Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[Rampant.A.I.]

I suppose that I should have mentioned the absurdity of mating couples by accident. What was the male of every species on earth doing before his mate was constructed? You have a male with all of the capabilities of using his sexuality before there was even a mate. What are the odds of two different sexual beings being accidentally together at the same time with all of the necessary opposite parts being complete at the same time so an offspring could be created. No Possibility! Did the male have all of the female parts himself, and then share them with another man? You know where that one ends up.
Both creatures had to be built to be compatible in every way before a birth could even occur. Birth? What a monumentally problematic idea that had to be. A sole creature had been making offspring all by himself, then one day, an opposite and completely correct match was found accidentally that could provide life. Is this getting dumber by the moment?

This is getting dumber by the moment.

Here: Stop talking, read this.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu

[RDK]

You have to make unwarranted leaps of (logic?) to make sense out of scenarios which can make no sense.
Imagine if the female mentioned before did not have one of the needed parts to create a child. You know that nothing would happen. What would a sole holder of genetic information do when his byproduct had to match that of the female who would be needed to provide the other half of the genetic traits he was giving half of? The biggest impossibility would be that he had any desire to do something about this problem. His drive to be with a woman had not even been developed yet.
Multiply this by every animal that exists and you see that growth of species could never have gone this way. Any other ideas?

[Rampant.A.I.]

You're still making arguments from lego female monkeys being unable to give birth to lego human figurines, because the lego female monkey had only had a 2 studded block skirt while the male human figurine had both rotating legs attached to the rotating crotch joint installed in their torso.



Seriously. Read the link.

[The Valkyrie]

You have to make unwarranted leaps of (logic?) to make sense out of scenarios which can make no sense.
Imagine if the female mentioned before did not have one of the needed parts to create a child. You know that nothing would happen. What would a sole holder of genetic information do when his byproduct had to match that of the female who would be needed to provide the other half of the genetic traits he was giving half of? The biggest impossibility would be that he had any desire to do something about this problem. His drive to be with a woman had not even been developed yet.
Multiply this by every animal that exists and you see that growth of species could never have gone this way. Any other ideas?

There was NO time that there were only male or females of a species.

Genders evolved alongside one another.

Good Grud, how is that complicated?

[Sejanus]

How the fuck did lego get brought up in a conversation about evolution? it was a theist, wasn't it?

[The Valkyrie]

How the fuck did lego get brought up in a conversation about evolution? it was a theist, wasn't it?

No, just what RDK is describing as evolution is more in tune with putting premade lego blocks together.

Like an early ancestor crawling up onto land and seeing a pair of lungs sitting there waiting for him.

[Rampant.A.I.]

How the fuck did lego get brought up in a conversation about evolution? it was a theist, wasn't it?

My fault this time. RDK seems to be stuck on the idea that the parts of future organisms spring forth, fully formed, awaiting assembly.

Like a lego set, if you opened all the plastic baggies and smashed your face into it repeatedly until it constructed one sex of a particular species, then repeated the same face-smashing process until you arrived at another sex of the same species.

I can't explain how he got there, all I know is I need to go apply some Neosporin, and that his theory is thoroughly unverifiable.

[RDK]

I have been directed to multitudes of things to read on this site, and I have investigated them all. The difficulty with any teaching (religion included) is that whoever you listen to on a subject only give you the positives of the argument. When you went to church, did anyone EVER give you a list of contradictions or difficulties about the book they were trying to share with you? Of course not. It's human nature to (give you all the good stuff to make you believe) for approval and credit to the teachers intelligence. I've studied the pro's and con's of all kinds of subjects. I can't know all of the answers, but I can sure point out the goofy ones. It takes time to learn something, and you feel proud when you make knowledge connections. I try to share what I find in the Bible to fellow Christians, but they yell and howl every time I don't agree with them. I've seen so many problems with scriptures that I wonder how I can even keep my faith. A book is not my God and literature of any kind that doesn't hold water needs to be reviewed.

---

You have to make unwarranted leaps of (logic?) to make sense out of scenarios which can make no sense.
Imagine if the female mentioned before did not have one of the needed parts to create a child. You know that nothing would happen. What would a sole holder of genetic information do when his byproduct had to match that of the female who would be needed to provide the other half of the genetic traits he was giving half of? The biggest impossibility would be that he had any desire to do something about this problem. His drive to be with a woman had not even been developed yet.
Multiply this by every animal that exists and you see that growth of species could never have gone this way. Any other ideas?

There was NO time that there were only male or females of a species.

Genders evolved alongside one another.

Good Grud, how is that complicated?

---

If a partnership of two future mates, or many mates, the difficulty lies here. The notion that something good can happen later doesn't work as an argument in favor of future pair bonding. If the different parts have yet to be tested, there is no way that evolution can modify it. All of the connections have to be right, at the same time, in order for the future use of the parts to be handed down. You have to cross the line that at one particular moment a man coupled with a woman with-who knows what- consequences. Adaptation of an alternate to suit some future use can not happen. There are trillions of ways to make mistakes here which can not be adjusted with time or circumstance.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Ok. But at least in church, I'm assuming you wouldn't feed the bible into a wood chipper, snort the pulp through a Boba straw, and then straddle the pulpit screaming "Jesus is in me! I understand God's Word!" before drinking 3-4 bottles of communion wine, smashing an empty on the Pastor's head, and performing the daily sermon upside-down, turning the bible pages with your feet, and manipulating your trousers to appear to be reciting Luke 10:4-10:8 in the voice of Grover from Sesame Street.

...Because that's the rough equivalent of what you're doing with the theory of evolution.

[RDK]

I know that new ideas are difficult to absorb, so I have to be bold to share my knowledge with you. I have had huge groups of church people try to lay on of hands to drive the demons out of me to no avail. I found faults with the literature and the swarms proceeded to drive me out. Some God's Love huh? I don't blame a single one of you for being atheist. People are the same wherever you go, including here. After the church junk, I actually feel more at home here, since I have gone through the absurdities the same way as many of you. Don't be too upset at me sharing this stuff. Where else do people talk about problems with Church and Science. Back tomorrow after work, Thanks, Rick.