesting indeed.
I can't stop laughing.

At your own arrogant ignorance, obviously.

You want to run away from your own posers, because, like you have just hinted, it would take a million pages of explanation to drive home the point?.

If that is what you got from this statement - - - >

Deep Sight:

Sometimes I do wish to write epistles explaining such simple things and why they are problems: however I must say that I am often discouraged by the knowledge from experience that even 1 million pages of explanations will fall on determinedly and willfully deaf ears.

- - -> Then you need to urgently refund your school fees to your parents, or whoever else you have short-changed by having them pay for your (mis)education.

And yet this is what you came here to ask NL atheist to do for you?

Your fear is noted: after your catastrophic first attempt, it is quite understandable.

What a guy you are!
Unbelievable!.

What is quite unbelievable is that this is the sort of village-clown response that you mustered to a post that asked these key questions - - >

Deep Sight:

This is cardinal because entire theories, which people like you endorse as inviolable truth, are founded on statements like this; which scientists then eternally use as the explanation for everything else:

Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction

Just take a look at that statement in quote just above from the link I placed below it. That statement is the fundamental assumption on which ALL of this is built: explanations of how the reproduction occurs are then contrived (many different theories, including your nonsense on polarity -which by the way does not appear among any serious studies as an explanation or option) - and based on that fundamental assumption, which is taken for granted, stories are built.

This is why I began my posers with the very simple - even simplistic question - as to why living things are self replicating at all. Scientific explanations are all hinged on the assumption of this need: and they never - absolutely never - say anything on why this need is there: and what makes living things have this need in the first place.

So that is the village-clown sort of response you contrived to such lucid questions. And you wish to be taken seriously? I have told you before that your name has fast become synonymous with LB, Mr Troll, and such other unserious and frankly d.aft elements. But no matter, I don't expect you to post based on anyone's opinion of you, least of all mine. I certainly wouldn't.

It is beyond belief that your revert is to ask of me answers to my own posers. My dear, the posers are for you and your ilk. There are reasons why I do not give the posers to religious theists who believe in evolution - clearly, because they hold a belief with which one stroke would nullify the posers - namely, they believe in Intelligent and Purposeful Design. It is therefore useless for me to give such people the posers to answer. It is arrogant nit-wits like you and your co-travelers that should answer the posers. Simple.

@Deepsight

I'm starting too see there's no reason at all for the posers and the thread itself.

Why keep asking or ask for answers to the posers at all when you know within yourself there are no consensus and the posers are still disputed even within scientific circles.

Why are you asking for what you know no one has answers to?

I can as well spend a few minutes on google, look for grey and dark areas in science which are still widely disputed amongst scientists, construct posers around them and ask you for answers.

I hope you realise that will be synonymous to what you did with the thread and your constant demands for answers to the posers.

Deep Sight:
At your own arrogant ignorance, obviously.
If that is what you got from this statement - - - >
- - -> Then you need to urgently refund your school fees to your parents, or whoever else you have short-changed by having them pay for your (mis)education.
Your fear is noted: after your catastrophic first attempt, it is quite understandable.
What is quite unbelievable is that this is the sort of village-clown response that you mustered to a post that asked these key questions - - >
So that is the village-clown sort of response you contrived to such lucid questions. And you wish to be taken seriously? I have told you before that your name has fast become synonymous with LB, Mr Troll, and such other unserious and frankly d.aft elements. But no matter, I don't expect you to post based on anyone's opinion of you, least of all mine. I certainly wouldn't.
It is beyond belief that your revert is to ask of me answers to my own posers. My dear, the posers are for you and your ilk. There are reasons why I do not give the posers to religious theists who believe in evolution - clearly, because they hold a belief with which one stroke would nullify the posers - namely, they believe in Intelligent and Purposeful Design. It is therefore useless for me to give such people the posers to answer. It is arrogant nit-wits like you and your co-travelers that should answer the posers. Simple.

Erm, is this what you're whinning about this week? How has it not been addressed?

rationalmind: @Deepsight

I'm starting too see there's no reason at all for the posers and the thread itself.

You are wrong, as I will show you.

Why keep asking or ask for answers to the posers at all when you know within yourself there are no consensus and the posers are still disputed even within scientific circles.

