How Can There Be Multiple Gods and Multiple Truths?

[Boss]

So your theory is god did it, right?

Well something did it. Right?

I mean, even if you believe every beautiful and incredibly miraculous living organism originated ultimately from one single cell organism... Something had to be responsible for that happening. Unless you believe in magic or something.

 

[sealybobo]

All organisms share a similar genetic machinery and certain biochemical motifs related to metabolism. It is therefore very likely that there once existed a universal ancestor and, in this sense, all things alive are related to each other.

Of course all living things share similar genetic machinery. That isn't proof of anything. All living things share the same elements found all over the universe. All life is carbon based. I mean... what the hell does that prove? NADDA!

Where did:

All the different mammals come from?
Birds?
Reptiles and Amphibians?

First, do you think birds started on land? How did that happen? Did two adult birds have babies? How did the two adult birds get here? Who were their parents?

I can't answer your questions because there is no science to support any theory. Sorry. Just being completely honest about it. I can tell you what my opinion is based on my own scientific knowledge... is that what you want?

I think, given the enormous amount of inter-dependence we find in life, many things had to come into existence at the same exact time. Because the whole "circle of life" had to be there in order to sustain itself. Too many things rely on other things. Symbiotic relationships.

At first the bacteria fed off sunlight. Then bigger stronger bacteria developed and started eating the original bacteria. They developed into fish and the smarter fish stayed at the bottom while the less advanced stayed at the top and fed off sunlight. BLABLA. The first life didn't need the 5 food groups.

 

[sealybobo]

Do you have a link that shows the scientific community saying that biology and DNA say one genus species can't evolve into a new genus?

No... the scientific community isn't big on saying things can't happen.

So you were flat out WRONG when you said
biology and DNA say one genus species can't evolve into a new genus. Wrong or you lied.

 

[sealybobo]

So your theory is god did it, right?

Well something did it. Right?

I mean, even if you believe every beautiful and incredibly miraculous living organism originated ultimately from one single cell organism... Something had to be responsible for that happening. Unless you believe in magic or something.

I agree. Evolution doesn't disprove God.

 

[Boss]

At first the bacteria fed off sunlight. Then bigger stronger bacteria developed and started eating the original bacteria. They developed into fish and the smarter fish stayed at the bottom while the less advanced stayed at the top and fed off sunlight. BLABLA. The first life didn't need the 5 food groups.

Where is the evidence that bacteria can "evolve" into fish?
Where is the evidence that fish can feed off sunlight?

Even the simplest single-cell organism is comprised of millions of atoms, all working together as a functioning system in an organized way to process energy from matter. Where did that come from? What instructed those atoms to behave in that way? The Cosmos?

 

[Boss]

So you were flat out WRONG when you said
biology and DNA say one genus species can't evolve into a new genus. Wrong or you lied.

There is no evidence for it and everything in biology and DNA says it's not possible. There may be something we don't know, so no one (including me) can say that something CAN'T happen.

 

[sealybobo]

Do you have a link that shows the scientific community saying that biology and DNA say one genus species can't evolve into a new genus?

No... the scientific community isn't big on saying things can't happen.

I found a source you must be using.

CHAPTER 15 SPECIES EVOLUTION

It is amazing and no we don't have definitive proof.

 

[sealybobo]

At first the bacteria fed off sunlight. Then bigger stronger bacteria developed and started eating the original bacteria. They developed into fish and the smarter fish stayed at the bottom while the less advanced stayed at the top and fed off sunlight. BLABLA. The first life didn't need the 5 food groups.

Where is the evidence that bacteria can "evolve" into fish?
Where is the evidence that fish can feed off sunlight?

Even the simplest single-cell organism is comprised of millions of atoms, all working together as a functioning system in an organized way to process energy from matter. Where did that come from? What instructed those atoms to behave in that way? The Cosmos?

If those atoms didn't behave that way we wouldn't have life here on earth. Maybe God should make life possible on Mars and the Moon.

 

[Boss]

Do you have a link that shows the scientific community saying that biology and DNA say one genus species can't evolve into a new genus?

No... the scientific community isn't big on saying things can't happen.

I found a source you must be using.

CHAPTER 15 SPECIES EVOLUTION

It is amazing and no we don't have definitive proof.

No, I am not using a source per say. I have a pretty extensive knowledge from my years of study in science. I've read a lot of books on the subject. What you seem to be presenting is a rather lightweight attempt to discredit religious fanatics who reject evolution of species. I don't reject that type of evolution. That is called "Micro-evolution" and I think we have ample evidence to support that it has and does happen. What there is no evidence for is called "Macro-evolution" and that's where one genus (not a species) becomes a new genus.

The macro-evolution supporters claim that macro is the same as micro, it just happens over a longer period of time. But this is nonsense. We should see supporting evidence in the fossil record and we don't. The mitochondria in DNA should be compatible across genus lines and it isn't. Most importantly, we should be able to reproduce the phenomenon in a lab environment and we can't.

