- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 12 2010,11:07) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 12 2010,09:07) Quote I see, well couldn't that also mean you stopped believing in the same manner because you certainly didn't get any evidence that God doesn't exist.
On that basis you should accept the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bhna).Stuart
Not really because I would have no interest or motivation to decline or accept.
OK. But you should have no objection when someone tells you that you are wrong about what you call god.Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 11 2010,12:00) So, you just were told to believe and you did? Were it that simple, it would have been much easier to simply disbelieve. No, I felt prayers were answered and emotional responses were evidence of God. Alas, I realized later that it was just wishful thinking on my part.
Quote I see, well couldn't that also mean you stopped believing in the same manner because you certainly didn't get any
evidence that God doesn't exist.I just removed the wishful thinking. I don't need evidence that something doesn't exist; rather, I find that I need evidence that it does. Else I will start believing in alien abductions, Bigfoot, and gremlins in my closet.
Quote I believe you should use logic and reason and how would you say, you used logic and reason to come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist?
Yes, all gods are illogical.Quote (Stu @ Jan. 12 2010,13:28) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 12 2010,11:07) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 12 2010,09:07) Quote I see, well couldn't that also mean you stopped believing in the same manner because you certainly didn't get any evidence that God doesn't exist.
On that basis you should accept the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bhna).Stuart
Not really because I would have no interest or motivation to decline or accept.
OK. But you should have no objection when someone tells you that you are wrong about what you call god.Stuart
You seem to be confused, I haven't called God anything but GOD.Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 12 2010,16:29) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 11 2010,12:00) So, you just were told to believe and you did? Were it that simple, it would have been much easier to simply disbelieve. No, I felt prayers were answered and emotional responses were evidence of God. Alas, I realized later that it was just wishful thinking on my part.
Quote I see, well couldn't that also mean you stopped believing in the same manner because you certainly didn't get any
evidence that God doesn't exist.I just removed the wishful thinking. I don't need evidence that something doesn't exist; rather, I find that I need evidence that it does. Else I will start believing in alien abductions, Bigfoot, and gremlins in my closet.
Quote I believe you should use logic and reason and how would you say, you used logic and reason to come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist?
Yes, all gods are illogical.
Yes, “gods” are illogical but God is perfectly Logical and Reasonable to believe in.Fod instance it is logical to conclude that life itself works outside of the mechanics of the body. We can cause all parts of the body to mechanically function but when life truly leaves the body the Body even functioning has no life.
Our emotional landscape seem to transcend logical necessity, emotions such as humour and love and functions such as sleep seem to be reasonably gifted to us by some source that found those things to be of importance but not so much for our survival.
The awareness of death seems to be a logical mechanism installed to seek some sort of hope or belief in the continuance of life here and in the hereafter. If there was no awareness of death there would most likely be no trigger to believe in God.
in-fact for a living conscious being not to seek life beyond what they are aware of as death is completely illogical and unreasonable unless that individual had no desire to exist in the first place.
Then finally when desiring to exist and being aware of death we also realize that we came into life from non-life through the living and hence we seek the living in the greatest sense i.e. GOD(The Ever LIving) because it is logical that if we were brought to life we can be brought to life again and hence since those who brought us to life the first time will eventually die then on the other side of the equation it would stand to reason that a Life such as GOD can cause us to live again.
There would be no reason that a life such as The God would not be conscious as we are conscious beings and therefore consciousness or its elements would prove to be inherent in existence if it wasn't we wouldn't be conscious for we can only be composed of what already is.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 12 2010,19:08) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 12 2010,13:28) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 12 2010,11:07) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 12 2010,09:07) Quote I see, well couldn't that also mean you stopped believing in the same manner because you certainly didn't get any evidence that God doesn't exist.
On that basis you should accept the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bhna).Stuart
Not really because I would have no interest or motivation to decline or accept.
OK. But you should have no objection when someone tells you that you are wrong about what you call god.Stuart
You seem to be confused, I haven't called God anything but GOD.
Once again, no confusion.The name you use for your god is wrong.
Its name is really the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bhna).
As you rightly pointed out, there is no evidence to the contrary.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 12 2010,20:13) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 12 2010,19:08) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 12 2010,13:28) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 12 2010,11:07) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 12 2010,09:07) Quote I see, well couldn't that also mean you stopped believing in the same manner because you certainly didn't get any evidence that God doesn't exist.