To make people see the truth (my point of view and my argument, anyway) that based on the very principles of the Theory of Evolution, these phenomena are outside the purview of the Theory of Evolution.

And thus to set the basis for open discussion based on the recognition that other than evolution, other factors are necessarily at play. This is the basis for my belief in evolution even while I consistently point out that it cannot sufficiently explain the origin and development of species.

Why are you asking for what you know no one has answers to?

It is possible to have answers if one does not adopt the very closed minded attitude aptly summarized by Joshthefirst when he wrote:

"Evolution of the gaps: we don't know the answer, but evolution is true and perfect, and the answer must be connected to evolution.
Evolutiondidit"

Regardless of what you think about Josh's views, the above is perfectly apt and really shows up the atheists here as being exactly as dogmatic and closed minded as they claim the worst religionists are.

I can as well spend a few minutes on google, look for grey and dark areas in science which are still widely disputed amongst scientists, construct posers around them and ask you for answers.

I hope you realise that will be synonymous to what you did with the thread and your constant demands for answers to the posers.

Well that was not the case with me. I actually thought these posers up myself and wrote them out. I did not "search" for any area with divergent scientific views just to then post and "discredit" science, no way, what would be the purpose of that.

And as I thought, and as I wrote, I read about further and discovered that this is already a raging controversy for a long time. That pleased me because it showed that I was not asking myself si.lly questions, but was asking valid scientific questions.

And as you know, this is not the first time I have brought this question up. I brought it up also as one of 12 other posers I set out regarding evolution on another thread several months ago. Surely you are aware of that.

As I have said above: my purpose is to open minds to the clear possibility that I see that evolution does not answer these issues as well as many others - and may never answer them simply because they are not matters for the Theory of Evolution by natural selection and mutations as enunciated and developed.

I hope this clarifies.

Deep Sight:

@ the bold - I have not said in any way that the basic underpinnings of the The Theory of Evolution have been invalidated. Indeed, if that were the case, I would outrightly declare that I wholly reject the theory. In contrast, I have said like a broken record that I subscribe to the Theory.

Therefore why do you insist on repeatedly writing such gibberish as this? Is it because you have nothing else to write? Or is it because the nonsense you wrote as your proposition has been exposed for what it is?

PS: In fact, to be clear, rather than argue that the basic underpinnings of the Theory of Evolution have been invalidated, this is what I said ->



In short, that the ToE principles do not apply to these phenomena, and thus do not explain these phenomena. And so, other factors must.

Having reviewed that, tell me, why on earth will you deliberately and consistently misrepresent what I have been saying. So you may have a laugh?

Be serious.

See how this guy speaks with both sides of his mouth?

First the theory of evolution is flawed because of mammry glands and sexual reproduction....but now the theory of evolution is not affected by them....


Furthermore, the scientists have theories and hypothesis for the evolution of mammary glands and seexual reproduction....one of which could be right...so to say that evolution doesn't explain the phenomena is outrightly ridiculous because that would mean that you have actually rule out the possiblity out of ignorance

Logicboy03:


See how this guy speaks with both sides of his mouth?

First the theory of evolution is flawed because of mammry glands and sexual reproduction....but now the theory of evolution is not affected by them....


Furthermore, the scientists have theories and hypothesis for the evolution of mammary glands and seexual reproduction....one of which could be right...so to say that evolution doesn't explain the phenomena is outrightly ridiculous because that would mean that you have actually rule out the possiblity out of ignorance

wiegraf:



Erm, is this what you're whinning about this week? How has it not been addressed?

Lol. This is actually funny. Not funny-ha-ha.

Funny-Cuckoo.

Deep Sight:

You are wrong, as I will show you.



To make people see the truth (my point of view and my argument, anyway) that based on the very principles of the Theory of Evolution, these phenomena are outside the purview of the Theory of Evolution.

And thus to set the basis for open discussion based on the recognition that other than evolution, other factors are necessarily at play. This is the basis for my belief in evolution even while I consistently point out that it cannot sufficiently explain the origin and development of species.



