Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Debating With A Christian


Guest thespankguy

Recommended Posts

Why didn't some animals when going extinct, obtain the ability to mass produce to stay alive?

Mass reproduction is just a side effect of efficiency of staying alive. I think the estimate is that the total biomass of cockroaches are larger than the biomass of humans. So already there we are beat. We don't reproduce as fast and in mass as bugs.

 

Your question is a little strange by the way, animals can't go "extinct" and "gain" an ability. They're dead. Some animals did rule the world for a while and then died out because the climate changed. Dinosaurs for instance. The thing is that the world, Earth, is not constant. It has changed in the Environmental setup many times over.

 

One reason why humans have been so successful the last 10,000 years is because Earth actually has been in a very stable climatological configuration. Before the ice age it had gone through many changes, and we're most likely facing new ones in the future, and humans might not survive, unless we figure out ways to stay alive. But we might fail, because we're not competing to survive anymore, but we're fighting of idea or religion have the right to kill the others. We're are our worst enemies.

 

You see, the temperature, climate, winds and the oceanic conveyors kind of got into balance about 10,000 years ago, and it's been like that until now, and hopefully it will stay that way, and this setup was most beneficial for us. Our size, and the gestation time, food requirement, all of it, was perfect for this environment. If this changes, we might be nothing more than something for future intelligent species to examine in dig sites.

 

You stated earlier that basically the dumbness of the particular apes you referred to were the reason they started to produce more often. My question was 'before' a different species became extinct; Why didn't they reproduce more? Not enough intellect compared to an ape, human? Explain further.

 

I see that you coincide with the fatc that some bugs reproduce at great speeds; as to fish. But, my thought was if this was apart of evolution in that they learned to do this, being tiny to medium sized physically in size, then why didn't other species that became extinct, before becoming extinct start reproducing more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Abiyoyo

    32

  • Ouroboros

    24

  • Grandpa Harley

    18

  • Legion

    11

Yoyo, what you should ask is how come Chimps and Humans share a large amount of identical genetic defects that you can't find in other animals. The C-vitamin deficiency is one. A few animals have the same problem, but only Chimps and Humans have the same defective gene. We share (IIRC) about 20 or 22 such deformations, that only can be transfered through ancestry. Genetically speaking, we have to come from the apes, or God intentionally is deceitful. It's like leaving a business card wherever you go, and the genetic code left business cards, a trail, that leads to that we share a common predecessor with the apes. It's genetically a fact, and the only other explanation is a creator that play around with the evidence to confuse us. Is that a good god?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoyo are you still at it man? Wow! I vote that Hans get an extra special award for patience.

 

Okay Yoyo I am going to bring out my big guns. You don't buy into this evolution garbage. I can see that. So please let me ask you if you agree that these two things are true.

 

1)Organisms are reproducing with heritable variation.

2)Many more organisms are being born than will survive to reproduce.

 

Are those two things true in your estimation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoyo, what you should ask is how come Chimps and Humans share a large amount of identical genetic defects that you can't find in other animals. The C-vitamin deficiency is one. A few animals have the same problem, but only Chimps and Humans have the same defective gene. We share (IIRC) about 20 or 22 such deformations, that only can be transfered through ancestry. Genetically speaking, we have to come from the apes, or God intentionally is deceitful. It's like leaving a business card wherever you go, and the genetic code left business cards, a trail, that leads to that we share a common predecessor with the apes. It's genetically a fact, and the only other explanation is a creator that play around with the evidence to confuse us. Is that a good god?

 

Or maybe he just made an ape :grin: Love you Hans :woohoo: If he did create all of everything, he's quite creative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoyo are you still at it man? Wow! I vote that Hans get an extra special award for patience.

 

Okay Yoyo I am going to bring out my big guns. You don't buy into this evolution garbage. I can see that. So please let me ask you if you agree that these two things are true.

 

1)Organisms are reproducing with heritable variation.

2)Many more organisms are being born than will survive to reproduce.

 

Are those two things true in your estimation?

 

Lr :grin:

 

Oh hell. Put the guns away!!!

 

Answer to the questions.

1) I don't know.

2) I don't know.