On that basis you should accept the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bhna).Stuart
Not really because I would have no interest or motivation to decline or accept.
OK. But you should have no objection when someone tells you that you are wrong about what you call god.Stuart
You seem to be confused, I haven't called God anything but GOD.
Once again, no confusion.The name you use for your god is wrong.
Its name is really the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bhna).
As you rightly pointed out, there is no evidence to the contrary.
Stuart
God is a Spirit and must be worshiped in Spirit and Truth and therefore a name is the manifest nature of what is GOD.I keep telling you it is not about names per se if that were true there would only be a single name.
The Compassionate, The Merciful… these are attributes or natures. if FSM resonated with me there would be no problem.
If someone talks to you in mandarin chinese and you are completely unfamiliar with that language even if they say the most beautiful things to you how could it be grasped by you?
BD
Quote God is a Spirit and must be worshiped in Spirit and Truth and therefore a name is the manifest nature of what is GOD.
Yes, and it is not called god, it is called by the initials FSM (bhna). There is no evidence to the contrary.Quote I keep telling you it is not about names per se if that were true there would only be a single name.
What you keep telling me is of little relevance. It IS about names, and you have the name wrong.Quote The Compassionate, The Merciful… these are attributes or natures. if FSM resonated with me there would be no problem.
Well it makes no difference what resonance you have, you are wrong about its name (and about its nature as well).Quote If someone talks to you in mandarin chinese and you are completely unfamiliar with that language even if they say the most beautiful things to you how could it be grasped by you?
Presumably the concept being described by the language has an equivalent in your own tongue. I suppose if it doesn’t, or if it is unintelligible to you then for the time being you miss out. What if the thing being described is ugly?Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 12 2010,02:31) Yes, “gods” are illogical but God is perfectly Logical and Reasonable to believe in. “All” covers everything, does it not? So when I say “all gods”, I include yours.
You are becoming a
Quote For instance it is logical to conclude that life itself works outside of the mechanics of the body. We can cause all parts of the body to mechanically function but when life truly leaves the body the Body even functioning has no life. Our emotional landscape seem to transcend logical necessity, emotions such as humour and love and functions such as sleep seem to be reasonably gifted to us by some source that found those things to be of importance but not so much for our survival.
No gifts, just what evolution has led to.
Quote The awareness of death seems to be a logical mechanism installed to seek some sort of hope or belief in the continuance of life here and in the hereafter. If there was no awareness of death there would most likely be no trigger to believe in God. Awareness, or fear of? The latter is what has lead to wishes towards an afterlife. Yet that is all it is are far as we know. No one has ever come back to verify it.
And before you call out some NDE story, it is always rather amazing that NDE tales often match what a person believe religiously, or has been exposed to in any case. A Hindu never exposed to Abrahamic ideas of an afterlife will not recite an NDE that matches the Abrahamic “heaven”, but rather a Hindu version.
The brain is a mighty thing.
Quote in-fact for a living conscious being not to seek life beyond what they are aware of as death is completely illogical and unreasonable unless that individual had no desire to exist in the first place. Do you think animals dream of heaven? Yet it appears they desire to live. I do not see animals committing suicide because life is meaningless.
No, it is the religionists who believe that you need to desire more than what we have already. They live in a dream world, while others of us live in reality.
Quote Then finally when desiring to exist and being aware of death we also realize that we came into life from non-life through the living and hence we seek the living in the greatest sense i.e. GOD(The Ever LIving) because it is logical that if we were brought to life we can be brought to life again and hence since those who brought us to life the first time will eventually die then on the other side of the equation it would stand to reason that a Life such as GOD can cause us to live again. Brought to life again? Why? Did you have a life before this one? If not, why do you suppose you will have another after? Because you fear death.
Quote There would be no reason that a life such as The God would not be conscious as we are conscious beings and therefore consciousness or its elements would prove to be inherent in existence if it wasn't we wouldn't be conscious for we can only be composed of what already is.