It is possible to have answers if one does not adopt the very closed minded attitude aptly summarized by Joshthefirst when he wrote:

"Evolution of the gaps: we don't know the answer, but evolution is true and perfect, and the answer must be connected to evolution.
Evolutiondidit"

Regardless of what you think about Josh's views, the above is perfectly apt and really shows up the atheists here as being exactly as dogmatic and closed minded as they claim the worst religionists are.



Well that was not the case with me. I actually thought these posers up myself and wrote them out. I did not "search" for any area with divergent scientific views just to then post and "discredit" science, no way, what would be the purpose of that.

And as I thought, and as I wrote, I read about further and discovered that this is already a raging controversy for a long time. That pleased me because it showed that I was not asking myself si.lly questions, but was asking valid scientific questions.

And as you know, this is not the first time I have brought this question up. I brought it up also as one of 12 other posers I set out regarding evolution on another thread several months ago. Surely you are aware of that.

As I have said above: my purpose is to open minds to the clear possibility that I see that evolution does not answer these issues as well as many others - and may never answer them simply because they are not matters for the Theory of Evolution by natural selection and mutations as enunciated and developed.

I hope this clarifies.

Just look at the liar!! In the last paragraph, he claims that he didn't look for areas unknown in evolution on the internet......he just thought of the problems and by coincidence, they were already problems that scientists were struggling with!!!

Sorry, Deepsight but are you a biologist? How would you know to look for problems in the evolution of the mammary glands? Why not the brain or the pancreas? Or the lungs?


Guy, you keep exposing your dishonesty

Deep Sight:

You are wrong, as I will show you.



To make people see the truth (my point of view and my argument, anyway) that based on the very principles of the Theory of Evolution, these phenomena are outside the purview of the Theory of Evolution.

And thus to set the basis for open discussion based on the recognition that other than evolution, other factors are necessarily at play. This is the basis for my belief in evolution even while I consistently point out that it cannot sufficiently explain the origin and development of species.



It is possible to have answers if one does not adopt the very closed minded attitude aptly summarized by Joshthefirst when he wrote:

"Evolution of the gaps: we don't know the answer, but evolution is true and perfect, and the answer must be connected to evolution.
Evolutiondidit"

Regardless of what you think about Josh's views, the above is perfectly apt and really shows up the atheists here as being exactly as dogmatic and closed minded as they claim the worst religionists are.



Well that was not the case with me. I actually thought these posers up myself and wrote them out. I did not "search" for any area with divergent scientific views just to then post and "discredit" science, no way, what would be the purpose of that.

And as I thought, and as I wrote, I read about further and discovered that this is already a raging controversy for a long time. That pleased me because it showed that I was not asking myself si.lly questions, but was asking valid scientific questions.

As I have said above: my purpose is to open minds to the clear possibility that I see that evolution does not answer these issues as well as many others - and may never answer them simply because they are not matters for the Theory of Evolution by natural selection and mutations as enunciated and developed.

I hope this clarifies.

I hope you realise your answer can be summarised with this statement which I believe you should see the problems in.

#in deepsights voice#

"Hey biologists, stop wasting your time researching and looking for answers, evolution can not and will never account for se.xual reproduction"


If scientists had always employed this mode of thinking, it won't be difficult to see we might most likely still remain in the stone age.

Logicboy03:



Just look at the liar!! In the last paragraph, he claims that he didn't look for areas unknown in evolution on the internet......he just thought of the problems and by coincidence, they were already problems that scientists were struggling with!!!

Sorry, Deepsight but are you a biologist? How would you know to look for problems in the evolution of the mammary glands? Why not the brain or the pancreas? Or the lungs?


Guy, you keep exposing your dishonesty

I don't know what drives your desperation.

I was referring to the 12 posers I created - because I did not ask questions in the OP.

As you may recall, I also raised this same question months ago in my thread on Evolution and the Big-Bang. I didn't go searching anywhere to raise the questions then, either.

rationalmind:

I hope you realise your answer can be summarised with this statement which I believe you should see the problems in.

#in deepsights voice#

"Hey biologists, stop wasting your time researching and looking for answers, evolution can not and will never account for sexual reproduction"


If scientists had always employed this mode of thinking, it won't be difficult to see we might most likely still remain in the stone age.

Oh no, you are wrong: rather it is a call to open-mindedly look in other directions as well.