 

I am aware of the framework of evolution, and from a simple standpoint, have questions. This is past my knowledge on the subject. Is it relevant to my question? If yes, can you in short explain in laymen terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that you coincide with the fatc that some bugs reproduce at great speeds; as to fish. But, my thought was if this was apart of evolution in that they learned to do this, being tiny to medium sized physically in size, then why didn't other species that became extinct, before becoming extinct start reproducing more?

 

The only species on the planet (that we know of) that is aware of itself as a species first off, and at the same time is fully aware of it's own numbers (thanks to it's own inventions), and ALSO attributes great self-importance to it's own species enough to alter it's mating habits for the sake of continued existence as a species would be us.

 

You were looking for something unique about humans YoYo, this is as close as you are going to get. And it's STILL not something you can attribute to a god

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You stated earlier that basically the dumbness of the particular apes you referred to were the reason they started to produce more often.

Is that what I said? I thought I said the opposite. The smartness of the "new" ape gave him the benefit to survive better, and hence could reproduce more.

 

My question was 'before' a different species became extinct; Why didn't they reproduce more? Not enough intellect compared to an ape, human? Explain further.

It's a very complex situation, because there are many parameters that define if a species survive better or not. First of all it's the environment, like temperature, weather overall, rain and such, accessibility of food, and so on. It's not just the "smartness" of an animal, but the whole setup of an animal compare to the situation.

 

A polar bear wouldn't survive as easy on the savanna. A zebra wouldn't survive on the polar caps. Fitness has to do with the whole relationship, animal and nature.

 

Regarding mass reproduction, then you also have the predators, and food to account for. If one animal have many predators, they won't survive as easy

 

I see that you coincide with the fatc that some bugs reproduce at great speeds; as to fish. But, my thought was if this was apart of evolution in that they learned to do this, being tiny to medium sized physically in size, then why didn't other species that became extinct, before becoming extinct start reproducing more?

Because of genetic chance. You mistake the thought that all animals automatically would take on a certain attribute of ability because it would be beneficial, it's the reversed. A genetic mutation occurs that creates a benefit or a disadvantage. If it is a benefit (in the sense of better survival chance) than it has better chance of staying. It's self-evident. A genetic modification that is more beneficial in the sense that it would give a higher chance of survival, it will give a higher chance of survival.

 

An increase in reproduction is limited to many other things too. Humans for instance have a gestation of 9 months, while other animals have a very short time. The life span of an individual plays a role too, and the genetic setup for how long in life they're fertile. And so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that I can make it any clearer. I can try.

 

1)Organisms are reproducing with heritable variation.

 

This merely asserts that organisms are reproducing and the offspring are slightly different from the parent, slightly unique. Every one of them is like a snowflake. And these differences are capable of being passed in turn to their offspring (heritable).

 

2)Many more organisms are being born than will survive to reproduce.

 

This merely asserts that some organisms find the means to reproduce while others do not. Some die without having offspring of their own.

 

Do you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe he just made an ape :grin: Love you Hans :woohoo: If he did create all of everything, he's quite creative.

I think we're getting somewhere Yoyo. (Doesn't Yoyo sound like a monkey name to you? :HaHa:)

 

Anyway, imagine when the first ape-monkeys started to be able to think and draw cave drawings. They evolved into hunting and gathering animals. They evolved a simple form of language. Then the ability or knowledge of farming came about, and man started to become more introvert and wonder about more advanced things that just the tribal gods. Maybe at that time the story of Adam was invented. How man became aware of morality, or the difference between what he considered "good" and what he considered "evil". Ape became hunting humans, and hunting humans became farmers and city builders and the idea of "sin" was born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kuroikaze. If a human can not speak to a bird, elephant, tiger, lion, and bears oh my! :grin: Couldn't help it. Anyway. We can not speak to them yet we can create their niche in a zoo. Correct? Wouldn't that make us more advanced since we can control the species?

 

I don't see why you would think being this entails being more advanced. Again, we build those things a group, our advantage is our ability to work together. You are just going to have to accept that no one here buys into your premise.

