₦airaland Forum

Mariangeles:
Don't be ridiculous...

How ?

Man2utd:
Please don't start this.

Why ?

Am a Jesus believer and I feel like answering Atheists questions today.

frank317:
Whats the bible answer to this question?

If mans chest was rough would u ask why is was not smooth?

Pls let us know why yahweh made mans chest smooth. U claim to have access to the creator

The Bible's answer is that GOD CREATED EVERYTHING OMNISCIENTLY!

frank317:
Nope

Good!
I know you would be searching for an answer, please update us when you get one!
Thanks for your honesty.

Tollzara:
You obviously do not understand my post, and I'm not the type that likes repeating himself. If you can't comprehend what I said, then I'm too elitist to discuss anything with you. Sorry.

Run away tactics........
I know you didn't have anything to bring to the table when you wrote plenty without addressing the question.

frank317:
Of course i wonder how we came to be...

Do you have answer answer yet ?

DeSepiero:
Perhaps you don't understand; atheists are often logical enough to avoid making bold assertions on things they're not sure of. That's arrogance.
By the way, why do you ask atheists questions that are befitting of a professor of evolutionary biology.

So you guys are humble today to not beat your chest against what you're not sure of?

Since you're not sure about the existence of God, why do you arrogantly claim there's no God ?

Am still awe at how nobody could answer the OP's question and my greatest suprise is how so many atheist are denouncing evolution and science today.
You guys are just so funny!

frank317:
One cant help wonder how these people reason. He called out atheists by asking them questions for biologists and evolutionists.

In their world, once u have no faith to believe in the exstence of an unproven being, u have automatically became a world renown scientist.

If you don't believe in deity and science then what did you believe and if you believe nothing then you're just a careless being and definitely the question is not for you!!! and personal I feel you believe in something but you're just afraid to stand for it.

Tollzara:
All these nincompoops whose brain cells have been mercilessly deformed by cold-blooded bible worms.

Does being an atheist make one an evolutionary biologist?

This is a question for biologists, not atheists. And I for one am not informed enough to pontificate carelessly on such topic.

Anyways, evolution is the central theme of Biology, has made sense of a lot of observations as pertaining to life and its processes, and is the theory that offers the best and most all-encompassing explanation for how life has come to be what it is today. It has explained a lot. [color=darkgreen]That there are several details we're still ignorant of[/color] doesn't in anyway discredit or refute the theory.

OP, if you're so interested in this particular question, you can carry out some research and help provide the answer. Become an evolutionary biologist and contribute your own portion to the bulk of human knowledge.

Take note, however, that [color=darkblue]the answer to this question would have no bearing on my atheism[/color], because I was already an atheist before accepting evolution as FACT. And I'm quite certain the same is true for a lot of other atheists. Yes, I'm telling you how irrelevant the question is to atheism.

The OP only made his observations known that atheist run away from his questions and you guys are doing exactly what he/she said.
All these your plenty essay doesn't answer his questions, you're just blabbing....... he/she didn't ask why and when you became an atheist and he/she just felt any normal human being should be curious about his existence, If you don't believe in deity and also accepts not evolution, then it means you care not about your existence and the question is definitely not for you.

frank317:
One cant help wonder how these people reason. He called out atheists by asking them questions for biologists and evolutionists.

In their world, once u have no faith to believe in the exstence of an unproven being, u have automatically became a world renown scientist.

If you claimed to be an athiest that doesn't accept evolution theory, can I conclude that you don't care about how you came into being ?

CoolUsername:
Have you even been listening to me?? In my very first post (the same one you said was off-topic) I gave the advantages of sex, elsewhere in this thread I linked some studies that show why sex is so commonplace across species. What's wrong with you, man?

I don't think I should waste my time arguing with someone who doesn't even know that mangos don't evolve.

Your knowledge of this subject is so little and so beneath mine that you can't appreciate or understand my points. Go read a book, man.

You're so funny and ultimately lack simple comprehension, I only sighted an example using mangoes, I could have used Biro, pencil, dog, goat or whatever thing I like.....
A self acclaimed intelligent guy that cannot comprehend simple illustration, am sure you have a different definition of intelligence.

And who told you plants (mango as example) didn't evolve according to evolutionists ?

CoolUsername:
@bolded

That is a straight up lie. There are tonnes of evidence of natural selection

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloration_evidence_for_natural_selection?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C7308172156

2. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

You've starting resorting to lying because you can't keep up with my intelligence.

GTFO

Your intelligence ?

So deviating from questions means you're intelligent ?

Please could you take a look at the questions once again and look at you answers, then grade yourself ?


How exactly did we arrive at two separate genders, each with its own physiology?