What is currently going on amounts to determinedly insisting that the answer MUST only be found under one theory, and for this reason, refusing to attempt any other possible answers.

That is surely a most dogmatic and unscientific approach to problem solving, you surely must agree?

Deep Sight:

Oh no, you are wrong: rather it is a call to open-mindedly look in other directions as well.

What is currently going on amounts to determinedly insisting that the answer MUST only be found under one theory, and for this reason, refusing to attempt any other possible answers.

That is surely a most dogmatic and unscientific approach to problem solving, you surely must agree?

For all animals that we know of

All animals evolved.
All body parts evolved.


How is evolution not going to expalin the evolution of the mammary glands?

You mistake unchangable logic for dogmatic scientism. This is your silly folly

Deep Sight:

Oh no, you are wrong: rather it is a call to open-mindedly look in other directions as well.

What is currently going on amounts to determinedly insisting that the answer MUST only be found under one theory, and for this reason, refusing to attempt any other possible answers.

That is surely a most dogmatic and unscientific approach to problem solving, you surely must agree?

Anyway, I can only speak for myself.

I'm ready to look in any other direction as long as it is not "god did it" which of course answers nothing

You might still call that dogmatic but I wouldn't bother much.

Deepsight fails to understand that it is not a question of if the body systems evolved...it is a question of how. Scientists aint questioning if the systems evolved...they are puzzled on how it evolved

rationalmind:

Anyway, I can only speak for myself.

I'm ready to look in any other direction as long as it is not "god did it" which of course answers nothing

You might still call that dogmatic but I wouldn't bother much.

Of course that is very closed minded and dogmatic. And the reason you would not bother is because it makes you feel cool and fly - funky and new age - to close your mind to that option. It makes you feel fly among your friends who all think its a sign of enlightenment.

You may not admit that that is the reason, but I tell you, it is.

What would be genuinely open minded would be to sit down squarely and have a genuine examination of the philosophical and logical basis for the claims on the existence of the spiritual, and extrapolate from thence into logical arguments for and against the existence of a causative intelligent designer.

Let us not render ourselves foolish simply by seeing evidently designed elements - excessively advanced and stupendous even in biotechnology - and stubbornly insisting that WE WILL NEVER consider the possibility of a designer - - - just so we can feel fly among our friends.

Such is f.oolishness.

Rationalmind should learn to be truly rational and think outside the box, irrespective of his feelings. He should break free from his indoctrination. If he really wants to be very honest in his observance of the world, as a scientist should be.

Logicboy03: Deepsight fails to understand that it is not a question of if the body systems evolved...it is a question of how. Scientists aint questioning if the systems evolved...they are puzzled on how it evolved

Oh Sharrap!

It evolves and gives you a protruding pen.is and evolved and gave the woman a dept intruded vagina for the pen.is to enter.

Is not this "evolution" so so very very intelligent ? Smh. Thats not even all.

The books have not yet been open on this yet, yet still, my spine chills.

Well, every body cannot be like you.

Your fears are not contagious to all, but withing your circle.

The fear is so obvious that it is tangible to touch from here.

truthislight:

The fear is so obvious that it is tangible to touch from here.

Exactly. This is so so so so TRUE.

Especially of Plaeton.

Thinking about it, I came to recognize that the spectre of something like GOD, with all its transcendent and other-worldly implications, is genuinely frightening for many people (even for me!) and this pushes many people to rebel fanatically against it's existence as a result of desperate existential FEAR.

But in so doing, they fail to see that they actually rebel against their own existence.

Human spirits they are, and human spirits they will always be.

I came to this genuine recognition - of FEAR!

Joshthefirst:


Rationalmind should learn to be truly rational and think outside the box, irrespective of his feelings. He should break free from his indoctrination. If he really wants to be very honest in his observance of the world, as a scientist should be.

that awkward moment when Josh talks about thinking outside the box .

Did the bible not tell you to remove the mote in your own eyes?

@ deepsight,

You gloriously misunderstand me and project some abstract thoughts on me. What makes you feel the reason I won't accept "god did it" is so I can feel fly or enlightened?

The reason I will not accept "god did it" is because the question of "how" can not be answered.

The question of "how" needs to be answered so we can simulate it in a lab or perhaps another planet and be sure he truly did it.