 

On another note, believing you are more advanced because you control something is poor logic, this would mean white people are better than blacks because we used to control them. Being controlling may just be a sign our species is a bunch of jerks. We wouldn't even need zoos if we weren't destroying the animals natural habitats.

 

:nono: Kuroikaze. Bad analogy. An animal being controlled due to its natural instinct to protect itself, its young, or for food has none to do with human control in the cruel, unfashionable manner, that white people did in controlling the black community. I grew up in a diverse area, and see that as a poor analogy.

 

Been at work all day so I didn't have time to respond to this. You seem to completely miss my point here YoYo. I wasn't making an analogy, but showing you how bad your logic would look if applied to other ideas. I fail to see how who you grew up with has anything to do with this.

 

First, it seems to me you were arguing that human are better than animals because we exert power of them, I.E. we put them in zoos, destroy their habitats and such, and they cannot stop it. (of course this isn't entirely true, since animals in zoos sometimes attack people.)

I was pointing out if one followed that logic, you could just as easily say that whites were better than blacks because they ruled over them, and the blacks could do nothing to stop it.

 

In fact, I've read literature from the 19th century that makes an argument just like this, "If the blacks were our equals they wouldn't have ended up our slaves in the first place"

Of course this argument is a pile of dingo's kidneys, but it didn't stop them from making it.

 

I cannot see how your argument is any different in its core logic, putting animal in cages does not necessarily make us better than them, if anything one could argue that it only makes us the biggest asshole of the animal kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they are animals in a setting showing, some amazing qualities in their niche, yet are inferior in areas that obviously humans succeeded.
I think humans are animals in a setting showing some amazing qualities in their niche, yet are inferior in areas that obviously whales* succeded.

 

See if you spot the problem there... a little hint, it's the fact that you're ignoring the fact that humans are inferior to animals in that animals niche.

 

 

Interesting how you claimed that people wouldn't be in a jungle by choice... that's exactly where a lot of people still live. And, they do it without the technology that you appear to be assuming they'd have.

Here's the kicker though... if you were there, you'd not survive for long. That makes them your superior. But, and this you'll argue, if they were suddenly in NY City, they'd not live long, making you their superior.

 

Unfortunately, that just means neither of you are superior at all, just better suited to your niche. Neither of you are any more advanced... and that's the thing you keep missing.

 

 

There are people who believe Dolphins are as intelligent as humans... but because they can't do anything physically with that intelligence, does that make us more advanced? They've developed ways to protect themselves from sharks... we haven't! They have no weapons, no technology, yet they can beat away one of the most feared creatures on this planet. Try doing that yourself someday, thn tell us you're more advanced. (if you survive... some of them sharks don't bother chewing before swallowing)

Why do whales sing Grandpa Harley?

They don't... they produce modulated vibrations that we, in our need to label, have designated "song". As to why they do that, why do people speak?

 

Once you figure the answer to my question, you'll have figured out the answer to yours.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and thespankguy? I'd personally tell your friend to go fuck himself... anyone who splurges out the garbage that Kent Hovind spews isn't really worth the time and effort. (yep, that's where he got it from)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*insert any animal here... I chose whales since you'd asked about them singing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how exactly are humans "more complex"? BTW, they are actually far less well equipped for survival on the planet than other species. Other species are far more well adapted to survive in far wider ranges of environments. The only thing we've really go going for us is our brains and creativity, but that is also our greatest weakness. We destroy our own environments. We're hardly "God's" special jewel. The Holy Dragonfly is far superior to us naked apes.

 

Thanks AM. Thats why I said correct me if I'm wrong here. So this person is basically saying we have a better ability to manipulate.

Perhaps so. But dragonflies have a better ability to survive mass extinctions, fly in the air, and proliferate to greater numbers than humans. The sea sponge has lived the longest of all animals as is the Eve of all animal life on the planet. Insects can live in almost every environment on the planet, whereas humans are quite limited in their environments, and so on and so forth. That humans are "superior" is completely subjective and debatable on nearly every level. If man is the crowing achievement of God's creation, it certainly isn't biologically!

 

Maybe if anything humans have over all other animals it's this: Arrogance. Yes, that's it. Not superiority, but arrogance.

