Vikinor Posted March 3, 2005 Share Posted March 3, 2005 No. You go roll around in nuclear waste and BAM! Evolution hits you right there.....or kills you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighteyes Posted March 4, 2005 Author Share Posted March 4, 2005 I have my Evolution notes from lectures here and it says that it's called "Divergance Evolution", Meaning that Archaeopteryx evolved into something else and that split into a few new species then that split into other new species. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/history/images/hominid_divergence.gif As there is no way to measure the exact date that the chicken or the egg was made then you have to say that in theory the ameoba came first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Originally posted by VikingLarz No. You go roll around in nuclear waste and BAM! Evolution hits you right there.....or kills you. That's not evolution, that's mutation. Also, a summarize: (1) "Producing" eggs is not a privilege given to chickens (read: BIRDS), many animals use this form of reproduction nowadays. (2) Long before birds or even "pre-birds" evolved, eggs where a common form of reproduction, so the EGG ITSELF was there before even the first birds came up. Although that's a bit untrue, because it seems that birds directly evolved from dinosaurs. But mammals somehow too, so I feel free to ignore that. (3) If you ask the question "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" the only spockian answer is: teh egg. Because eggs came before chicken-birds. (4) If you ask the question the right way: "What came first, the chicken or the chicken-egg?" we have to differ things a bit, because: (A) only a chicken would be able to produce a chicken-egg. There cannot be a chicken-egg coming from a pre-chicken. Then a (the first) chicken is a must for a chicken-egg to be produced. But that's only if we consider a chicken-egg as "egg that came out of a chicken". But if we say that (B) the chicken-egg is defined by "egg that contains a chicken", the chicken-egg must have been there first. So.. what's a chicken-egg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrMcCoy Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Originally posted by RayJones So.. what's a chicken-egg? ...As long as it tastes good, I don't care... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Originally posted by Brighteyes I have my Evolution notes from lectures here and it says that it's called "Divergance Evolution", Meaning that Archaeopteryx evolved into something else and that split into a few new species then that split into other new species. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/history/images/hominid_divergence.gif As there is no way to measure the exact date that the chicken or the egg was made then you have to say that in theory the ameoba came first. okay, so question, just so we know. Evolution doiesn't occur to a single animal when it's alive does it, it happens with tiny changes and so on with their offspring. Like the dodo which used to be able to fly until it came to an island (esclapycos?) where it didn't need to fly (food on the ground an all) so it's offspring had slightly smaller wings, (like one out of five of their offspring and that's not canon) and then they had offspring with slightly smaller wings and so on until they couldn't fly and then man came along and ate them all because they were easy to catch and apparently very tasty. That's evolution though, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Originally posted by Joshi That's evolution though, right? Naja, .. beside the fact that size doesn't necessarily matters, no, I cannot disagree with your nice little annectode picturizing the principle of evolution. At least more than diggin' through nuclear waste. ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighteyes Posted March 4, 2005 Author Share Posted March 4, 2005 Thats an example of evolution yes (This has gotta be one of the best discussions ever posted here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighteyes Posted March 5, 2005 Author Share Posted March 5, 2005 That wasn't a que to stop this...."heated" discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikinor Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 I bet ALL eggs come from rocks that god saw their shape and was like "LOOK THIS IS COOL!" and he liked it so much he turned it into an egg. Then he kept changing what came out of those eggs until it became a chicken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Errm.. God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikinor Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Yea. Or if your athaist Mother Nature and Father Time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighteyes Posted March 6, 2005 Author Share Posted March 6, 2005 Oh no no no no no. Make no comparisons on God and Mother Nature! God is still unproved Nature is real, all around us, we can see,feel,smell,touch nature. We bloody well are nature! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien426 Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 How can anything be unnatural then? How come there is such a thing as "synthetic" when there is only nature around us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Natural: Occuring in Nature with no input from mankind. Synthetic: Using natural ingredients to create something that could never actually occur on it's own without mankind's meddling. But yes,.. the Earth is (for the purposes of argument) a closed system. Anything and everything that happens on the planet can be said to totally natural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikinor Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Well mankind is part of nature. Just a more advanced part. And Brighteyes if God hasn't ben proven how can he make a rock that he can't move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighteyes Posted March 6, 2005 Author Share Posted March 6, 2005 ......................(No i'll humour it) Well that's the point isn't it. If he ain't real you can't ask him, meaning he isn't real. The whole point of the conversation was to prove wether God existed and how powerful he was if proven real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikinor Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 What's with the drowsy face? And I thought this thread was about God making a rock he couldn't move and chickens and eggs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Originally posted by VikingLarz Yea. Or if your athaist Mother Nature and Father Time. Or simply 'the universe' (no matter how many there may be). Let's try not to personify stuff where there is no need to. Originally posted by Brighteyes Make no comparisons on God and Mother Nature! Considering the fact that (some) people/religions(?) tend to say God is everywhere and everything, God could as well be seen as a synonym for 'nature'. Put into the right perspective there is nothing wrong with that. But I think i do not like the idea that "something was done" literally. In my opinion "something happened" is more the correct term to use. Originally posted by edlib Synthetic: Using natural ingredients to create something that could never actually occur on it's own without mankind's meddling. At least we don't know if it occured "on it's own" somewhere. Originally posted by VikingLarz Well mankind is part of nature. Just a more advanced part. More advanced than what? Quantum mechanics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighteyes Posted March 7, 2005 Author Share Posted March 7, 2005 The Chicken/Egg theory was just abit of fun side track. Ah but Ray, is "Mother Nature" not just a collective term for nature itself? Wouldn't that mean that "God" was a collective term for everything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Why not? There were/are religions worshipping many different deities. One for the fire, one for thunder, one for the harvest etc, etc. You can say one for every for-our-life-significant happening in "nature". Of course that's not very 'useful' for bigger religious movement, so the different gods simply were 'combined', the god of thunder and fire became one and/or whatever. Until one day there was only one god left, responsible for everything. So from a certain point of view, God is nature, even the whole universe and more, so to say. It just depends on how things are interpreted. To refer the Zoomster: "I don't believe the universe is run by a little man sitting in a little room pushing buttons", err.. or like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Ancient Greeks, Hindu's Ancient Egyptians and many other regions, they all had multiple gods for many different aspects of life. But it is a lot of peoples opinion that God is Omnipresent, meaning he is everywhere, and in order for him to be everywhere, he would have to be everything, therefore, based on that theory, he is eveywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Yes. Exactly like "nature is everywhere". The difference is clearly the belief/"truth"/interpretation one may put behind these words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivy Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Originally posted by Brighteyes Ah but Ray, is "Mother Nature" not just a collective term for nature itself? oh no, i've met Mother Nature. she was very er, nimble... ah venice. very temperamental though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien426 Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 You're confusing her with Mother Maggie. Meanwhile, in England: Englishman: I say, Jeremy, isn't that Reginald B. Stifworth, the young upstart chap who's been touting the merits of a united European commonwealth? Jeremy: Why yes, I daresay it is. Englishman: Oh, let's get him. They drive up. Englishman: Oh Reginald... I disagree. Drives off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toenail1 Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Originally posted by Alien426 Meanwhile, in England: Englishman: I say, Jeremy, isn't that Reginald B. Stifworth, the young upstart chap who's been touting the merits of a united European commonwealth? Jeremy: Why yes, I daresay it is. Englishman: Oh, let's get him. They drive up. Englishman: Oh Reginald... I disagree. Drives off. Drive by's in England. New topic of discusion "Why is England cooler than America?" (Yes, I am american, but I wish I lived in Britain) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.