Why sex?

Is sex the product of a historical accident or the product of an intelligent Creator?

I can't believe the OP is right about Athiest desisting from questions like this; Just imagine we have few Athiest here and the ones here are just telling us the end instead of what initiated the beginning of the end.

CoolUsername:
You keep asking these because you misunderstand natural selection. All these traits evolve to facilitate sexual reproduction. The motile gamete (sperm) evolved to transfer genetic information while ovum evolved to select the most competitive genes (fastest swimmer). The male produces the sperm while the female produces the ova.

Sexual differentiation occurs for the same reason, male peacocks have bright feathers to show females how competitive their genes are, all for that sweet sweet poon.

Women's skeletal structure leaves them with a wider pelvic girdle and sacrifices a great deal of upper body strength in order to facilitate the growth of a foetus, all to pass their genes on.

The most competitive genes get passed to the next generation, that is what natural selection is. Sex, reproduction, every trait, even human civilization can be explained in the context of natural selection.

It's impossible to know when the first sperm cell evolved but comparative analysis, paleontology, and experimentation can create a timeline of events that makes sense when explained in the context of natural selection.

Boss, are you intentionally doing this ?
Does that men, The womb, breasts, virginal and other reproduction related organs.... were not present at the same time in women?
Like, Women first evolved to have bigger breast than men, then the waited for millions of years before they evolved to have virginal then they waited for millions of years to have womb........?

WHAT MADE THEM TO HAVE SUCH SKELETON AND MEN DOESN'T ?
Please don't tell me because they have to carry babies.


Let say you have 2 mangoes with same properties,
If you put them in the same environment for 5 days, would they have different reactions to the environment ?

If Yes, why ?

Beautiful!

CoolUsername:
It's rather simple, the BIG question OP asked is the origin of sexual reproduction and sex. Once sexual reproduction and its purpose are ascertained, the other things are more like fluff because they are just the specialized mechanisms for efficient sexual reproduction. So,gametes, sex organs, intercourse, are tools which have been selected overtime to facilitate that same gene transfer I talked about in unicellular organisms but adapted for multicellular organisms.

If you ask about the evolution of the human eye, I'll have to start with the most primitive forms of sight before I show you the progression from that to the modern human eye. That's because once you understand the necessity of sight to survival along with natural selection, then you'll see that the human eye is just a specialized tool for animals that evolved under the conditions we did.

Saying that it occurred by accident is a bit inaccurate because while chance is evolved, these processes have been refined over generations for millions of years.

Can you see you're just concentrating on only one aspect of a whale-like (Very big) question ?

The intelligent arrangement of chromosomes, The physiological differences between the genders, the reproductive organs....... How people in the same environment under the same influence of everything suddenly have different physiological developments.
What created Penis and made it compatible with virginal.....
and why does female has womb and menstruate and male doesn't, who created it that way.....
What created breast and makes it milky at a point just to serve as food to another organism.......

Why don't you answer those questions?

CoolUsername:
You obviously didn't understand what I wrote. I detailed similar processes to sexual reproduction that existed before it.

If you know anything about the subject at all, you'll see how that fact shows that gametes in sexual reproduction are just a relatively modern vehicle for gene transfer.

I didn't say what you're saying is not correct, it's correct but it didn't answer the question.

Allow me to give you an example:
In one of our tests back in secondary school, our biology teacher told us to draw and label plant cell, a colleague drew and label animal cell perfectly.
The teacher gave him 1/10 for the neat job and perfect labels, the same I did to you.

No matter how good your answer is, it just didn't answer the questions.

Go back and read the OP's question about the physiology (Virginal, Penis, breast, womb....) of the gender and the intelligence in chromosome distribution and then the reproduction itself; Do you think an unintelligent nature or nothing just came up with something so brilliant, HOW ?

Who built the penis and why used those tissues instead of bones and it can fit only into the virginal, same applicable to building of breast?

Why do the offsprings feed on breast milk and why the breast milk in the first place ?

I can see some high level of intelligence and I would be happy if you can help provide some answers.

Have you seen the crossbreed of Tiger and Lion, Donkey and Zebra, Horse and Zebra...... Why don't they last, why do they have several health issues and die in no time ?
Am not saying they cannot be improved to last longer but definitely it won't come from nature and we are sure the early man wasn't scientifically oriented.

*modified

CoolUsername:
Sexual reproduction helps to improve variation of genes in organisms, it also reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations.

There are unicellular organisms that practice conjugation without any need for an embryo or eggs. While not sexual reproduction strictly speaking, it still involves transfer of genetic information between two individuals.

