Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[kkck]

^Well, evolution is a process which occurs based on need and circumstances. In that sense, if the needs and circumstances don't present themselves species won't evolve. Take crocodiles and sharks. They have been around for hundreds of millions of years with virtually no change. I am not saying these as evidence against evolution but rather that evolving is not necessarily the best way to go. These species are so adept at surviving that they have not needed to evolve to remain the brutal and efficient hunters they are.

I never really understood why the existence of apes is used as evidence against evolution. The assumptions implicated are so wrong it's ridiculous. Not all evolutionary paths lead to inteligence in the end. The purpose of evolution as far as species are concerned is not the creation of inherently better species stronger meaning species (we are NOT god damned pokemon for crying out loud) but rather taking characteristics which allows us to survive in our environments. Heck, just consider that huge and efficient killing machines such as dinosaurs evolved into birds...

---

ok, we share the same ancestor, but what is it ? our DNA is not similar to apes then that proves that we have nothing in common, thus we didn't share anything.

if you say the fossil record, the earth doesn't support this idea, because you can't find fossils.

Fossils are in itself extremely rare occurrences. Not finding every conceivable form in between two species is not by no means evidence against evolution, specially considering the overwhelming evidence already piling up in favor of evolution. Above that, our DNA is around 70 or 80% similar to freaking flies. The similarity between ours and chimp's DNA is at around 95-98%.....

On another note, on dry earth fossils are an exceptionally rare occurrence however that is not the case with the ocean floor. The ocean floor has can considerably favorable conditions for the forming of fossils and is indeed far more detailed than fossil records from the mainland.

[Roflkopt3r]

ok, we share the same ancestor, but what is it ? our DNA is not similar to apes then that proves that we have nothing in common, thus we didn't share anything.

if you say the fossil record, the earth doesn't support this idea, because you can't find fossils.

Sorry, but what kind of screwed up logics is that?

Our DNA is "relatively" close to that of certain apes, especially to that of shimpanzees, while our physical and psychical traits are actually closer to some other kind of apes, such as the Orangutan. However, Shaheer presented it as a vast difference because 1% change of DNA would take a lot of mutations.

Also, could you be more precise about the fossils? Several relatives, and some of them ancestors, of mankind were found. Fossils of living forms which are older than many christian groups claim that the world is, were found.
To find a flawless collection of fossils of all the developement of our ancestors would be even much, much more unlikely than finding no fossils of them at all... It's not like they're lying around everywhere. Special conditions are required for fossils to preserve, and the likelyhood of finding one accidentially is low.

[dark lord]

ok please just answer these following questions:

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from ?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?


If you understand evolution as you say, I'm sure this simple questions wouldn't make a diffrence, so please, you who understand evolution, enlighten us.

[shaheer]

Also, to adress another common missconception: Men did not evolve from a kind of ape which lives today; We just shared an ancestor at some long gone point.

true i am not referring to the ape tht we have now, i am referring to the ancestral ape, and by evolutionary process that ape the intermediate popular one that i mentioned should be present because DNA and RNA should be spontaneous creation and in the same way new loads of basic bacterias should evolve in every age in the same way more complex organism(like the premodial fish and other premodial animals) should also evolve. The formation of DNA and RNA never started in day one and on the other days only evolution occurred its a continuous process so every era these process should follow , and the evolution of the rest of the animal should continue like you said. There fore where are those?

---

To find a flawless collection of fossils of all the developement of our ancestors would be even much, much more unlikely than finding no fossils of them at all... It's not like they're lying around everywhere. Special conditions are required for fossils to preserve, and the likelyhood of finding one accidentially is low.

well thats true, the fossil findings are difficult and thatnks to the disturbance in the earth the fossils are tampered per-se; so a distinctive and a established fossil is a hard catch. therefore its very difficult to assert the claim on transitional species existance and non existance

[Roflkopt3r]

1.: Big Bang describes the starting point of matter and spacetime.
2.: Big Bang.
3.: They describe the interaction of different parts of the universe, so they are a part of it; Thus they came into existence when space and time did, with the big bang.
4.: What do you mean, organised? That they stick together as atomes and molecules? Obviously due to the interaction of matter, such as positive and negative polarities attracting each other, and due to pressure.
5. Big Bang
6. By coincidence, molecules formed a self reproducing formation based on physical laws.
7. "Learn"? Well, reproduction was the starting point of life probably, so it didn't have to learn it because it is what defined life in the first place.
8. Well, sexual reproduction basically only means to merge two kinds of DNA instead of just multiplying the same kind. So, if a cell was able to infiltrate the own dna into a foreign cell, or to absorb foreign DNA from an other cell, it would already be sexual reproduction.