All speculation and wishful thinking. And at this point, empty of meaning because it is not based in reality. Its like dreaming of being a billionaire. Sure some make it there, but its only through some drastic action of their own. Plus we do know that is possible.But an afterlife? No one has made it there and come back to tell us of it.
kejonn wrote:
Quote And before you call out some NDE story, it is always rather amazing that NDE tales often match what a person believe religiously, or has been exposed to in any case. A Hindu never exposed to Abrahamic ideas of an afterlife will not recite an NDE that matches the Abrahamic “heaven”, but rather a Hindu version. From what I have read, NDEs are agnostic. Non-religious people have experienced them and some felt compelled to join a specific religion, but most simply felt driven to live more meaningful lives (i.e. less materialistic and more relational). Religious people tend to interpret their NDE experiences through their religious training, but their general stories line up well with the major elements of most other NDEs. But you are correct to point out that NDEs do not validate any specific religion.
Of course, I am prone to taking NDEs seriously and am investigating the evidence surrounding them, but I don't think that validating or debunking them should affect how one approaches life. In either case, we should be making the most of the life that we know we have rather than dreaming about some life that we may or may not ever experience.
But I digress.
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 12 2010,23:39) BD Quote God is a Spirit and must be worshiped in Spirit and Truth and therefore a name is the manifest nature of what is GOD.
Yes, and it is not called god, it is called by the initials FSM (bhna). There is no evidence to the contrary.Quote I keep telling you it is not about names per se if that were true there would only be a single name.
What you keep telling me is of little relevance. It IS about names, and you have the name wrong.Quote The Compassionate, The Merciful… these are attributes or natures. if FSM resonated with me there would be no problem.
Well it makes no difference what resonance you have, you are wrong about its name (and about its nature as well).Quote If someone talks to you in mandarin chinese and you are completely unfamiliar with that language even if they say the most beautiful things to you how could it be grasped by you?
Presumably the concept being described by the language has an equivalent in your own tongue. I suppose if it doesn’t, or if it is unintelligible to you then for the time being you miss out. What if the thing being described is ugly?Stuart
What would be ugly to you? Perhaps compassion and mercy to you is ugly so wouldn't ugly or beautiful be subjective but objectively a Creator creates and hence ultimately The Ultimate Creator would be and is GOD by virtue of what God means as in “Supreme”The perception of the object does not change the quality or quantity of the object and we are subject to the Objectives of GOD.
Every night you BOW willingly or unwillingly. Everyday you show your dependence on His creation and yet man is ever ungrateful.
Each night you sleep it is like rehearsal for death and each day you wake up it is like rehearsel for resurrection and the signs are everywhere but most are ungrateful
Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 13 2010,01:02) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 12 2010,02:31) Yes, “gods” are illogical but God is perfectly Logical and Reasonable to believe in. “All” covers everything, does it not? So when I say “all gods”, I include yours.
You are becoming a
Quote For instance it is logical to conclude that life itself works outside of the mechanics of the body. We can cause all parts of the body to mechanically function but when life truly leaves the body the Body even functioning has no life. Our emotional landscape seem to transcend logical necessity, emotions such as humour and love and functions such as sleep seem to be reasonably gifted to us by some source that found those things to be of importance but not so much for our survival.
No gifts, just what evolution has led to.
Quote The awareness of death seems to be a logical mechanism installed to seek some sort of hope or belief in the continuance of life here and in the hereafter. If there was no awareness of death there would most likely be no trigger to believe in God. Awareness, or fear of? The latter is what has lead to wishes towards an afterlife. Yet that is all it is are far as we know. No one has ever come back to verify it.
And before you call out some NDE story, it is always rather amazing that NDE tales often match what a person believe religiously, or has been exposed to in any case. A Hindu never exposed to Abrahamic ideas of an afterlife will not recite an NDE that matches the Abrahamic “heaven”, but rather a Hindu version.
The brain is a mighty thing.
Quote in-fact for a living conscious being not to seek life beyond what they are aware of as death is completely illogical and unreasonable unless that individual had no desire to exist in the first place. Do you think animals dream of heaven? Yet it appears they desire to live. I do not see animals committing suicide because life is meaningless.
No, it is the religionists who believe that you need to desire more than what we have already. They live in a dream world, while others of us live in reality.
Quote Then finally when desiring to exist and being aware of death we also realize that we came into life from non-life through the living and hence we seek the living in the greatest sense i.e. GOD(The Ever LIving) because it is logical that if we were brought to life we can be brought to life again and hence since those who brought us to life the first time will eventually die then on the other side of the equation it would stand to reason that a Life such as GOD can cause us to live again. Brought to life again? Why? Did you have a life before this one? If not, why do you suppose you will have another after? Because you fear death.
