How can you believe in evolution?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

You don't realise there needs to be a balance in the food chain, and that natural selection without any guidance is a very good way to upset that balance by making far too many prey or predators die because they don't have the necessary traits, do you? But, amazingly, in spite of that, the balance had been maintained for a long time till man started playing God.

You DO realise that populations numbers swing wildly, reacting to the changes in weather, climate, soil, and other environmental factors, right?
There IS no such thing as a stable, balanced population over any given period of time.
If there is more prey, there will be more predators, because more of their offspring survive. If the numbers of prey go down, so do the predators, as they and their offspring are weaker or starve outright.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/youth/learn/foodchains/balance.asp

Well, it could go much worse if nature were uncontrolled. For example, a disease that happens to target mostly prey species or a disaster near predator areas- there's nothing to prevent the earth's organisms from going right out of the balance if nature and natural selection is not carefully guided by an intelligent being.

[Unchecked Expansion]

You don't realise there needs to be a balance in the food chain, and that natural selection without any guidance is a very good way to upset that balance by making far too many prey or predators die because they don't have the necessary traits, do you? But, amazingly, in spite of that, the balance had been maintained for a long time till man started playing God.

You DO realise that populations numbers swing wildly, reacting to the changes in weather, climate, soil, and other environmental factors, right?
There IS no such thing as a stable, balanced population over any given period of time.
If there is more prey, there will be more predators, because more of their offspring survive. If the numbers of prey go down, so do the predators, as they and their offspring are weaker or starve outright.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/youth/learn/foodchains/balance.asp

Well, it could go much worse if nature were uncontrolled. For example, a disease that happens to target mostly prey species or a disaster near predator areas- there's nothing to prevent the earth's organisms from going right out of the balance if nature and natural selection is not carefully guided by an intelligent being.

It does go out of balance. As a result, new species rise to fill the niche the dead ones left

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Whether they go extinct or not has nothing to do with the balance. It's how much of what goes extinct.

Such as those? :

1. Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event (K-T extinction) - 65 Ma ago at the Cretaceous-Paleogene transition. About 17% of all families, 50% of all genera[4] and 75% of species went extinct.[citation needed] It ended the reign of dinosaurs and opened the way for mammals and birds to become the dominant land vertebrates. In the seas it reduced the percentage of sessile animals to about 33%. The K-T extinction was rather uneven — some groups of organisms became extinct, some suffered heavy losses and some appear to have been only minimally affected.
2. Triassic–Jurassic extinction event - 205 Ma at the Triassic-Jurassic transition. About 23% of all families and 48% of all genera (20% of marine families and 55% of marine genera) went extinct.[4] Most non-dinosaurian archosaurs, most therapsids, and most of the large amphibians were eliminated, leaving dinosaurs with little terrestrial competition. Non-dinosaurian archosaurs continued to dominate aquatic environments, while non-archosaurian diapsids continued to dominate marine environments. The Temnospondyl lineage of large amphibians also survived until the Cretaceous in Australia (e.g., Koolasuchus).
3. Permian–Triassic extinction event - 251 Ma at the Permian-Triassic transition. Earth's largest extinction killed 57% of all families and 83% of all genera[4] (53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species) including vertebrates, insects and plants.[citation needed] The "Great Dying" had enormous evolutionary significance: on land, it ended the primacy of mammal-like reptiles. The recovery of vertebrates took 30 million years,[5] but the vacant niches created the opportunity for archosaurs to become ascendant. In the seas, the percentage of animals that were sessile dropped from 67% to 50%. The whole late Permian was a difficult time for at least marine life, even before the "Great Dying".
4. Late Devonian extinction 360-375 Ma near the Devonian-Carboniferous transition. At the end of the Frasnian Age in the later part(s) of the Devonian Period, a prolonged series of extinctions eliminated about 19% of all families, 50% of all genera[4] and 70% of all species.[citation needed] This extinction event lasted perhaps as long as 20 MY, and there is evidence for a series of extinction pulses within this period.
5. Ordovician–Silurian extinction event 440-450 Ma at the Ordovician-Silurian transition. Two events occurred that killed off 27% of all families and 57% of all genera.[4] Together they are ranked by many scientists as the second largest of the five major extinctions in Earth's history in terms of percentage of genera that went extinct.