[dark lord]

the universe is in a space, where did that space come from ? the big bang happened in a space, it can't happen in a nothing. do you get me now rofl ?

free your mind, just think beyond, the universe, there has to be a start point somewhere and it can't come from nothingness.

[shaheer]

Take crocodiles and sharks. They have been around for hundreds of millions of years with virtually no change. I am not saying these as evidence against evolution but rather that evolving is not necessarily the best way to go. These species are so adept at surviving that they have not needed to evolve to remain the brutal and efficient hunters they are.

uhu that is not the case, there is no ultimate stage for evolution to end to , and the change of climates due to time (estimated every 20 yrs 1 deg C increases ) so there is always a progressive change in the system and biota and hence the genome nexus should undergo natural selection should occur if ever. During the formation of Gamets the crossing over of genetic materials should occur and if thats the case then definitely (presuming that evlotion is a fact) the natural selection due to the change in climate and habitat should occur. but it never happens. If evolution is true(my prior statements defines my stance) then definitely the natural selection should occur
Evolution was proposed thinking that Cells has no substructures but later Dna and Rna and other organelles were found, that prompted the denial of the evolutionary theory. Microbiological books like Darwins Black Box addressed these issues

[Roflkopt3r]

the universe is in a space, where did that space come from ? the big bang happened in a space, it can't happen in a nothing. do you get me now rofl ?

Yeah of course. It isn't possible to say what came before the existence of space and time, especially because it means that before it no time existed, and thus no "before".
However, the big bang theory is based on the mathematical knowledge that tracing the universal timeline backwards leads to a smaller, denser and hotter universe. Tracking that back to the very beginning would mean: Everything was united in a single point which contained everything, but no time.
But where is the advantage in assuming that before something existed, there already was a conscious, allmighty beeing existing?

That's even less unlikely, because "God" is a conscious beeing, and consciousness is something very very complex.

[dark lord]

Yeah of course. It isn't possible to say what came before the existence of space and time, especially because it means that before it no time existed, and thus no "before".

but I'm not talking about time here, I'm talking about space, in what space the universe is contained ?
that condensed point is in what ? nothing ?

[kkck]

ok please just answer these following questions:

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from ?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?


If you understand evolution as you say, I'm sure this simple questions wouldn't make a diffrence, so please, you who understand evolution, enlighten us.

1.- According to some more recent theories the universe can create itself pretty much from nothing due to the laws of gravity. Pretty interesting stuff. Of course, pre existing laws of physics had to exist for that.
3.- I don't agree with intelligent design but I do think god created stuff so that it would make sense. You don't need to add him into equations for things to make sense.
5.- Same thing as the first question largely....
6.- Well, life is to a great degree hundreds of thousands of chemical processes working together. Above that, organic compounds have already been shown to naturally appear in nature from inanimate matter given the right circumstances that are remarkably similar to the things you'd find inside cells (kinda like cell organs but I can't remember the proper name....). It is large believed this organic compounds were the foundation for the formation of the very first cells and with time they got more complex.
7.- Why do you think that is something that has to be learned? Sounds like an outright strange point to make. bacteria has been around for billions of years and has been found in places and forms which mere months ago was thought impossible, reproduction is something that has been going since the first bacteria were around. It's not like animals even "learn" to reproduce. Heck, even humans don't technically learn how to do it. I am pretty sure we would instinctively figure it out without someone giving the details behind that lol.
8.- Cells reproduce asexually for crying out load, they just divide.... It is only more complex multicellular organisms which reproduce sexually.

---

but I'm not talking about time here, I'm talking about space, in what space the universe is contained ?
that condensed point is in what ? nothing ?

Space is an extraordinarily complex thing... even what we see as space (and time) is merely an interpretation of it. The main issue with getting into this sort of discussion is that we actually need a very advance theoretical knowledge to make proper discussions. I am sure you have heard things like "space is expanding" but even that is just an interpretation (and not necessarily accurate) of very complex mathematical processes and observations. This is also not the quite of thing which you can really grasp by just looking at wikipedia either (I don't get it all that much honestly, as I said before, I lack the theoretical knowledge). If you do ask someone who knows about this kinda thing (actual scientists):

1.- The universe is infinite
2.- the universe is expanding
3.- the universe is not really contained anywhere

and there are still a number of other similar points which require a lot of background knowledge for them to make sense really.