Until the question of "how" he did it can be answered, I will never accept "god did it" for an answer.

Like I did say, you might consider it dogmatic n I wouldn't care much.

I just had to clear the misconception you had on my reason for not accepting "god did it"

Deep Sight:

Exactly. This is so so so so TRUE.

Especially of Plaeton.

Thinking about it, I came to recognize that the spectre of something like GOD, with all its transcendent and other-worldly implications, is genuinely frightening for many people (even for me!) and this pushes many people to rebel fanatically against it's existence as a result of desperate existential FEAR.

But in so doing, they fail to see that they actually rebel against their own existence.

Human spirits they are, and human spirits they will always be.

I came to this genuine recognition - of FEAR!

^^^

Well, we cannot all keep on allowing and prefering to stick our heads into the sand due to the obviouse that we wish to avoid, should we ?

Is that ^ rational ?

There comes a time we should tell ourselves the truth, the home truth i think.

Deep Sight:

Oh no, you are wrong: rather it is a call to open-mindedly look in other directions as well.

What is currently going on amounts to determinedly insisting that the answer MUST only be found under one theory, and for this reason, refusing to attempt any other possible answers.

That is surely a most dogmatic and unscientific approach to problem solving, you surely must agree?

And what other possible answers or theories have you advanced so far that does not include magic and the hokus pokus of invisible, infinite, eternal skydaddy?

That is the point. If you have an alternate scientific, I repeat ,scientific theory that addresses the issues, then please please advance it for the sake of humanity.
Please.

^^^^

Asking science to abandon or suspend the scientific method just we can accommodate the magic tricks of your invisible skydaddy is very very silly, especially coming from someone like you.

Edited my response @deepsight. You can check it three posts(I think) above this

Logicboy03:


For all animals that we know of

All animals evolved.
All body parts evolved.


How is evolution not going to expalin the evolution of the mammary glands?

You mistake unchangable logic for dogmatic scientism. This is your silly folly

Deepsight, answer naa?

For off, why does life need to replicate? Well, wouldnt that be obvious? This question reeks of shortsightedness with regards to the implications of evolution/abiogenesis, or evem the fact that matter is in a constant flux. And it actually is a poser to ID proponents, not the other way round...

Two lights are beamed, one makes I through a hole un a wall, the other does not. N
ow, let
's grant the light beam consciousness mid flight. When it starts to ponder on reality, it might look back and say wow, just who is responsible for this? Incredible, it happened to have the correct trajectory to scale through the wall. It just about had the correct frequency to remain whole as well! As it gains emotions etc it begins to focus on the rewards, eg; it just missed an asteroid by a second, that was close, it had just the right length to avoid the right speed needed to escape that. Excellent, now I'm happy, something must be rooting for me, something wants me to feel joy, designing me for this purpose. To live and experience.

No, it was just a beam of light emitted by a star that got lucky (well, not like the other particles care, as they aren't conscious, but the particle wouldn't note that). In its bias though it wouldnt notice myriad issues, eg, why was the wall there in the first place? If it were designed purposely, should it not have been granted the ability to change speed, or switch direction, why van it exist only within a very short, exacting frequency, etc etc. Same way ds focuses only what confirms his bias bit ignored obvious flaws. Eg, gender put about intelligently and purposely, yet the reproductive system is so badly put together it is responsible for the more human deaths than any other factor. Are there really not amy much, MUCH more efficient designs for that? Or exactly why the need for gender in the first place, why can't we pick? There are species that are asexual, no? We walk around assuming it has to be so, or its best because our brains are wired to think so, in other words, simply because of our bias...

And of course we now come to why the need to live. Obvious. The particles wired with the need to live, live. They are the ones that go on to survive as clearly the other particles arent alive. And those alive that do not have the 'will' to live obviously, and again, die out.

Evolution is very, very simple at its core. Now, note here ds will miss issues with immortality. Most beings I know of would lobe to be able to live indeterminably, to decide on when to kick the bucket themselves, should they even choose to. And there ate species that are note or else immortal, it is far from impossible. Indeed many see this as a great measly humans will achieve before the turn of the next century, so, why did these intelligences not bother with that?