Quote There would be no reason that a life such as The God would not be conscious as we are conscious beings and therefore consciousness or its elements would prove to be inherent in existence if it wasn't we wouldn't be conscious for we can only be composed of what already is.
All speculation and wishful thinking. And at this point, empty of meaning because it is not based in reality. Its like dreaming of being a billionaire. Sure some make it there, but its only through some drastic action of their own. Plus we do know that is possible.But an afterlife? No one has made it there and come back to tell us of it.
You keep speaking of evolution as if you have the slightest clue about it but Kejonn if you don't believe in God for the reasons you gave why would you believe in Evolution when in-fact you have no way of explain a few things.For life to evolve it would need to be able to reproduce, metabolize food, and manage its waste. Now, how could a life form not evolve into such a life giving source?
In sexual reproduction 2 life forms must have the capacity to reproduce so in the sense of evolution how would the state of being Male or Female be reached without sexual reproduction Not evolving
In a genetic blueprint how would the “form” command function?
And how does the “write” command function? You suppose that through physical actions of an organism and it's environment “Natural selection” writes into the genetic blueprint necessary information and that is because much like STU you do not even understand Natural Selection
Which is best explained as what can survive will survive. It is biological viability, Nature doesn't “select” anything but somehow you got duped into believing that evolution was some sort of GOAL driven process it reminds me of the utter foolishness of Richard Dawkins who unbeknownst even to himself keeps giving Conscious attributes to what he calls a blind process.
Now if you really look at how life forms survive and thrive you will see life is a very conscious affair.
My point is you have not changed at all from when you first accepted God and religion, you have just changed your gullibility to something else. Just like before you act without knowledge but the fact is you know as much as you know about Science as you do about God and religion.
Being Numb has become a comfort to you
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 13 2010,02:14) In either case, we should be making the most of the life that we know we have rather than dreaming about some life that we may or may not ever experience.
Absolutely right.Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 13 2010,05:31) What would be ugly to you? Perhaps compassion and mercy to you is ugly so wouldn't ugly or beautiful be subjective but objectively a Creator creates and hence ultimately The Ultimate Creator would be and is GOD by virtue of what God means as in “Supreme” The perception of the object does not change the quality or quantity of the object and we are subject to the Objectives of GOD.
Every night you BOW willingly or unwillingly. Everyday you show your dependence on His creation and yet man is ever ungrateful.
Each night you sleep it is like rehearsal for death and each day you wake up it is like rehearsel for resurrection and the signs are everywhere but most are ungrateful
Since you ask, I'll mention my view again: ugly to me is a universe that has an incomprehensible agenda behind it, one where (allegedly) there is a supernatural being that, even though there is no evidence for its existence whatsoever, has made the universe by magic AND given us curiosity that ultimately can never be satisfied because the magic used by the being is beyond us. I suppose there is violence in the name of god(s) and hypocrisy of those who claim to follow a 'religion of peace'; those are ugly too.Wasn't it you only a while ago claiming, in regard to quantum mechanics, that indeed the perception of an object DOES change its quality?
I don't bow to anything. Especially not your Imaginary Friend. I have no dependence on this deity of yours whatever, because it is not anything real. You seem to think people should be in some kind of perpetual state of adolescent-parent relationship with your god. Some of us like to think we have grown past adolescence, philosophically and ethically.
I am not grateful to the motivating force for people blowing other people up in its name. If that is an unjust act then WHAT HAS YOUR GOD DONE to stop it?
I ask again, what is your answer to Epicurus?
Stuart
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 13 2010,02:14) kejonn wrote: Quote And before you call out some NDE story, it is always rather amazing that NDE tales often match what a person believe religiously, or has been exposed to in any case. A Hindu never exposed to Abrahamic ideas of an afterlife will not recite an NDE that matches the Abrahamic “heaven”, but rather a Hindu version. From what I have read, NDEs are agnostic. Non-religious people have experienced them and some felt compelled to join a specific religion, but most simply felt driven to live more meaningful lives (i.e. less materialistic and more relational). Religious people tend to interpret their NDE experiences through their religious training, but their general stories line up well with the major elements of most other NDEs. But you are correct to point out that NDEs do not validate any specific religion.