On another note, there is an issue with time here. Time is something which pretty much started at the same time the universe started. However before the universe there was no time and no space but there were still laws of physics (which have yet to be understood or discovered largely as far as I know, we just got to the part where there is evidence to suggest the universe can create itself from nothing) which allowed for that to happen.

[dark lord]

1.- According to some more recent theories the universe can create itself pretty much from nothing due to the laws of gravity. Pretty interesting stuff. Of course, pre existing laws of physics had to exist for that.

it simply doesn't have a will, a car can't create itself. and what do you mean by had ?

Lol, rofl got mad, I mean scientists are pretty sure of they are saying so they can't get mad, the religious person is the one who is supposed to get mad huh rofl ?

[kkck]

it simply doesn't have a will, a car can't create itself. and what do you mean by had ?

Lol, rofl got mad, I mean scientists are pretty sure of they are saying so they can't get mad, the religious person is the one who is supposed to get mad huh rofl ?

I didn't say it had a will, I simply said there is theoretical physical evidence that the universe as we know it can indeed create itself from nothing. That is why I said "Itself" and not "himself". As for had, I meant that there would have to be a certain laws that would lead to the creation of the universe (there is no reason to believe creation is merely limited to this one universe or that creation actually started with this particular universe right?). As for the car thing, I am pretty sure some people in quantum mechanics would disagree with you (:P) except that it would be unlikely for a car to spontaneously appear.

[shaheer]

According to some more recent theories the universe can create itself pretty much from nothing due to the laws of gravity. Pretty interesting stuff. Of course, pre existing laws of physics had to exist for that

the problem to the matter is the big bang s primary nebula came to action after the plancks time right? During that time the 4 basic forces the strong weak gravtation and electromagnetic force were not separated to different forces, so laws like gravity cant pop a universe from nothing
the Grand design proves the the professor s thinking is not rationalist way of thinking rather its empiricist way of thinking and he further proves my point saying :"philosophy is dead..."
if its asserted that some thing can come into existence by itself then it means that its an existence and not an existence at the same time.
This brings in tantamount no of questions and hopefully the professor will answer it in his next book.
Another thing is such universe would mean that the universe exist due to physical necessity. but what one fails to see is that our existence is totally dependent on a knife edge like the expansion rate of the universe ,if it change by 4*10^-18 sec the universe would collapse back.
Now to assert that these knife edge are dependent on natural laws is absurd because during the Big Bangs premodial stage the natural laws are in progress of separation and establishment, the matter and antimatter annihilation comes later on. And to assert on the physical necessity it would mean that a non life permitting universe is impossible, but we know that scientifically thats not possible either.
so to me Physical necessity dun make any sense, and i think that the professor would hopefully answer these questions of the flaws in physical necessity,in accordance with causality and a priori in his next book.

---

As for the car thing, I am pretty sure some people in quantum mechanics would disagree with you (:P) except that it would be unlikely for a car to spontaneously appear.

nope the car can spring up ya true but the quantum mechanics that you asserted here is only possible in the quantum mathematical realm not in real wold ,like the concept of infinity, it exists in mathematical realm but not in real world.
And more over car cant spring out from nothing, it would spring out from the vaccum, which in quantum mechanics standard is a something, without having a cause nothing can happen in real world, yes in mathematical paradigm many such makes sense though, but the problem happens when one relate these 2 together. these prompts stuffs like "philosophy is dead "

[M3J]

True, thats the problem, I mean we still have apes, what happened to them, they don't evolve anymore?


Just think for a minute, if religion is wrong, and morals came from religion then they are wrong as well, and thats not how the world should work anymore.

who says they don't evolve? evolution doesn't have to be as obvious as a sore thumb, it can be just as hidden. Why do we have a tailbone, but no tail? it can be explained that we did use to have tails which helped us with trees, but as the trees became more and more scarce, we had to settle for walking. Since tails weren't necessary, it began to get smaller and smaller. Same with appendix. Evolution made it more useless because we now eat healthier food/cleaner food. Answer this first: is there really any need for any primates to evolve, especially humans? at least rapidly or visibly? I think not as they're thriving, and humans are the most dominant species on Earth.