In fact, all forms of horizontal gene transfer can be seen as sister processes to vertical gene transfer (parent to offspring) and most likely the precursor.

I manage to score you 1/100 because you mentioned Sex;
Please answer the question and stop perambulating.

hopefulLandlord:
iamwhat, I said I arrived at atheism being as old as man on induction

you then brought Diagoras of Melos and my talking about Jainism is to show that there have been atheists before Diagoras as Jainism (which is a century or more older than Diagoras) absolutely rejects the idea of a creator deity so they're technically atheists and this shows that atheism predates Diagoras

You're still doing the same thing I corrected earlier, It is true that I unintentionally omitted BC; How does 6th century BC qualifies Athiesm to be as old as man ?
You're still saying things you don't know.

We are already derailing, let's answer the OP's question.

hopefulLandlord:
Paste the article(s) here and let's scrutinise it

I'm certain Jainism is older than Christianity so I'll like to see your sources

I'll address the other parts of your post afterwards

Jainism

ˈdʒeɪnɪz(ə)m/

noun

a non-theistic religion founded in India in the 6th century BC by the Jina Vardhamana Mahavira as a reaction against the teachings of orthodox Brahmanism, and still practised there. The Jain religion teaches salvation by perfection through successive lives, and non-injury to living creatures, and is noted for its ascetics.

hopefulLandlord:
The first atheist was NOT diagoras of melos, that's a massive misconception

Jainism for instance is said to have been founded around 500BC or so and its a religion that does not believe in the existence of creative deity. by induction we know that once an idea starts, its rejection starts too. eg non Christianity is as old as Christianity

Jainism is dated to 500BC, is 500BC as old as man ?
Many articles dated Jainism to 6th century including wordweb dictionary and my previous knowledge of athiesm dated it to 5th century, how does Jainism's date prove that athiesm is as old as man ?

You example is wrong; We all know that non-christians had been in existence far before Christianity. why did you use such an example ? is just like saying Man is as old as Lionel Messi.....

hopefulLandlord:
The first atheist was NOT diagoras of melos, that's a massive misconception

Jainism for instance is said to have been founded around 500BC or so and its a religion that does not believe in the existence of creative deity. by induction we know that once an idea starts, its rejection starts too. eg non Christianity is as old as Christianity

Thanks for the information, I'll read about it.

hopefulLandlord:
I've scrutinised their hypothesis and found it wanting, illogical and basically untrue

Am happy you scrutinized them and it was clear to you that their believes are false.
For you to know that something is false that means you know the truth, please could you tell me the truth about creation ?

hopefulLandlord:
induction

I need a detailed answer not a monosyllabic answer like this.

Scholars dated Atheism to 5th century and the first athiest was Diagoras of Melos....

What information do you have that proves athiesm is earlier than 5th century ?

Thanks!

hopefulLandlord:
1. I never said "I don't accept evolution theory", I said I haven't studied it enough to accept nor reject it. don't strawman me again please

2. I don't know but I understand why man created gods like Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Olodumare, Chukwu etc as "I don't know" has always been a difficult answer to give to a question

3. Atheism is as old as man, Darwin existed in the 19th century

You don't know but you understand people that know ?

How can someone that know nothing understand people that know something ?

How do you know their believes are false when you don't have your own belief and against what would you base the falsehood of their believes ?

hopefulLandlord:
1. I never said "I don't accept evolution theory", I said I haven't studied it enough to accept nor reject it. don't strawman me again please

2. I don't know but I understand why man created gods like Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Olodumare, Chukwu etc as "I don't know" has always been a difficult answer to give to a question

3. Atheism is as old as man, Darwin existed in the 19th century

Atheism is as old as man ?
Where did you get that information from ?

hopefulLandlord:
I don't "believe" in evolution theory, no one "believes" in evolution theory. one either studies it well and "accepts" its true or one rejects its validity

Let me rephrase your question to "Do you accept evolution theory?" and my answer is that I'm undecided on it, why? because I haven't studied it enough to have an opinion on it

It's clear you don't have any tangible contributions that's why you're paying much attention to words. What's the difference between believe and accept in the context he used it? does it even matter ? did you understand his question or not ?

danvon:
Do you believe evolution theory?

Beautiful question, please answer it.

hopefulLandlord:
Another misinformed theist thinking he had a eureka moment

1. Atheism is not a scientific claim

2. Evolution is a scientific claim

3. There are Christians that accept evolution theory

4. There are non-antheists that accept evolution theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

5. There are atheists that reject evolution theory



Now go back and ask a germane question or you're just rambling ignorantly sir

Anybody that accepts evolution theory is not a Christian.
It's a paradox to be a Christian and also evolutionist.