Of course, I am prone to taking NDEs seriously and am investigating the evidence surrounding them, but I don't think that validating or debunking them should affect how one approaches life. In either case, we should be making the most of the life that we know we have rather than dreaming about some life that we may or may not ever experience.
But I digress.
There is no certain religion and God is not a religion, to be religious it to behave a certain way that is beneficial and loving.BD
Quote For life to evolve it would need to be able to reproduce, metabolize food, and manage its waste. Now, how could a life form not evolve into such a life giving source? In sexual reproduction 2 life forms must have the capacity to reproduce so in the sense of evolution how would the state of being Male or Female be reached without sexual reproduction Not evolving
These comments demonstrate kejonn's point perfectly. The first one makes no logical sense, actually, and the second is a creationist canards (they seem to be specifically muslim ones in my experience) that we have already discussed and shown to be strawmen with no relationship to the evidence of natural history. Sex arose long before gender. Remember?Oft-Debunked Boys is right. You are lead singer on that single.
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 13 2010,02:46) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 13 2010,02:14) kejonn wrote: Quote And before you call out some NDE story, it is always rather amazing that NDE tales often match what a person believe religiously, or has been exposed to in any case. A Hindu never exposed to Abrahamic ideas of an afterlife will not recite an NDE that matches the Abrahamic “heaven”, but rather a Hindu version. From what I have read, NDEs are agnostic. Non-religious people have experienced them and some felt compelled to join a specific religion, but most simply felt driven to live more meaningful lives (i.e. less materialistic and more relational). Religious people tend to interpret their NDE experiences through their religious training, but their general stories line up well with the major elements of most other NDEs. But you are correct to point out that NDEs do not validate any specific religion.
Of course, I am prone to taking NDEs seriously and am investigating the evidence surrounding them, but I don't think that validating or debunking them should affect how one approaches life. In either case, we should be making the most of the life that we know we have rather than dreaming about some life that we may or may not ever experience.
But I digress.
There is no certain religion and God is not a religion, to be religious it to behave a certain way that is beneficial and loving.
Would you agree then that you don't need the koran, the bible, or any other holy book to be religious, as you have just described it? If so, why would anyone need a holy book?Quote (Stu @ Jan. 13 2010,07:55) BD Quote For life to evolve it would need to be able to reproduce, metabolize food, and manage its waste. Now, how could a life form not evolve into such a life giving source? In sexual reproduction 2 life forms must have the capacity to reproduce so in the sense of evolution how would the state of being Male or Female be reached without sexual reproduction Not evolving
These comments demonstrate kejonn's point perfectly. The first one makes no logical sense, actually, and the second is a creationist canards (they seem to be specifically muslim ones in my experience) that we have already discussed and shown to be strawmen with no relationship to the evidence of natural history. Sex arose long before gender. Remember?Oft-Debunked Boys is right. You are lead singer on that single.
Stuart
You have never de-bunked what I wrote, are you serious?How is it sex arose before gender? Asexuality is not sex and even if you consider asexual reproduction the same conception rules apply.
STU, I am begging you to go in this direction with me, you tried before long ago and you just whined.
Please tell me how sexual reproduction began and when you do pick up your prize because not even the smartes scientist has answered.
There are several competing hypothesis but guess what, NO CIGAR and yet you claim to have de-bunked what I have said? Really you should concede immediately that you have no idea of the evolution or maintenance of sexual reproduction, if Not we can have a debate about that and you will have no choice but to fold as all I would have to do is ask you is: How did sexual reproduction begin?
It Takes TWO organisms STU nad they have to be both compatible and both reproductively capable of Mating which is a gender issue.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 13 2010,09:02) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 13 2010,02:46) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 13 2010,02:14) kejonn wrote: Quote And before you call out some NDE story, it is always rather amazing that NDE tales often match what a person believe religiously, or has been exposed to in any case. A Hindu never exposed to Abrahamic ideas of an afterlife will not recite an NDE that matches the Abrahamic “heaven”, but rather a Hindu version. From what I have read, NDEs are agnostic. Non-religious people have experienced them and some felt compelled to join a specific religion, but most simply felt driven to live more meaningful lives (i.e. less materialistic and more relational). Religious people tend to interpret their NDE experiences through their religious training, but their general stories line up well with the major elements of most other NDEs. But you are correct to point out that NDEs do not validate any specific religion.