Morals can be wrong, depending on who's thinking that. There are still people who'd believe in morals. The way it you're reacting, it's as if you think the end of religion means end of the civilized world and people will go apeshit crazy and kill, rob, rape, and etc. People do that now, even with religion. Humanity will kill itself, not religion or lack of.

despite our intelligence, our look to each other will change, and you will longer look at your fellow human and his freedom as don't trespass, but rather just a mere animal with a brain.

BTW what do you guys have to say about the crusifixion of jesus, I mean we muslims believe he wasn't crusified and he was raised to heaven, and instead someone was crusified in his stead, which why christianity is wrong, because if jesus didn't die then all there will be no salvation.

I already do that, to be honest. Humans are animals, mammals to be exact. our arrogance is what makes us think we're different from other animals when that's so not the case. most of us think we're free, but we're not. Humans restrict freedom, mostly average citizens. Homosexuals can't really be entirely free because they will be attacked for being different. it was the same for black people long ago in America; they were denied basic freedom because of different color. It's just the laws were passed and black people actually proved they were no different from the white people that they began to gain as much freedom as the whites, but even then the freedom isn't as much. they're more likely to get stereotyped by the cops.
To be short, there is NO such thing as freedom, no matter where you are. Why? Humans' intelligence takes away such aspect.

If Jesus got crucified, he got crucified. He may as well been a charismatic leader like Buddha, Mohammad, Moses, and etc whose ideals may have caused other groups to fear him and his followers, thus killing him. Jesus may have been a great man whose legend became greatly exaggerated (yet makes for good jokes, like when Jesus said he had water but changed it to wine to avoid being yelled at since he was the designated driver in an online comic). It may be the same with Moses... either he never really split the sea apart or some phenomena happened or he made the people say or think that he really did split the sea apart.

For an ape to become a man theoretically he must mutate only 1 % of DNA. At first you might not think this is very significant, remember the mutations have to be exactly the order of human person. It is estimated that for 1% difference only one million mutations are needed. How can one have a million mutations with each mutation in the direct order to make a human.

It's not really as easy as you make it look like. The DNA would have to match the DNA of human, even then it's still not likely as even humans don't have the same DNA. Mutations in DNA/genes occur, and it is passed on to the offspring, even more likely if the mutation allows easier survival in the environment.

Let's say we have two species of primates in the forest. Let's call one species Luffy and one species Goku. they have tails, are able to walk on all four limbs, and are hunched over- their body giving them an advantage in their environment. Now, out of nowhere, the forest gets wiped out. Luffy and Goku are now dying because their advantages are gone because they don't have trees to protect themselves with. However, a mutation happens to two species in Luffy, whom we shall call Zoro and Robin. Zoro's mutation in genes allow him to stand straighter, whereas Robin's mutation allows her to walk on just her legs and makes her hands smaller. This helps them survive because Zoro has better view over distance and can more likely see the enemies and run away quicker. Robin can run while being able to make more precise tools in her hands to help her get away from the enemy. About 42 members of Luffy die, leaving only 74.
Now, Robin and Zoro mate, and three out of eighteen of their offspring get the mutation to stand up straighter, have smaller hands for precision, and be able to walk on two limbs. This increases their chances of survival because they are able to deal with the environment and enemies accordingly, whereas others with no mutation or unfavorable mutation dies out. Slowly, more and more offspring get the trait, which refines itself as it passes down, until the descendants generations later can stand completely straight, have small hands that can be extremely precise in making tools, and walk only on two limbs. Since the mutations enabled them to survive, they were able to pass it on whereas the others died out because they couldn't come up with genes to make them be able to adapt to the environment. Goku has no descendant due to this, whereas Robin and Zoro's descendants are part of Luffy but most likely different species altogether. this is how a human can be made, slowly with the genes changing itself for better within each passing generation.

And here is the catch evolution is considered as a continuous process. So why don't we have any transitional species (the popular ones like the intermediates between ape and man) in the society today?
As evolution is a continuous process, then the evolution from ape to man should continue and that mean every era these creatures should be present, rather we see well defined genomes present.

Maybe we do, but we can't easily see it. Bigfoot could exist for all we know. maybe transitional species have died out, maybe we do have some we don't know it or notice it. Maybe we ARE the transitional species.
Evolution doesn't happen the way you think it does. It can be pretty slow or it can be a bit rapid. Evolution isn't as apparent in humans because it's dominant and has no need to have mutations to adapt to the environment, especially with better brain. Evolution is more apparent when the species itself is in danger and nearly extinct.