Source

We've been lucky so far, that's what I'm telling you. Mass extinction events fortunately only very greatly affected some species, and I'm sure not everything relies on everything else for food.

[Cabra West]

http://www.rspb.org.uk/youth/learn/foodchains/balance.asp

Well, it could go much worse if nature were uncontrolled. For example, a disease that happens to target mostly prey species or a disaster near predator areas- there's nothing to prevent the earth's organisms from going right out of the balance if nature and natural selection is not carefully guided by an intelligent being.

Interesting thing about this is, exactly that has happened multiple times in the earth's history so far. There have been several mass extinctions, leaving the planet near enough empty of life.

Your point?

[Tokos]

Are you drunk? You don't seem to be leading up to any kind of point.

*at eternal yerushalayim

[Dododecapod]

You don't realise there needs to be a balance in the food chain, and that natural selection without any guidance is a very good way to upset that balance by making far too many prey or predators die because they don't have the necessary traits, do you? But, amazingly, in spite of that, the balance had been maintained for a long time till man started playing God.

You DO realise that populations numbers swing wildly, reacting to the changes in weather, climate, soil, and other environmental factors, right?
There IS no such thing as a stable, balanced population over any given period of time.
If there is more prey, there will be more predators, because more of their offspring survive. If the numbers of prey go down, so do the predators, as they and their offspring are weaker or starve outright.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/youth/learn/foodchains/balance.asp

Well, it could go much worse if nature were uncontrolled. For example, a disease that happens to target mostly prey species or a disaster near predator areas- there's nothing to prevent the earth's organisms from going right out of the balance if nature and natural selection is not carefully guided by an intelligent being.

But - that DOES happen. Plague numbers of Kangaroos eat all the grass in an area, then starve to death. Rodent explosions devastate whole areas, leading to mass die-off. And these happen with no human input.

[Cabra West]

We've been lucky so far, that's what I'm telling you. Mass extinction events fortunately only very greatly affected some species, and I'm sure not everything relies on everything else for food.

"We" haven't been around for most of those events.
And EVERYTHING alive on this planet relies on something for food. Most organisms rely on sunlight, and the rest rely on those sun-reliant organisms for sustenance.

[Ifreann]

You don't realise there needs to be a balance in the food chain, and that natural selection without any guidance is a very good way to upset that balance by making far too many prey or predators die because they don't have the necessary traits, do you? But, amazingly, in spite of that, the balance had been maintained for a long time till man started playing God.

You DO realise that populations numbers swing wildly, reacting to the changes in weather, climate, soil, and other environmental factors, right?
There IS no such thing as a stable, balanced population over any given period of time.
If there is more prey, there will be more predators, because more of their offspring survive. If the numbers of prey go down, so do the predators, as they and their offspring are weaker or starve outright.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/youth/learn/foodchains/balance.asp

Exactly what we've been saying. The "balance" changes all the time with variations in populations and environments.

Well, it could go much worse if nature were uncontrolled.

Prove it.

For example, a disease that happens to target mostly prey species or a disaster near predator areas- there's nothing to prevent the earth's organisms from going right out of the balance if nature and natural selection is not carefully guided by an intelligent being.

Prove it.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

You don't realise there needs to be a balance in the food chain, and that natural selection without any guidance is a very good way to upset that balance by making far too many prey or predators die because they don't have the necessary traits, do you? But, amazingly, in spite of that, the balance had been maintained for a long time till man started playing God.