 

So you still think God thinks so highly of man, or is it just man putting that in God's mouth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Holey Jeebus! How do you guys do it?

 

I'm gonna go argue with my coffee mug for a while.

 

- Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna go argue with my coffee mug for a while.

Nooooooo! Don't do it! You will lose! :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truly Hans, my hat comes off for you. I am impressed. You have been kind and patient with Yoyo. Above and beyond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats what I was wondering, take God out of the equation for right now. What gives us that 'spirit of progress', or that extra push to expound on our capabilities. Though we are trained as well, we also have the ability to observe our niche, others and progress to inventing, renewing, planning, etc.

 

You take God out of the equation and then ask what [god] gives us that spirit of progress?

 

Ah heck! I'll assume you are asking what is the physical process that causes the human desire to fill up garbage dumps. Well quite frankly I'm too fucking lazy to write out what I know of cognitive science and anyway I'm just a fan of it so you may as well go read for your self. If I were you, and I'm not, I'd start by reading The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you not use Google or something?

 

ATM all you're doing is going 'Look Goddidit!'

 

and we answer 'No, he didn't'

 

so what the hell do you want here?

 

Assumptions. Why assume? I don't assume every non-Christian here is going to give me the same end response that you do every time. My motive is understanding the gaps of evolution, especially directed toward humans, and in actual thought and responding with a effort to get the answer to my question, Hans has pinned it to the human brain, and the still being researched parts of it. Thank you though for some of your replies. I was really hoping that you would reply an entire post without any sarcastic comments, but failed to see it :HappyCry:

 

Hey grandpa.......were all 'different' :lmao: I love you man!

 

IIRC it was you who started the sarcasm when you couldn't get your head round the idea that all animals, in their niche, are equally advanced... And no, you don't love me... I do however pity you, and any child you raise in such a stultifyingly superstitious and will fully ignorant mindset as you espouse... or would that comment get you trying to put me in hospital again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why didn't some animals when going extinct, obtain the ability to mass produce to stay alive?

Mass reproduction is just a side effect of efficiency of staying alive. I think the estimate is that the total biomass of cockroaches are larger than the biomass of humans. So already there we are beat. We don't reproduce as fast and in mass as bugs.

 

Your question is a little strange by the way, animals can't go "extinct" and "gain" an ability. They're dead. Some animals did rule the world for a while and then died out because the climate changed. Dinosaurs for instance. The thing is that the world, Earth, is not constant. It has changed in the Environmental setup many times over.

 

One reason why humans have been so successful the last 10,000 years is because Earth actually has been in a very stable climatological configuration. Before the ice age it had gone through many changes, and we're most likely facing new ones in the future, and humans might not survive, unless we figure out ways to stay alive. But we might fail, because we're not competing to survive anymore, but we're fighting of idea or religion have the right to kill the others. We're are our worst enemies.

 

You see, the temperature, climate, winds and the oceanic conveyors kind of got into balance about 10,000 years ago, and it's been like that until now, and hopefully it will stay that way, and this setup was most beneficial for us. Our size, and the gestation time, food requirement, all of it, was perfect for this environment. If this changes, we might be nothing more than something for future intelligent species to examine in dig sites.

 

You stated earlier that basically the dumbness of the particular apes you referred to were the reason they started to produce more often. My question was 'before' a different species became extinct; Why didn't they reproduce more? Not enough intellect compared to an ape, human? Explain further.

 

I see that you coincide with the fatc that some bugs reproduce at great speeds; as to fish. But, my thought was if this was apart of evolution in that they learned to do this, being tiny to medium sized physically in size, then why didn't other species that became extinct, before becoming extinct start reproducing more?

 

I don't think 'dumbness' is the correct word. I'd like to see you survive as a chimpanzee, naked, in the wild, for a month... then come back and tell us how 'dumb' chimpanzess are... The only 'dumb' individual here is the one who keeps insisting that man is the paragon of animals... while continuously, and dishonestly, shifitng the goal posts...

 

More on that in a moment...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lmao: Your kidding, right? So their just different. Well, hell Grandpa. I want my own business started and some really cheap help. How about you and I go and gather some apes up and train them to work a cash register, and keep the place running right. We can even appoint one as manager. Then you and I can go chill out and have a few drinks. :lmao:
Actually, chimps have superior memory skills than humans: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7124156.stm

 

 

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: You guys are killing me. Open your mind up to suggestions.

