And where did the bacteria come from? I feel anyone who is sane, 'must' find it difficult an absurd idea as this. There ya go! Let the fury unleash, gotcha!!
Believe whatever you like. Just show other people who believe differently a little respect please. The world would be a dull place if we all believed the same thing. What would we have to talk about?
Oh look everyone! Another desperate creationist thinking he's at the top of the game by down playing evolution, which clearly he knows nothing about. People live in a world of make believe and how an imaginary magic man created all living things because his poorly educated pastor told him so. It's easier for people like this to make up excuses for their invisible friend and top it off by tell everyone what and how their imaginary friend thinks! Wouldn't be easier on yourself and look less ridiculous by simply admitting that you don't know and find out your questions from a credible source (anything religious IS NOT a credible source)..
What about all those folks who believe the sun rises each day in the East ans sets in the west. Or those who believe we all need oxygen and water to survive? There are some basic immutable laws that even liberal relativists have to obey. Yes, you may find this hard to believe, but even a liberal who thinks of himself as his own god will fall to his death when pushed from a ten story building. It's the law of Gravity. God made these laws, So it is in your best interest to believe in HIM!
There's any example of some circular logic. First thing you need to do is prove that God made those laws rather than stating it as a given and then concluding that because God made those laws we have to believe in him.
No he didn't. Amaterasu did. Or, wait, was it Ptah? Or was it Viracocha? Kamuy? Izanagi? Marduk?
Yeah, we'll go with Marduk. Marduk wrote those laws, you plebeian.
And yet, we see an egg and sperm come together and develop into a person right before our eyes and within 9 months.
Do you mean to say - that those bacteria worked inside and through human bodies to get where they went (finally became human beings)?
It is crazy. In less than a year we can get a human from nothing and you can't even imagine (given the evidence) what millions of years of evolution can do. Crazy stuff.
You mean - there is no difference between you writing that post on your keyboard - and HP forum-software displaying that millions of times whenever we reload the page?!
Here ya go! Crazy stuff!
Prodio, A human body is a bunch of bacteria-like organisms that have learned, through an evolutionary process, to live together, pretty much in harmony. How exactly this has happened we shall probably never know, but science can and does give us lots of reasons to marvel and admire the process.
Such a process ultimately gave you, and those like you, the mentality to believe in far-fetched stories, like a "god in the sky," that made human beings suddenly appear out of thin air.
Or do I misunderstand you?
The integrity of existence must be maintained otherwise it cannot be.
It then stand to reason that everything within existence, must maintain the integrity of existence itself.
So therefore a bacteria must remain as a bacteria within existence and it cannot be change into something else for this would be a breach within existence itself.
So we see then that anything that exist as if they are subjective to change, can only exist suspended in a temporal state as a conundrum, awaiting the day of its establishment within or without existence.
You make a case for an static, unchanging universe - something we all know does not exist as we experience change every day.
Your "We" does not include me....
Plus that was my response to your question...not making a case to anything except to respond to your question.
It is either you understood or you did not....
Also: You either made sense, or you did not. Communication being a two way street
You did indeed propose an unchanging system. I am not sure from your reply whether you dispute that.
Great catch! Thanks for keeping the suburb clean
It seems as if you think that it is my responsibilty to create an understanding when communicating to another....
Be assured I do not accept such a responsibility.
Your perception which brings understanding, belongs to you and you are absolutely free to use it as you will.
And by this things will make sense or nonsense....but only to you.
Very often in communication, the one who is lacking in understanding, rather than attempt to adjust their perspective in order to gain an understanding, they simply create avenues to distract from the topic on focus.
It is clear as to your position concerning this conversation....for no attempt has been made to clarify any part of my post before coming to a conclusion.
If you don't care about making sense, don't expect to be listened to.
Without the acknowledged responsibility to attempt to promote understanding, there is no reason for communication.
You just do not understand understanding....
even if I was to explain..you still miss it....
...it is not in your interest to understand because you are too busy trying to impress upon another that which does not belong to them.
Are you saying he is a sales man? He can't understand because he's busy trying to sell stuff to people?
take it as you will ...
I have already said what i have said.
Indeed you did. You spoke (typed) the words, but imparted no meaning or understanding.
No. I think he said you are a salesman. That's what I got anyway. What are you selling anyway? I buy stuff from time to time. Do you sell cycling shoes, I need some new ones?
If you speak in French, or German, or Swahili, or Mandarin I will not understand.
And I will not understand when you use English words, but not within the accepted and common usage of those words. If you wish to be understand (and you say you don't) then it is incumbent on you to use the language I know and use it properly. If you truly do not wish to be understood, why type anything at all? Just put an "X" out there and complain when no one understands your message.