Of course, I am prone to taking NDEs seriously and am investigating the evidence surrounding them, but I don't think that validating or debunking them should affect how one approaches life. In either case, we should be making the most of the life that we know we have rather than dreaming about some life that we may or may not ever experience.
But I digress.
There is no certain religion and God is not a religion, to be religious it to behave a certain way that is beneficial and loving.
Would you agree then that you don't need the koran, the bible, or any other holy book to be religious, as you have just described it? If so, why would anyone need a holy book?
The Purpose of a Holy Book is clearly to show that Communication has and is possible between God and His creation.These books always express the guidance that humans all need just like children need from their parents.
There are tribes in very hidden places all over the world that have no bible or Quran but they still have the oral tradition of what has been experienced by their people, they always have some sort of Spiritual belief and way of life.
Spirituality is a natural part of Human life, you cannot go anywhere in the earth and find a people without the worship of GOD. Atheism is a conscious choice to delete this natural part of themselves but the concept just gets transferred and you constantly hear atheist giving God like attributes to processes like evolution.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 13 2010,09:59) You have never de-bunked what I wrote, are you serious? How is it sex arose before gender? Asexuality is not sex and even if you consider asexual reproduction the same conception rules apply.
STU, I am begging you to go in this direction with me, you tried before long ago and you just whined.
Please tell me how sexual reproduction began and when you do pick up your prize because not even the smartes scientist has answered.
There are several competing hypothesis but guess what, NO CIGAR and yet you claim to have de-bunked what I have said? Really you should concede immediately that you have no idea of the evolution or maintenance of sexual reproduction, if Not we can have a debate about that and you will have no choice but to fold as all I would have to do is ask you is: How did sexual reproduction begin?
It Takes TWO organisms STU nad they have to be both compatible and both reproductively capable of Mating which is a gender issue.
If you really wanted to know what the evidence says about this then you could read about it for yourself.Of course you don't want to know anything that contradicts your creationist mythology.
Don't worry about reading any of the references I gave you on this suybject, will you.
Allah requires you to lie and mislead people in his name, as you trumpet, undaunted by the facts, your own strawmen, and proclaim others' genuine ignorance about some limited aspects of science (but not the dates!) as evidence for your mythology.
Debunked, disproved and shown up, you continue your crusade of nonsense unabated.
Islam: the religion for people with no intellectual shame.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 13 2010,11:15) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 13 2010,09:59) You have never de-bunked what I wrote, are you serious? How is it sex arose before gender? Asexuality is not sex and even if you consider asexual reproduction the same conception rules apply.
STU, I am begging you to go in this direction with me, you tried before long ago and you just whined.
Please tell me how sexual reproduction began and when you do pick up your prize because not even the smartes scientist has answered.
There are several competing hypothesis but guess what, NO CIGAR and yet you claim to have de-bunked what I have said? Really you should concede immediately that you have no idea of the evolution or maintenance of sexual reproduction, if Not we can have a debate about that and you will have no choice but to fold as all I would have to do is ask you is: How did sexual reproduction begin?
It Takes TWO organisms STU nad they have to be both compatible and both reproductively capable of Mating which is a gender issue.
If you really wanted to know what the evidence says about this then you could read about it for yourself.Of course you don't want to know anything that contradicts your creationist mythology.
Don't worry about reading any of the references I gave you on this suybject, will you.
Allah requires you to lie and mislead people in his name, as you trumpet, undaunted by the facts, your own strawmen, and proclaim others' genuine ignorance about some limited aspects of science (but not the dates!) as evidence for your mythology.
Debunked, disproved and shown up, you continue your crusade of nonsense unabated.
Islam: the religion for people with no intellectual shame.
Stuart
STU,Explain the Evolution of Sexual reproduction,
In-fact explain the evolution of Asexual reproduction
Can you do it? There is no link that you have ever provided that explains the evolution of either because there is no explanation.
It is so funny when anyone tries to explain it because they just fuddle around and use all sorts anthromorphic terms to give a semblence of consciousness. Terms like “Selfish” “Co-evolving” “Selecting” “self-repair”. “swap”…etc
It's really quite a joke how someone can ascribe consciousness to all these processes then without blinking dismiss GOD
STU,
You don't have a clue and you know it's true but then again that's STU
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