You DO realise that populations numbers swing wildly, reacting to the changes in weather, climate, soil, and other environmental factors, right?
There IS no such thing as a stable, balanced population over any given period of time.
If there is more prey, there will be more predators, because more of their offspring survive. If the numbers of prey go down, so do the predators, as they and their offspring are weaker or starve outright.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/youth/learn/foodchains/balance.asp

Well, it could go much worse if nature were uncontrolled. For example, a disease that happens to target mostly prey species or a disaster near predator areas- there's nothing to prevent the earth's organisms from going right out of the balance if nature and natural selection is not carefully guided by an intelligent being.

It does go out of balance. As a result, new species rise to fill the niche the dead ones left

And most of them come from the surivors. But without nature being guided, that may not be an option. And of course, going by what most evolutionists believe, we'll take a heck of a time to develop again and this time, with global warming and the like, there's nothing to prevent yet another mass extinction and if species particularly sensitive to heat are left, there'll be no hope for life.Unless you really believe that amino acids start forming proteins and strands of genetic information and goodness knows what. Somehow the parts just fall together. Is not a designer the only being that can prevent such things and aid in the beginning of life?

[Bendira]

How can you believe in evolution?

I mean something happened and all of a sudden, BAM! We have an explosion and all of the things collide and form everything we have in our universe. Then some millions to billions of years later we have micro oranisms that evolve into fish. Next, those fish "grow" legs and walk onto land. After that, they some how evolve into all of the millions of billions of living organisms that we have today.

Could someone please explain as to why you would believe in this?

Because the alternative is believing in an invisible man that created everything, all of the sudden, BAM! And theres no explanation for what created him either. So he just appeared out of no where as well.

[Ifreann]

Are you drunk? You don't seem to be leading up to any kind of point.

EY's problem is that he's trying to argue defensively. We try to explain our position, he uses a misunderstanding to prove there's a God. Now, when we stop explaining ourselves and start demanding that he explain himself in turn, we find a considerable lack of substance. I propose we stick to it. I mean, we've been going on for 50 pages explaining about evolution and the Big Bang. Enough is enough, it's time for EY to explain his position and we can ave our turn of picking holes in it.

[Tokos]

How can you believe in evolution?

I mean something happened and all of a sudden, BAM! We have an explosion and all of the things collide and form everything we have in our universe. Then some millions to billions of years later we have micro oranisms that evolve into fish. Next, those fish "grow" legs and walk onto land. After that, they some how evolve into all of the millions of billions of living organisms that we have today.

Could someone please explain as to why you would believe in this?

Because the alternative is believing in an invisible man that created everything, all of the sudden, BAM! And theres no explanation for what created him either. So he just appeared out of no where as well.

Yes, sole evolution, and Goddidit, are the only possible ways of thinking about it.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

How can you believe in evolution?

I mean something happened and all of a sudden, BAM! We have an explosion and all of the things collide and form everything we have in our universe. Then some millions to billions of years later we have micro oranisms that evolve into fish. Next, those fish "grow" legs and walk onto land. After that, they some how evolve into all of the millions of billions of living organisms that we have today.

Could someone please explain as to why you would believe in this?

Because the alternative is believing in an invisible man that created everything, all of the sudden, BAM! And theres no explanation for what created him either. So he just appeared out of no where as well.

There's a good reason for being ungoverned by the laws of reason- being transcendent(from our point of view).

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Are you drunk? You don't seem to be leading up to any kind of point.

EY's problem is that he's trying to argue defensively. We try to explain our position, he uses a misunderstanding to prove there's a God. Now, when we stop explaining ourselves and start demanding that he explain himself in turn, we find a considerable lack of substance. I propose we stick to it. I mean, we've been going on for 50 pages explaining about evolution and the Big Bang. Enough is enough, it's time for EY to explain his position and we can ave our turn of picking holes in it.

I believe in the Big Bang, you priggish schoolboys. But your explanation for what caused it is a formula for confounding the truth and darwinist propoganda.

[The Alma Mater]

How can you believe in evolution?