It makes much sense to me that you will keep responding without fail to things that you claim to be incomprehensible....
I can think of a another and more appropriate approach, which is far superior to the one chosen.
Uhh - you aren't responding on the mistaken impression that my posts are intended for you are you?
"Change" is the fundamental factor of our consciousness. Without "Change" there can be no consciousness.
Although there may be those who disagree, I think that I am quite sane. I trust science on this one. Bacteria did not become human just like that; they began an evolutionary process that lead to creatures like us as well as the evolved bacteria of today. What may make it easier to believe is the span of time that all this took, something like four thousand million years, they say. I think that is a long enough time for us to brew.
Can a sane person believe that man was magically created via verbal command from a pile of dirt?
You see creationists can strawman evolution all they want but even the most ridiculous versions of evolution they make up to suit their incredulity aren't nearly as ridiculous as the primitive supernatural explanation contained in the Bible. Yes the Bible, where Bacon is forbidden, slavery is condoned and established by God, donkeys can talk and women are molded out of a single rib-bone.
Meanwhile evolution is completely permissible within the natural world as a gradual process of variation building on existing genetic structure. See DNA is just a self-replicating molecule, that's all life is, chemical machines that reproduce themselves through chemistry, no magic needed. Just as we don't need to posit the supernatural to explain why the sun is a giant nuclear reaction in space.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
- Max Planck
[BTW. Strawman fallacies? Where did you see any strawman fallacy? Check you post twice - I mean, many times. You're sounding funny.]
Funny thing about science and scientists. They often find things in nature that appear absurd and very difficult to believe, yet when the hard evidence is observed and understood, they have no choice but to accept it, no matter what they may have previously believed.
The religious, on the other hand, deny hard evidence because they are afraid their beliefs will be shattered.
Now, who again were you asking about being sane?
Well, a troubled conception as it is - a person who thinks that 'bacteria became human beings' - is quite sane.
That's the thing about beliefs, they usually aren't valid, so instead, we use something called, "understanding", which is where sanity makes its debut.
Well, trouble again, but you do make a point. And it may have wide implications.
Yes, but most likely a point lost on those who don't understand how things work, but instead, "believe" in things.
Another point. And if elaborated a little - will have wide implications as well.
It already has had wide implications, but most believers missed the boat on that one.
Another infantile emoticon, hahaha
Well, it's quite evident who is a 'visible' believer here.
We are still mostly bacteria, so I don't see why not.
I'm a religious person but see no reason to deny scientific evidence and findings (in fact, if my religion required me to deny all facts that contradicted it, I'd leave it-- I can't be dishonest for my faith). To say nothing complex can exist without something bigger and more complex making it happen puts you in kind of a conundrum from the start right there.
The fact is that something, somewhere, existed without a creator. Whether it be Gods or energy or matter or what... something did exist without being poofed into existence itself.
To assume then that it means evolution is impossible would be a fallacy, because you could use every bit of the same logic to say Gods are impossible (in fact, moreso, because evolution has been proven and Gods have not).
It's like the sun going around the earth, or the fact that epileptic seizures are not devil possessions... science has proven the way certain things work. You kind of just need to get past it and accept your religion was wrong about some beliefs.
Bacteria didn't become humans. They had to become primates first. And before that, mammals. And before that, proto-mammals. And before that, amphibians/reptiles/fish. And before that, proto-amphibians/reptiles/fish. And before that, proto-proto-fish. And before that, complex multi-cellular organisms. And before that, simple multi-cellular organisms. And before that...well, you get the idea. I hope.
Do you realize how crazy that sounds. No bases in truth or facts to back it up other than from an old bird watcher who in the end didn't believe his own theory either.
Except of course that it's backed up by DNA and the fossil records.
Your response is a false statement, DNA and the fossils used by the pseudo scientists were manipulated and faked . Darwin himself pointed out that he was disappointed that he could find no intermediary fossils in the Cambrian strata. In his papers he concludes:
" Moving on from the Cambrian layer, did Darwin provide any evidence at all for intermediate links as evidence for evolution in any of the strata of the fossil record? Darwin wrote in his Origin:
"So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth."
He wrote immediately after this in his Origin:
"Independent of our not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links”. (Origin, Chapter Ten: Imperfection of Geol. Rec.)
In the same section Darwin further confessed the lack of evidence for his theory:
“Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.” (7)
By Darwin's own admission we discover that there is a complete absence of any fossil evidence for evolution not only in the pre-Cambrian layer, but throughout the entire geologic column.
