56 replies to this topic

[Hostile]

Yet scientists cannot zero in on when the chicken starting laying the egg. There in lies the paradox. You claim chickens just sorta started laying eggs based on some invisible zero factor.

Sounds as believable as Saint so-and-so claiming they spoke to God. I see no difference.

You can't prove the chicken laid the fucking egg dude. Because you can't even prove ancient chickens even laid eggs. You can't prove there were ancient chickens that didn't lay eggs.

You must be able to show some place somewhere where ancient chickens didn't lay eggs, and than they did.

Rhetorical question huh? Science is not invinsible to everyday questions either.

Your ideas of "how things work" are just as open to speculation as religion.

[MSpencer]

Actually, they developed from birds which had been already laying eggs... which developed from feathered dinosaurs which layed eggs... which developed from regular dinosaurs which layed eggs... which developed from lizards... which developed from aquatic creatures from after the Permian Extinction... which developed from surviving creatures from the Permian Extinction... which developed from prior marine animals... which developed eventually waaaay back from unicellular eukaryotic organisms... which developed from an amalgam of prokaryotes... which developed from protobionts.
Thus the evolutionary history of the chicken and the egg.
Want me to trace humankind or would you have to stab me with your Jesusstick?

Edited by MSpencer, 17 July 2006 - 04:54 AM.

[narcismo316]

So in short, if anyone asks you that question, smack them in the face and call them a stupid bitch.

improving the world, one stupid bitch, and one slap in the face at a time????????
HMMMMMMMMMMM?
i'm in! :thumbsup:

[Hostile]

Actually, they developed from birds which had been already laying eggs... which developed from feathered dinosaurs which layed eggs... which developed from regular dinosaurs which layed eggs... which developed from lizards... which developed from aquatic creatures from after the Permian Extinction... which developed from surviving creatures from the Permian Extinction... which developed from prior marine animals... which developed eventually waaaay back from unicellular eukaryotic organisms... which developed from an amalgam of prokaryotes... which developed from protobionts.
Thus the evolutionary history of the chicken and the egg.
Want me to trace humankind or would you have to stab me with your Jesusstick?

Everything is correct except the lizard part. Dino's were not lizards, they came later. Just to clarify...dino's and birds are warm blooded. Reptiles came later, Not much but they did come later.

[narcismo316]

off topic: I cant believe anyone even replied. wow!

[MSpencer]

Amphibians. So shoot me, it's 1 AM.

Edited by MSpencer, 17 July 2006 - 05:24 AM.

[Allied General]

where did protobionts come from and for why do the exist in the first place?

science can answer how but it never gives a purpose.

and to simply say its luck is blantantly unscientiftic.

Edited by Allied General, 24 July 2006 - 12:31 AM.

[Kazyumi]

Where did God come from? Why does God exist? Who made God?
Please answer those questions with LOGICAL backing and then maybe I'll be convinced of a God.

But, you see, that's the shame.

These questions should shut any deist up because there's no answer, for the concept of 'God' didn't even exist until someone pulled that concept out his ass 2006+ years ago.

So as I said, try to answer those questions.. and maybe seriously start doubting your faith in God...

I rest my case.

Edited by Kazyumi, 24 July 2006 - 05:27 PM.

[MSpencer]

Protobionts were simply the natural result of chemical evolution. Metabolically active sacs created by the interaction of various molecules forming macromolecules, such as your normal phospholipid bilayer. It's not that hard to explain that as phospholipids were eventually abiotically, the various hydrophilic and hydrophobic reactions with regards to their ends caused them to create standard membranes as seen in most living organisms (If not all... the only ones without natural membranes would be viruses) today. It's totally gradual chemical evolution, as certain molecules began to accumulate, created by abiotic synthesis in the atmosphere (As proven by several classic atmospheric experiments in the late 1950s and 60s), they fused together to form a cohesive system, protobionts. The only thing that distinguished them from truly living organisms is the fact that they did not have DNA. Those with DNA were able to reproduce more effectively, propagating more thoroughly, and then obviously, surviving in the grand scheme of things. Protobionts were basically membrane-enclosed, metabolically active sacs following many of the same simple pathways that simple bacteria follow today. Very simple metabolic paths created by very simple chemical evolution over millions upon millions upon millions of years.
It's the thing they don't teach you in high school biology, thus causing many ignorant people to ignorantly question a theory which they do not know about completely.
I suggest you go to Barnes and Noble or Borders and check out the Science section. There are some very good books there. You don't even have to read them with an open mind, just read them so I don't have to explain things like this without the proper materials in hand.
I'm sure some of the things I stated above were fairly bad generalizations, the theories on these things get quite deep with the various pathways evolving, but believe me, the evidence and work is all out there if you decide you want to look. At one point I knew much more on the topic of chemical evolution, maybe Blaat could shed some light on it as I'm sure at one point it was mentioned in greater detail than I explained in her field.

[Athena]

It's the thing they don't teach you in high school biology, thus causing many ignorant people to ignorantly question a theory which they do not know about completely.

I was taught bits of that.

[MSpencer]

Yes, but here lies the question at the end. Did any of your chemistry courses cover chemical evolution, or is that solely a biochem thing?

[Athena]

I was taught that what you said in secondary school, biology. But in my chemistry study I've had biochemistry also, it's obliged to take Biochemistry basics, I chose Biochemistry II too, though.

[MSpencer]

Did they cover chemical evolution, though?

[Kazyumi]

Where did God come from? Why does God exist? Who made God?
Please answer those questions with LOGICAL backing and then maybe I'll be convinced of a God.

But, you see, that's the shame.

These questions should shut any deist up because there's no answer, for the concept of 'God' didn't even exist until someone pulled that concept out his ass 2006+ years ago.

So as I said, try to answer those questions.. and maybe seriously start doubting your faith in God...

I rest my case.

Nobody answered me this yet, and I've still seen a lot of believers whine about how exists. Argue this.

Edited by Kazyumi, 10 August 2006 - 11:55 AM.

[Fate Holdeth No Sting]

Kazyumi, you must not be very educated to have actually asked those questions.
By simply looking at the definition of God, you should have already stuffed your mouth with some mashed potatoes, or something nice to eat, because the questions immediately lose their meaning. "God" is defined by infinite. How can something Infinite have been created? Simple Answer: It cannot. To religious people, "God" is the bassline, having always been, and willing to always be.

Basic Answer: We're left inbetween. There is no rock-solid 100% way to prove God, and there is no 100% rock-solid way to disprove God.

[MSpencer]

And you can't spell, so you must not be too well educated either.

And because there's no way to prove its existence, the normal laws of logic must allow us to infer that it does not exist. If you want everyone to turn the hell around and decide we're going to believe in something that cannot be proven, then you can just go ahead and throw four thousand years of scientific study right out the window. If you can't prove something exists and you decide to believe in it so quickly and unquestioningly, you relegate yourself to a lifetime of absolute ignorance.

[duke_Qa]

as far as we can tell scientifically, it does not exist, and that is good enough for me to spend my life on far more important things than worrying that some deity watches my back. like watching my back on my own

and even though there might be a god, and we somehow proves that he exists in the future, i would have been more nervous about that god going "mortals? i havent seen those in a while, how fun. lets play"

Edited by duke_Qa, 11 August 2006 - 01:38 PM.