And i did mention the odds to form a DNA the primordial era of the earth was brazen with excessive high temperatures that would not have facilitated life. Therefore the total 4.5 billion years want used for the development of the genomes.

No, the high temperature may have helped. the first bacteria was probably made through series of chemical reactions, but it was never living. However, the Earth's volatile situation at the time made it possible because the nonliving bacteria may have floated to the sky in bubble and struck by lightning, which made it living and I think become the first amino acid? this experiment has been done before and it's been successful, if I recall right. I think Urey and Miller were the scientists who conducted this experiment? Plus, many bacterias thrive in extremely hot temperature and in environment with no oxygen.

Lets take the second option . A research was done to justify the claim and it was found that for a monkey to randomly type and produce:TO BE OR NOT TO BE; an independent pattern of English grammar and Shakespearean play it will take it 28 billion years. How old is this universe (forget earth) a bit more than 14 billion years.. Now to form DNA and RNA (some microbes depends on RNA rather than DNA , but they use Lygase and other enzymes but those are mumbo jumbos not needed here) which has an independent pattern of life and self replicating units and the intricate design how long do you think it will take?

to be honest, i find that to be pretty stupid for a research. The monkey does NOT need to learn English grammar or Shakespeare, at all. it's not fundamental to its survival as species so of course it'll take so long for that to happen, if it does. We're able to do it because environment forced us to do so.

the chances for those are higher than the chances to form the 20 necessary amino acids and the DNA strand and RNA. The probability of assembling the genome is between 4-180 to 4-110,000 and 4-360 to 4-110,000.

It depends on the environment. The environment back then made it possible for amino acids to come to live, and for DNA and RNA to be formed. If I recall right though, DNA came way after RNA.

ok please just answer these following questions:

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from ?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?


If you understand evolution as you say, I'm sure this simple questions wouldn't make a diffrence, so please, you who understand evolution, enlighten us.

6. Life may have come from chemical reactions, which produced the first nonliving cell. then the environment enabled the cell to live by hitting it with lightning.

7. It doesn't need to learn. It can be an automatic thing. It'd be likely to be built in the brain/DNA of the species in order to necessitate its survival. the cells first reproduced asexually though.

8. With each other?

Answer me this. If matter has had to come from something, then so did god. Where did he come from? Despite his power, even he can't have existed out of nothingness or just be there. Where did god came from and why, how, and when did he come? Where did he get the powers to do what he supposedly can?

the universe is in a space, where did that space come from ? the big bang happened in a space, it can't happen in a nothing. do you get me now rofl ?

free your mind, just think beyond, the universe, there has to be a start point somewhere and it can't come from nothingness.

Same can be applied with god. God had to have a starting point somewhere and can't come from nothingness. his powers can't come from nothingness.

[dark lord]

Maybe we do, but we can't easily see it. Bigfoot could exist for all we know. maybe transitional species have died out, maybe we do have some we don't know it or notice it. Maybe we ARE the transitional species.
Evolution doesn't happen the way you think it does. It can be pretty slow or it can be a bit rapid. Evolution isn't as apparent in humans because it's dominant and has no need to have mutations to adapt to the environment, especially with better brain. Evolution is more apparent when the species itself is in danger and nearly extinct.

So, your saying that evolution is something that occurs whenever its needed to cope with the changes, so when the trees got scarce, only the ancestor of humans and chimps got rid of the tail, but as you see there are still apes climbing trees and have tails, why did those apes not like walking?

I mean the trees became scarce for everybody not only one type of species.

Answer me this. If matter has had to come from something, then so did god. Where did he come from? Despite his power, even he can't have existed out of nothingness or just be there. Where did god came from and why, how, and when did he come? Where did he get the powers to do what he supposedly can?


Same can be applied with god. God had to have a starting point somewhere and can't come from nothingness. his powers can't come from nothingness.

I already answered this

now you are wondering why god is uncaused, you see we as humans we think with our logic that WE created to explain something that created us. so god is well aware of this logic and he wouldn't have created it if it was going to turn against him and start condradicting him. thats the perfect god

And I told you before that we can't apply this logic of the cause and the consequence on his existence, simply if you do it you'll get an infinity of gods. why ? because a god was caused by another god who was caused by another god who was caused by another god who was caused by another god who was ........ infinity.....

this doesn't solve the problem thus this logic can not be applied to his existence.

Do I make sense here ?