You can read more here:http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm
Man tries to be his own god. I always ask the believers in man's theories how many planets solar systems or universes they have been able to create. Like Darwin, they always come up short.
You wanna talk DNA, the 'scientific evidence' is even flimsier. Will
130 years is a long time for new information to come to light. 2000 is even longer.
That's your response? Someone purposely faked DNA and fossils records? I'll get back to this later. Too funny.
Sorry, but you've taken quotes out of context by leaving out important parts:
"On the lapse of Time. Independently of our not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links, it may be objected, that time will not have sufficed for so great an amount of organic change, all changes having been effected very slowly through natural selection."
Darwin was commenting on the Lapse of Time and how changes are affected at a very slow rate.
So far, all you've provided is only a disingenuous post. I think you don't even know what you're talking about.
“Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory.”
As far as I know, Darwin was an honest man, honestly presenting what he had found, yet grappling with his genuine religious faith. It was the people in the church who battled against what he said, because they did not want to let go of their religious beliefs.
Have things changed? I don't think so.
“Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links?" One answer to this is that the softer tissues of the earlier species did not survive the fossilization process and they are not therefore to be found and studied.
I don't think so! Or are you just being funny?
The alternative seems to be either a bit of lifeless dust or a rib bone. Of the three, and given lots of time, I choose the bacteria.
Ecclesiastes 11:5 As you do not know the path of the wind ..
The path of the wind is pretty easy to learn. Y'know, if you learn Basic Meteorology 101.
Did you read the entire passage? So you may know the path of the wind, and by reasoning you assume you know the mind of God. Do people bow down before You too??
I find it dramatically more difficult to believe that a magic supreme being snapped his fingers and suddenly you had men and women walking about, versus primitive things evolving into more complicated things over a massive time period.
Lets pretend that both those notions are insane, the former is much more insane than the latter, so I choose to be less insane rather than a complete lunatic.
Huzzah for insanity
The God of the universe who created it and U and me anticipated that man would try t use the brain He gave us to put themselves above God. In I Corinthians 2:14 God's anticipation of man's hubris let Him to warn us, and predicted quite accurately:
" But people who aren't spiritual can't receive these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means.."
Now why would you speak of a non-existent creature from another universe or quote passages from a book with almost no truth in it, to a person that has already stated they understand that your god is imaginary only and the book is full of lies and mistakes? Are you hoping to convert him to the imaginary life you lead with that? Because, given his statement, it is NOT going to happen no matter how many quotes you produce or how many times you claim the myth is real.
And no, it is not a rhetorical question, but rather an honest try for information. Why would you use those specific arguments on the person you replied to?
Is it wrong that I have found the entirety of this thread to be wildly entertaining?
I knew there was some wit out there, but you all overdid yourselves here. I actually laughed. Out loud. Not something that usually happens. (Or that you care about for that matter, so...moving on...)
Oh right. I need to say something related to the post:
"Can a 'sane' person believe that bacteria became human beings?"
I'd first have to ask, how do you define sane?
Well, actually - maybe we need to ask that to bacteria themselves.
Last time I tried to talk to bacteria it didn't respond. Guess I'll have to settle for your definition?
How could bacteria will respond if you don't both speak the same language.
So all of the fossils and DNA data are faked.
Whoever arranged that conspiracy really kicks ass. Are they hiring?
by Thom Carnes 14 years ago
A few weeks ago I asked what I thought was quite a serious, searching question about the existence of God, and was rather disappointed when it got a very limited response. (This could have been because we were all wrestling this other equally important issues at the time.)Peter Lopez made a valiant...
by Prodio 9 years ago
Atheists do not dislike God - they dislike the God which has been created, described and distributed by human beings. "A Christian God" - says an atheist - "is not a God at all" - and they are true - up to a great extent. A "Muslim God" - said he - "is...
by Taurus2 11 years ago
Prove that this is how all life on earth, and man especially, came into existence in this planet. You got no evidence, come on samurais, you got no chop!!
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 9 years ago
Do animals know anything about God?I would like to know that do animals have their own Gods? Or they are unaware abut the existence God?
by Emile R 12 years ago
The longer I wander through this forum, the more I think that religion is standing in the way of progress spiritually on a global scale. It's my opinion that the major religions have built a wall of doctrine that makes it difficult for the dogmatic adherents to find the exact thing they claim they...
by Terrex 7 years ago
Are there holes in theory of evolution?Creationism is regarded by sceptics as a fanciful theory which does not stand up to scrutiny.The alternatives they offer seem credible on the surface, but are there problems with them, too?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|