In fact, just what exactly was their purpose, as they've done a real terrible job if we were the purpose. Egregious. And why the mystery, why the hiding?

Questions like these are what id proponents should be answering when the claim am intelligent will is behind this

Edits later. This phone is horrid as far as posting is concerned.

And as for evolutiondidit, Lol, no. That's really silly. Evidence for the theory is gargantuan, across many fields its been tested and its predictions confirmed, etc. Yet they should fold their arms and just Godidit when they approach a snag. Err, which skydaddy and exactly how did it come about? It didn't evolve? It just is? And is hiding somewhere? Really

Going with the evidence. A plethora of that for evolution. It exists, it is real. Skydaddy? No. Not so much

wiegraf: And as for evolutiondidit, Lol, no. That's really silly. Evidence for the theory is gargantuan, across many fields its been tested and its predictions confirmed, etc.

this is where you're wrong of course, unless I misunderstand you. The only evidence we have are for adaptation and speciation. That's the only testable and predictable evidence we have. The rest are just mere speculations that takes too many lifetimes to test or confirm. Supposedly.

wiegraf: Yet they should fold their arms and just Godidit when they approach a snag. Err, which skydaddy and exactly how did it come about? It didn't evolve? It just is? And is hiding somewhere? Really

this is the kind of thinking that worries me. So realizing that some things have purpose and discarding of the mentality of non-directed randomness will rob us of all intellect and science? Really? It is your faulty thinking borne of insecurity that has caused you to make this foolish assumption. So we can not still study and try to understand the nature of our universe without appreciating its design? We cannot still make a subject then of intelligent design in the children's philosophy classes? You think acknowledging of a purpose to this universe will yield us ignorant? You are ill-informed. Acknowledging of a purpose to this universe will fuel our intellectual prowess and our appreciation of nature and our curiosity.

I am a christian, so I will give an example from the bible: in the book of beginnings, the creator did not gift man with total knowledge of the universe after his creation. He set man free to dominate, he gave man a purpose. Even in this corrupt world, man's purpose still fuels his curiosity and his will to dominate. His thinking. Don't be stu.pid just because of your lack of enthusiasm for an intelligent designer.

wiegraf: Going with the evidence. A plethora of that for evolution. It exists, it is real. Skydaddy? No. Not so much

yes actually, the purpose is enough to imply him. You just choose to ignore. Change and diversity of organisms is real. Change of kind is a stjupid speculation. I still stand by that.


But I will tell you one thing. As a Christian, I do not only have spiritual hope, I have intellectual hope as well. Because we believe that in the world to come, we will be free to dominate and understand and satisfy our endless God-given curiosity without having to deal much with the pain of death and corruption and anger and hatred of human beings. Our corrupt nature will be dealt with. It will be endless life filled with the love of this creator and dominating of the new local earth he has given us.

Joshthefirst: this is where you're wrong of course, unless I misunderstand you. The only evidence we have are for adaptation and speciation. That's the only testable and predictable evidence we have. The rest are just mere speculations that takes too many lifetimes to test or confirm. Supposedly.

.

LYING FOR JESUS!!!

So Joshthefirst doesnt realise that speciation is evolution? How did humans and monkeys split from the same ancestors if not speciation?


This guy is a dishonest kpeff

Logicboy03:


LYING FOR JESUS!!!

So Joshthefirst doesnt realise that speciation is evolution? How did humans and monkeys split from the same ancestors if not speciation?


This guy is a dishonest kpeff

I have showed my position on other threads. There is no evidence that we share ancestral origin with monkeys. No scientific evidence, just speculation. Guessing. It is foolish to say we share common ancestors with an ape.




And I hope this is not the only thing you got from my post.

Joshthefirst: I have showed my position on other threads. There is no evidence that we share ancestral origin with monkeys. No scientific evidence, just speculation. Guessing. It is foolish to say we share common ancestors with an ape.




And I hope this is not the only thing you got from my post.

You said that you accept evidence for speciation but not evolution





This is the most foolish thing that I have ever heard in my life


Congrats

Logicboy03:


You said that you accept evidence for speciation but not evolution





This is the most foolish thing that I have ever heard in my life


Congrats

look who's calling me foolish. The guy who claims a bonobo as a distant relative and an ape like ancestor.