I mean something happened and all of a sudden, BAM! We have an explosion and all of the things collide and form everything we have in our universe. Then some millions to billions of years later we have micro oranisms that evolve into fish. Next, those fish "grow" legs and walk onto land. After that, they some how evolve into all of the millions of billions of living organisms that we have today.

Could someone please explain as to why you would believe in this?

Because the alternative is believing in an invisible man that created everything, all of the sudden, BAM! And theres no explanation for what created him either. So he just appeared out of no where as well.

Yes, sole evolution, and Goddidit, are the only possible ways of thinking about it.

Well, that's a few million different ways already. Goddidit... how ? Clay that was animated ? A nice masturbation session ? Sneezing ? Transportation of tortured souls in spaceships ? Sky fucking Earth ? (And yes, all of these are actual religious tales on the origin of life on earth).

[Tokos]

I was thinking more along the lines of the black box things from 2001 A Space Odyssey. That would come under Intelligent Design, I suppose.

[Unchecked Expansion]

And most of them come from the surivors. But without nature being guided, that may not be an option. And of course, going by what most evolutionists believe, we'll take a heck of a time to develop again and this time, with global warming and the like, there's nothing to prevent yet another mass extinction and if species particularly sensitive to heat are left, there'll be no hope for life.

Actually, a warming based mass extinction would probably leave all the heat resistant species alive. And nothing is stopping us from going extinct. The universe is unfair and unfeeling and eventually the works of man will be gone. But life will remain, even if it's just prokaryotic organisms that can adapt faster.

[Ifreann]

You don't realise there needs to be a balance in the food chain, and that natural selection without any guidance is a very good way to upset that balance by making far too many prey or predators die because they don't have the necessary traits, do you? But, amazingly, in spite of that, the balance had been maintained for a long time till man started playing God.

You DO realise that populations numbers swing wildly, reacting to the changes in weather, climate, soil, and other environmental factors, right?
There IS no such thing as a stable, balanced population over any given period of time.
If there is more prey, there will be more predators, because more of their offspring survive. If the numbers of prey go down, so do the predators, as they and their offspring are weaker or starve outright.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/youth/learn/foodchains/balance.asp

Well, it could go much worse if nature were uncontrolled. For example, a disease that happens to target mostly prey species or a disaster near predator areas- there's nothing to prevent the earth's organisms from going right out of the balance if nature and natural selection is not carefully guided by an intelligent being.

It does go out of balance. As a result, new species rise to fill the niche the dead ones left

And most of them come from the surivors. But without nature being guided, that may not be an option. And of course, going by what most evolutionists believe, we'll take a heck of a time to develop again and this time, with global warming and the like, there's nothing to prevent yet another mass extinction and if species particularly sensitive to heat are left, there'll be no hope for life.Unless you really believe that amino acids start forming proteins and strands of genetic information and goodness knows what. Somehow the parts just fall together. Is not a designer the only being that can prevent such things and aid in the beginning of life?

Why are you so convinced that life won't be destroyed at some point? Who's to say that global warming or something else won't render the planet completely uninhabitable? Why is it impossible that life has just been lucky up to this point? Why can't the pieces have just fallen into place? Maybe that's very unlikely, but that doesn't mean it can't have happened.

[Bendira]

I was thinking more along the lines of the black box things from 2001 A Space Odyssey. That would come under Intelligent Design, I suppose.

Basically you have the theory that is backed by science, and then infinite theories that are mind wanked. Scientology being the best example.

[Cabra West]

And most of them come from the surivors. But without nature being guided, that may not be an option. And of course, going by what most evolutionists believe, we'll take a heck of a time to develop again and this time, with global warming and the like, there's nothing to prevent yet another mass extinction and if species particularly sensitive to heat are left, there'll be no hope for life.Unless you really believe that amino acids start forming proteins and strands of genetic information and goodness knows what. Somehow the parts just fall together. Is not a designer the only being that can prevent such things and aid in the beginning of life?