 

[Boss]

If those atoms didn't behave that way we wouldn't have life here on earth.

No shit, Sherlock! The question is WHY?

Your video is cute but that's not scientific proof... that's science fiction.

 

[sealybobo]

At first the bacteria fed off sunlight. Then bigger stronger bacteria developed and started eating the original bacteria. They developed into fish and the smarter fish stayed at the bottom while the less advanced stayed at the top and fed off sunlight. BLABLA. The first life didn't need the 5 food groups.

Where is the evidence that bacteria can "evolve" into fish?
Where is the evidence that fish can feed off sunlight?

Even the simplest single-cell organism is comprised of millions of atoms, all working together as a functioning system in an organized way to process energy from matter. Where did that come from? What instructed those atoms to behave in that way? The Cosmos?

You argue with Neil Degrass Tyson

In the beginning, life was blind until a few hundred million years passed, and then, one day, there was a microscopic copying error in the DNA of a bacterium. This random mutation gave that microbe a protein molecule that absorbed sunlight. Mutations continued to occur at random, as they always do in any population of living things. Another mutation caused a dark bacterium to flee intense light. Those bacteria that could tell light from dark had a decisive advantage over the ones that couldn't. Why? Because the daytime brought harsh, ultraviolet light that damages DNA.
The sensitive bacteria fled the intense light to safely exchange their DNA in the dark.
They survived in greater numbers than the bacteria that stayed at the surface. Over time, those light-sensitive proteins became concentrated in a pigment spot on the more advanced, one-celled organism. This made it possible to find the light, an overwhelming advantage for an organism that harvests sunlight to make food. This multi-celled organism evolved a dimple in the pigment spot. The bowl-shaped depression allowed the animal to distinguish light from shadow to crudely make out objects in its vicinity, including those to eat and those that might eat it a tremendous advantage. Later, things became a little clearer. The dimple deepened and evolved into a socket with a small opening. Over thousands of generations, natural selection was slowly sculpting the eye. In the eyes of primitive fish, the transparent gel near the pinhole formed into a lens. At the same time, the pinhole enlarged to let in more and more light. Fish could now see in high-def, both close up and far away. And then something terrible happened. Our eyes originally evolved to see in water.
The watery fluid in those eyes neatly eliminated the distortion of the bending effect you get when you look at things when you are under water. But for land animals, the light carries images from dry air into their still-watery eyes. That bends the light rays, causing all kinds of distortions.
When our amphibious ancestors left the water for the land, their eyes, exquisitely evolved to see in water, were lousy for seeing in the air. Our vision has never been as good since.
We like to think of our eyes as state-of-the-art, but 375 million years later, we still can't see things right in front of our noses or discern fine details in near darkness the way fish can.
When we left the water, why didn't nature just start over again and evolve us a new set of eyes that were optimal for seeing in the air? Nature doesn't work that way. Evolution reshapes existing structures over generations, adapting them with small changes. It can't just go back to the drawing board and start from scratch. At every stage of its development, the evolving eye functioned well enough to provide a selective advantage for survival. And among animals alive today, we find eyes at all these stages of development. And all of them function. The complexity of the human eye poses no challenge to evolution by natural selection. In fact, the eye and all of biology makes no sense without evolution. Some claim that evolution is just a theory, as if it were merely an opinion.
The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact. Evolution really happened.
Accepting our kinship with all life on Earth is not only solid science. In my view, it's also a soaring spiritual experience.

 

[sealybobo]

We have MANY common ancestors with apes and monkeys. You people need to get a better grasp on the theory of evolution. It's obvious that it was never taught to some of you in school. What a shame.

Welcome to the Earth of four billion years ago. This was our planet before life. Nobody knows how life got started. Most of the evidence from that time was destroyed by impact and erosion. Science works on the frontier between knowledge and ignorance. We're not afraid to admit what we don't know. There's no shame in that.
The only shame is to pretend that we have all the answers. Maybe someone watching this will be the first to solve the mystery of how life on Earth began.

 

[Boss]

You argue with Neil Degrass Tyson

He's an Atheist with an agenda. I lost all respect for his opinions a long time ago.

 

[sealybobo]

Do you have a link that shows the scientific community saying that biology and DNA say one genus species can't evolve into a new genus?

No... the scientific community isn't big on saying things can't happen.

I found a source you must be using.

CHAPTER 15 SPECIES EVOLUTION

It is amazing and no we don't have definitive proof.

No, I am not using a source per say. I have a pretty extensive knowledge from my years of study in science. I've read a lot of books on the subject. What you seem to be presenting is a rather lightweight attempt to discredit religious fanatics who reject evolution of species. I don't reject that type of evolution. That is called "Micro-evolution" and I think we have ample evidence to support that it has and does happen. What there is no evidence for is called "Macro-evolution" and that's where one genus (not a species) becomes a new genus.