 

 

and with that the pot called the kettle 'nigger'...

 

 

Yeah Gramps. I am spent.

 

I think Yoyo needs a complete mental and emotional overhaul. Something dramatic. But I lack the ability and willingness to make an attempt.

 

I feel somewhat dissappointed with myself.

 

 

Gramps said that apes are just 'different'. In such a simplistic statement I could help myself with that response. Then NG, in grasping straws for Gramps, pops up a link to the smarts of chimps. So. Yes, Lr. Its getting a little dramatic to assume that an ape and a human are similar in ecological-evolutional advancement, there just different. :lmao:

 

Big difference, you think?

 

No, it's not... simple as that. A Chimpanzee cannot be compared to a human and vice versa such that one is said to be more 'advanced' than the other...

 

I notice you've quietly dropped the assertion we as the most 'complex' organism on the planet, having had your apologist arse handed to you, so you're now just TROLLING to make you feel better... well troll away you stupid little man... doesn't make you right, just loud...

 

Alice? Tell me what there is to 'respect' now...

 

Grandpa Harley, Why can I not compare a chimp to a human? That would be hypocritical of you since you compared the human species to a Squid earlier. Its comparable things. Apes are the closest in structure to a human being. Why wouldn't I compare?

 

And, Yes. Why are we more advanced than the ape? Its obvious to any person that looks bluntly at the two species that theres a difference. Why try to convince me there is not a difference of the two, when there obviously is? I sincerely asked these questions because that part of the evolution process doesn't make sense to me.

Found it!

 

fight5.gifRight... you semantically juggling retarded son of a pig farmer...

 

I stated that 'advanced' is not something that can be compared since it's subjective, and doesn't apply to a species on any level... you then introduced complexity, which is a pretty objectively measurable quantity, as some measure of man's inherent superiority in the animal kingdom. I then produced an animal which, on virtually every level, is more complex than any homind that's ever lived... the fact you, in your short bus, window licking, mentality, regard 'complex' as equivalent to 'advanced' isn't MY problem. Then when that was blown out of the water you then try and play the 'hypocrite' card... well, you genocide and incest apologising loon, Fer-UK you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to address the OP and point to the ensuing conversation.

 

It is futile to argue with many Chrsitians. Futile. Pick your battles wisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truly Hans, my hat comes off for you. I am impressed. You have been kind and patient with Yoyo. Above and beyond.

Yoyo and I have debated before, so I think we have come to some kind of mutual acceptance and understanding. It's easy to not get disappointed when you don't expect anything. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoyo and I have debated before, so I think we have come to some kind of mutual acceptance and understanding. It's easy to not get disappointed when you don't expect anything. ;)

I understand.

 

I was contemplating the relationship between expectations or anticipations and emotions the other day. It seems to me that many emotions arise in response to a difference between what is anticipated and what is delivered.

 

I still think you rock Hans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was contemplating the relationship between expectations or anticipations and emotions the other day. It seems to me that many emotions arise in response to a difference between what is anticipated and what is delivered.

That's exactly right. It's something someone told me regarding business many years ago. He recommended to not build up your clients expectations above what you can deliver, because when you fail, their disappointment is directly correlated to the difference between their hopes and your product. He never lied about the product, but he didn't have to tell all the things we had problems with either, instead many times he promised the client something he knew we could deliver without problem, and take some of the other features and tell them they would get them later. When we worked on the changes and added even those that would be done later, we had good result. We delivered more than promised, so now their happiness were directly correlated to the difference between what was promised and what we gave them. Unfortunately today, in the current market, it doesn't work as well. You're almost expected to lie. To beat the competition you have to exaggerate to get the job, and you have to end up with angry clients. Your choice then is between few customers you tell the truth to, and who stay with you, or many customers you lie to, and who hate your guts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to address the OP and point to the ensuing conversation.

 

It is futile to argue with many Chrsitians. Futile. Pick your battles wisely.

 

Futile, but fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.