Why don’t we have a better story? (page 2)

smiddy

Welcome to the board ,iconoclastic , stick around , it`s a great learning experience to be here.

smiddy

3. Universe arose out of a big bang. Later life arose. When the species felt hungry, food-provision arose (or, food-provision arose first which made the hunger possible whatever). When they took food, they felt the need of a digestive system within their bodies—thus digestive system appeared. When they felt the need to copy themselves, genital organs arose. When they implanted seed into their bodies, a womb appeared within the body.

Look, I'm trying to become a born-again atheist and all round good guy so please give me a hand here. Your above quote would need to seriously improve before it could be referred to as bad. Have a heart and improve it, there's a good fellow-me-lad. Then we can all agree that it's bad.

iconoclastic

Doltologist

When people try to replace religious stories, they should come up with something better. Sadly, evolution theory does not do better! Though we have oceans of information, beneath the details it does not even qualify to be called a story. I will give just one example: Reproduction of species! Among the two types of reproduction (asexual and sexual), sexual reproduction is a great puzzle equally for both evolutionists and creationists. Evolutionists adhere to the view that the first organisms on earth were asexual. If so, why only some species would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Exactly how did we arrive at two separate genders—each with its own physiology? Biology texts illustrate amoebas evolving into intermediate organisms, which then give rise to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and, eventually, humans. Yet, those books are conveniently silent on exactly when or how independent male and female sexes originated. Somewhere along this evolutionary path, both males and females were required in order to ensure the procreation that was necessary to further the existence of a particular species. Evolution is an upward climb; hence asexual reproduction cannot evolve into sexual reproduction which is an inefficient way to reproduce. Think about what all the sexual process entails, including the complexity involved in reproducing the information carried within the DNA. This process, and the manner in which it is copied from generation to generation, are too complex. In addition, sexual reproduction is absurd in many ways: It is like trying the trick of first making two copies of a message, then breaking each into short bits at random, combining equal amounts from the two to form the version to be transmitted, and throwing the unused half away. Again, it is also like an absurd way of reading a book—you buy two copies, rip the pages out, and make a new copy by combining half the pages from one and half from the other, tossing a coin at each page to decide which original to take the page from and which to throw away. How can God bring in such a costly and inefficient method of sexual reproduction with its attendant labor pain so excruciating that some of the would-be-mothers even die in the labor room itself?

Thus replacement of religious stories raises only more questions than answers!

Doltologist

Iconoclastic

If so, why only some species would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction?

I can see that I'm gonna regret this but anyways ...

Evolution isn't meant to be pretty, efficient or even any better than the babble. Evolution is a random process which relies on random change where the fittest survive and the weakest die. That way, a biological entity is able to adapt and change as its environment does.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. What kind of creator chappie puts a woman's pleasure beach next to her sewage works? A creator doesn't. At least a good one doesn't. Also, who in the right mind designs DNA that way such that when it mutates, it could give rise to cancer? Man evolved. The design ain't pretty. It ain't efficient but it works - just.

Science hasn't got all the answers - YET. But it will. Just because it doesn't have the answers yet, doesn't mean we got her via some sky wizard - which is so preposterous, it's positively laughable.

punkofnice

Hello Icon-person.

I don't know what you're angle or agenda is but I hope you enjoy your time here.

As for me....4. Some don't care. That'll be Unky Punky, then!

LisaRose

Evolutionists adhere to the view that the first organisms on earth were asexual. If so, why only some species would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Exactly how did we arrive at two separate genders—each with its own physiology?

In asexual reproduction the offspring is identical to the parent. Sexual reproduction is a benefit in evolutionary terms because if an organism had beneficial DNA mutations, that benefit has a better chance of being passed down, and then being combined with other beneficial mutations through sexual reproduction. Combining and recombining DNA has the effect of masking bad genetic mutations and or repairing them.( For further study, look up fault tolerance on Wikipedia). This benefit is so great it more than makes up for the inconveniences and inherent dangers of sexual reproduction, and explains why most organisms reproduce sexually.

It's random in so much as the mutation process is. The preferential selection of the mutations is not.

Why don’t we have a better story?

smiddy

pbrow

Doltologist

iconoclastic

Doltologist

punkofnice

LisaRose

FusionTheism

FusionTheism

Doltologist

Share this