Which evolved first --- FRUIT BEARING TREES or FRUIT EATING CREATURES?

[FearGod]

How do you mean beneficial?

For life.

 

[dust1n]

Did the fruit bearing trees evolve first or did the creatures who ate those fruits evolve first? And just how did the trees LEARN that they had to produce fruits so that creatures ate them and thus their seeds were spread far and wide to produce more trees?

Herbivores have been eating plants long before the existence of fruit.

 

[Kirran]

For life.

Well life adapts to the circumstances in which it finds itself.

But nitrogen was in place prior to the emergence of life in any case. Being an inert gas, it's an atmospheric buffer which was conducive to abiogenesis.

 

[dust1n]

My questions were based on facts which he offered, one is how Nitrogen came to existence and the 2nd Oxygen, it isn't my problem if you have no answers, "neither" isn't an answer, better to say i don't know how such things started than saying stupid things.

Nitrogen and Oxygen are produced by nuclear fusion in large enough stars.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

But it happened to be beneficial to earth for the needs of nitrogen, that wasn't coincidence but that what had happened,
and the photosynthesizing cyanobacteria produced oxygen not by coincidence but that what had happened.

If the earth wasn't bombarded by the asteroids and then no nitrogen on earth and no life, then it wasn't coincidences but that what may had happened.

We aren't debating by coincidence as i ain't expecting you but that what had happened and it's a lucky chance to speak with you.

Again, not a rigorous argument here, but what if:

The bombardment had not occurred, and it paved the way for silicate-based
Intelligence that communicates through graviton pulses. These pulses are the foundation of a interdimensional communication system with alternate universes. The cosmic information gained about extra-singularity physics paves the way for interstellar travel. The silicates synthesize matter to replicate a six limbed, unilateral body of their own design, and bring the millions of potential life forms into a harmony that is as heavenly as our perception of heaven. It only took about a billion years too.

Maybe we WERE really unlucky to have had those asteroids hit earth. . .

Seriously, the classic error you're making is assuming that the current outcome is the the only perfect one, instead of just being the one that exists independent of what we want.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree, i don't have problem of trying to investigate the nature assuming as if there's no deity.

For me i doesn't need to see God to realize that he exists, i'm just a point of the history of time, this universe isn't ours and we'll pass away and God still God.

After reading this, I am happy to see that you are reasonable on this matter. And that much less certain why there is even any controversy.

 

[FearGod]

Again, not a rigorous argument here, but what if:

The bombardment had not occurred, and it paved the way for silicate-based
Intelligence that communicates through graviton pulses. These pulses are the foundation of a interdimensional communication system with alternate universes. The cosmic information gained about extra-singularity physics paves the way for interstellar travel. The silicates synthesize matter to replicate a six limbed, unilateral body of their own design, and bring the millions of potential life forms into a harmony that is as heavenly as our perception of heaven. It only took about a billion years too.

Maybe we WERE really unlucky to have had those asteroids hit earth. . .

Seriously, the classic error you're making is assuming that the current outcome is the the only perfect one, instead of just being the one that exists independent of what we want.

And it'll be a coincidence too regardless of what the outcome will be, and as you said it maybe better if the asteroids didn't hit earth and life would be better than what it's now, yes why i have to think that it is due to coincidence that the universe is amazing, another coincidence may lead to a universe better than ours.

Coincidences can make the wonders but still it isn't coincidences but that how it goes and the universe isn't that amazing as if it goes in a different way maybe it would lead to an incredibly a different amazing universe.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

And it'll be a coincidence too regardless of what the outcome will be, and as you said it maybe better if the asteroids didn't hit earth and life would be better than what it's now, yes why i have to think that it is due to coincidence that the universe is amazing, another coincidence may lead to a universe better than ours.

Coincidences can make the wonders but still it isn't coincidences but that how it goes and the universe isn't that amazing as if it goes in a different way maybe it would lead to an incredibly a different amazing universe.

This is a good start, but coincidence isn't the right way to think about it.

In statistics, there is a concept called power, which affects the predictive ability of a statistic based on the sample size. The larger the sample size, the more potentially accurate our conclusions.

For example, if you were polling the gender of students at Harvard, and you took a sample size of a single student and that student was female, you can either draw the conclusion that 100% of the student body was female (an amazing coincidence!), or you can realize that your sample size was too small.

Same thing withy the universe. Yes, We can determine certain details about our universe based on observation, but we can't necessarily draw inferences of "coincidence," because we are working with a sample size of one. There will most likely only
Ever be a sample size of one.

We're not trying to be evasive with you not admitting coincidence, it's
Just those concepts just don't apply to our only sample.

 

[Sapiens]

First i don't care about those stupid philosophical terms of fallacies that you have learnt and memorized in school, second many fools had asked me to get some courses to find the right answers to know that God doesn't exist or doesn't have any role in our universe, but you can't answer not because of circular logic but because of your ((false science)) which is as stupid as philosophy.

You'd rather stumble about in your blind intellectual stupor ... 'fraid I can't help you with that.

Evolution is a fact but trying to prove that God has no role in the process which atheists always trying to is IMHO a stupid thing to think about, if not God then it is the inanimate stone by coincidences and chances which doesn't make any sense.

If you'd spend more time studying rather than railing against those who do, you'd know that proving a negative ("no role in the process") is impossible and a waste of time. The best one can do is state that there is no evidence of a god having such a role.