The macro-evolution supporters claim that macro is the same as micro, it just happens over a longer period of time. But this is nonsense. We should see supporting evidence in the fossil record and we don't. The mitochondria in DNA should be compatible across genus lines and it isn't. Most importantly, we should be able to reproduce the phenomenon in a lab environment and we can't.

But a mold became a single cell organism which became a multi cell organism which became a fish which eventually crawled out of the water. What about all those different stages? No physical evidence any of that happened, but that's the theory.

Are you suggesting God put two Valapta Raptors and 2 triceratops and 2 of everything?

The bacteria formed and eventually developed into fish. Maybe that's where we branched off. The bacteria are our common ancestor. But bacteria that evolved in cold weather became mammals and bacteria that evolved in hot became reptiles.

I would have loved to been the first bird to ever fly. How cool would that be?

 

[sealybobo]

You argue with Neil Degrass Tyson

He's an Atheist with an agenda. I lost all respect for his opinions a long time ago.

Then you have no respect for our opinions. And to be honest, I have very little respect for yours.

 

[sealybobo]

If those atoms didn't behave that way we wouldn't have life here on earth.

No shit, Sherlock! The question is WHY?

Your video is cute but that's not scientific proof... that's science fiction.

We may never know why. Why are you here? No reason at all? Do you have a purpose?

 

[sealybobo]

Whenever a discussion of "God" or "heaven" occurs half the time no one agrees with what they mean by either word, "God" or "heaven".

And "heaven" would insinuate there is an "after life."

And people who are god and heaven believers think an after life is eternal. Nothing in the universe is eternal, but people believe in spite of evidence to the contrary.

They have a hard time dealing with facts. Facts make them angry.

This is what Boss said about Neil Degrasse Tyson. "He's an Atheist with an agenda. I lost all respect for his opinions a long time ago"

So do you think Boss has any respect for you or I? Aren't we just atheists with an agenda?

 

[ChrisL]

We have MANY common ancestors with apes and monkeys. You people need to get a better grasp on the theory of evolution. It's obvious that it was never taught to some of you in school. What a shame.

There is some evidence that humans may have evolved from a common Homo ancestor... We are of the Homo genus, along with homo neanderthalensis and homo erectus. THAT is a supportable theory but it conforms to the micro-evolution model that we know happens in nature. That's where a blue fish becomes a yellow fish... a black bear becomes a polar bear... a red fox becomes a silver fox.... a white owl becomes a spotted owl... etc.

But this does not explain where the Homo genus evolved from. There is no scientific evidence to support anything on that. It is theorized we came from Homininis but there is no evidence and as I pointed out about the DNA changes, there is no time for such an evolution to happen. They once believed the Australopithecus was the proverbial "missing link" until they discovered the homo genus existed along the same time.

I'm sorry, but I can post links to prove you wrong all day long.

Human Evolution 101

All you posted is an article stating things as facts that aren't supported with science data. It's speculation and conjecture passed off as "science fact" when it's not. I could post links to a theologian who rejects all of that as utter nonsense. But that's one opinion vs. another opinion. I prefer to deal with what science has proven. \

Show me a link to legitimate science research where they have proven one genus taxa emerged from another and let me see the science. I'll save you some trouble, there isn't any. I've studied this for years, I am fascinated by it and I know what I am talking about. They make these assumptions based on similar DNA structure but current DNA research suggests that it's not a possibility and similar DNA doesn't mean as much as has been presumed. Even a minor 1% change in DNA requires dozens of amino acids and enzymes which don't just magically materialize because they're needed. And IF they do, well, that's MORE of a miracle than God!

All of things I posted are FROM scientists. LOL. It is backed by scientific experiments as well as DNA. There have been experiments performed in laboratories as well. Why don't you just admit that you don't really know what you are talking about here, and that you are trying to argue with experts in the field.

 

[ChrisL]

Are all species related?

Yes. Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related.

This is bullshit. No evidence to support it... NONE!

If you were a scientist you'd know you're wrong.

Apparently bossy thinks he knows more than actual scientists. All the science is WRONG. Why? Because god.

 

[ChrisL]

One person's fact is another person's bullshit when it comes to a lot of things.
Don't let it drive you mad.

Well not when it comes to Science. She did good when she posted the definition of theories but there is no evidence to support the theory all life is related. Now.... I supposed you could say that we are related in the sense we are all comprised of the same stuff... carbon, oxygen, potassium, calcium, etc. And we are related in that we're living organisms. We're all made of atoms... We all have DNA... but related in the sense that we all came from the same original single cell? Nope... no evidence to support that.

What's your theory and where's your evidence?

How can I show you evidence for something that never happened? You can't prove a negative. I don't know what to tell ya boob, it's not up to me to show you evidence you're wrong.

What? Holy shit. Your fear of the truth is showing. I'm sorry. I don't like to MAKE people question their belief systems, but they really should be doing that on their own. You and many others have been completely brainwashed. I'm really sorry. It takes a lot of will and strength to overcome that and to look at things in an objective way.