Actually, we are currently experiencing another mass extinction. Just because most of the cuddly animals you know about are still around doesn't mean we're not currently losing dozens of species a day.
We do not, in fact, take all that long to adapt to changing circumstances. Just because circumstances most of the time change so slowly that unobservant people don't realise that flora and fauna change with them doesn't mean they're static, either.
If circumstances change quickly, those quickest to adapt and take advantage of them will be the ones surviving.

[Cabra West]

I believe in the Big Bang, you priggish schoolboys. But your explanation for what caused it is a formula for confounding the truth and darwinist propoganda.

Darwin said sweet f-all about the big bang.
Do try again, please.

[Ifreann]

Are you drunk? You don't seem to be leading up to any kind of point.

EY's problem is that he's trying to argue defensively. We try to explain our position, he uses a misunderstanding to prove there's a God. Now, when we stop explaining ourselves and start demanding that he explain himself in turn, we find a considerable lack of substance. I propose we stick to it. I mean, we've been going on for 50 pages explaining about evolution and the Big Bang. Enough is enough, it's time for EY to explain his position and we can ave our turn of picking holes in it.

I believe in the Big Bang, you priggish schoolboys.

Flaming? How cute.

But your explanation....

We've already had 50 pages on that. What's your explanation?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And most of them come from the surivors. But without nature being guided, that may not be an option. And of course, going by what most evolutionists believe, we'll take a heck of a time to develop again and this time, with global warming and the like, there's nothing to prevent yet another mass extinction and if species particularly sensitive to heat are left, there'll be no hope for life.

Actually, a warming based mass extinction would probably leave all the heat resistant species alive. And nothing is stopping us from going extinct. The universe is unfair and unfeeling and eventually the works of man will be gone. But life will remain, even if it's just prokaryotic organisms that can adapt faster.

A mass extinction first caused by some tsunami or meteorite strike, followed up by a warming based disaster is possible. But now what you are saying is that even without any organisms in the first place, something managed to connect with something else, and then after many years, made a DNA molecule or something of that sort. And after mutations they grew far more complex. But what is there to make that particular something conect, connect, connect and produce?

[Cabra West]

And most of them come from the surivors. But without nature being guided, that may not be an option. And of course, going by what most evolutionists believe, we'll take a heck of a time to develop again and this time, with global warming and the like, there's nothing to prevent yet another mass extinction and if species particularly sensitive to heat are left, there'll be no hope for life.Unless you really believe that amino acids start forming proteins and strands of genetic information and goodness knows what. Somehow the parts just fall together. Is not a designer the only being that can prevent such things and aid in the beginning of life?

Why are you so convinced that life won't be destroyed at some point? Who's to say that global warming or something else won't render the planet completely uninhabitable? Why is it impossible that life has just been lucky up to this point? Why can't the pieces have just fallen into place? Maybe that's very unlikely, but that doesn't mean it can't have happened.[/quote]

Good point.
There's a lot of evidence that at one time there was bacterial life on the planet Mars, before it became uninhabitable.

[The Alma Mater]

And most of them come from the surivors. But without nature being guided, that may not be an option. And of course, going by what most evolutionists believe, we'll take a heck of a time to develop again and this time, with global warming and the like, there's nothing to prevent yet another mass extinction and if species particularly sensitive to heat are left, there'll be no hope for life.

Actually, a warming based mass extinction would probably leave all the heat resistant species alive. And nothing is stopping us from going extinct. The universe is unfair and unfeeling and eventually the works of man will be gone. But life will remain, even if it's just prokaryotic organisms that can adapt faster.

A mass extinction first caused by some tsunami or meteorite strike, followed up by a warming based disaster is possible. But now what you are saying is that even without any organisms in the first place, something managed to connect with something else, and then after many years, made a DNA molecule or something of that sort. And after mutations they grew far more complex. But what is there to make that particular something conect, connect, connect and produce?

Something with a Tardis ?