My questions were based on facts which he offered, one is how Nitrogen came to existence and the 2nd Oxygen, it isn't my problem if you have no answers, "neither" isn't an answer, better to say i don't know how such things started than saying stupid things.

They are fusion products from stars, why is that so hard for you to understand?

Why the inanimate stone doesn't make sense to me ? do you know what inanimate means ?

It makes no sense to anyone, why do you suggest it as an alternative?

Your option then is by coincidences, IOW no one designed it to happen since you refuse the other option, i can see no 3rd option except of dodging.
No i didn't mean that, i mean intelligence.

If you can see no 3rd option than you're really not capable enough to make a serious contribution to the discussion, you are limited to begging the question, nothing more.

Which also weren't planned according to your view, so do you have other choice than coincidences, before and after, still coincidences
For example if a huge asteroid strikes the earth by now, then what options we have
either someone planned it to strike earth or it was by coincidence that the asteroid happened to be close to earth.
Is it due to chance that we are lucky that we can't see a huge asteroid coming towards us or it is planned to be so, what if earth by coincidence bombarded by asteroids every now and then.
Look at yourself and how your body works, doesn't that needs intelligence.

Your usual issue, begging the question with a false dichotomy.

I agree, i don't have problem of trying to investigate the nature assuming as if there's no deity.
For me i doesn't need to see God to realize that he exists, i'm just a point of the history of time, this universe isn't ours and we'll pass away and God still God.

The blind usual don't worry about what they see or don't see.

Which also happened to be so by coincidence.
My cat asks me to open the door once she wants to go around by standing at the door and Meow with kindness, when she wants to eat she meow with sadness, maybe you should be smart enough to understand your cat.
And i asked you how your body works and not how your brain works, but i know now how really your brain works which makes my argument with you very hard and boring.

Your usual issue, begging the question with a false dichotomy.

So you see everything as normal but i don't, end of the nonsense, good luck

Ah ... surrender, long overdue.

For life.

What sort of life? Life as we know it likely requires both the path that it took and some stochasticies, there are other forms of life possible from dominant mollusks or/or reptiles to fluorine breathing silicone based forms.

And it'll be a coincidence too regardless of what the outcome will be, and as you said it maybe better if the asteroids didn't hit earth and life would be better than what it's now, yes why i have to think that it is due to coincidence that the universe is amazing, another coincidence may lead to a universe better than ours.
Coincidences can make the wonders but still it isn't coincidences but that how it goes and the universe isn't that amazing as if it goes in a different way maybe it would lead to an incredibly a different amazing universe.

No it is not. The "coincidences" or "accidents" that you point to are neither, they are completely predictable using nothing more than a know set of initial conditions, Newtonian physics and a fair amount of computing power.

 

[shawn001]

First i don't care about those stupid philosophical terms of fallacies that you have learnt and memorized in school, second many fools had asked me to get some courses to find the right answers to know that God doesn't exist or doesn't have any role in our universe, but you can't answer not because of circular logic but because of your ((false science)) which is as stupid as philosophy.

The false science that took us to the moon and came up with the computer your using, the heat in your house, your car and the fact your not living in a cave telling religious stories by campfire. You know Religious books are books because of the invention of the printing press and not just stories passed along like the old game kids play "telephone" where the story almost never comes out right as its passed along. You seem to have major problems with science and that its against some God when you would be wrong in the first place about it.

"Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality."

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

 

[shawn001]

Again, not a rigorous argument here, but what if:

The bombardment had not occurred, and it paved the way for silicate-based
Intelligence that communicates through graviton pulses. These pulses are the foundation of a interdimensional communication system with alternate universes. The cosmic information gained about extra-singularity physics paves the way for interstellar travel. The silicates synthesize matter to replicate a six limbed, unilateral body of their own design, and bring the millions of potential life forms into a harmony that is as heavenly as our perception of heaven. It only took about a billion years too.

Maybe we WERE really unlucky to have had those asteroids hit earth. . .

Seriously, the classic error you're making is assuming that the current outcome is the the only perfect one, instead of just being the one that exists independent of what we want.

Who discovered the "graviton"?

 

[shawn001]

The asteroids hitting the planet while it was forming was one thing and a major step in how the planet formed.

However, the planet the size of Mars that hit us and left us with our moon is another aspect and the planet Earth almost got wiped out, it was a close call, in that it hit just at the right angle and left the Earth to cool and reform, because of that collision.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Who discovered the "graviton"?

I'm my fictional account of an alternative universe?

I going to say. . . Parsimious the 22nd, High Snarloo of Baskinghouse.

He used his Baq'der (a sensory organ), and flailed it 4th dimensionally, which at the time, no silicate being had yet thought to do.

 

[FearGod]

The false science that took us to the moon and came up with the computer your using, the heat in your house, your car and the fact your not living in a cave telling religious stories by campfire. You know Religious books are books because of the invention of the printing press and not just stories passed along like the old game kids play "telephone" where the story almost never comes out right as its passed along. You seem to have major problems with science and that its against some God when you would be wrong in the first place about it.

"Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality."

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

I didn't say i'm against science, but some philosophical ideas or even terms, so what philosophy has to do with science.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Evolution is a fact but trying to prove that God has no role in the process which atheists always trying to is IMHO a stupid thing to think about, if not God then it is the inanimate stone by coincidences and chances which doesn't make any sense.

No scientist is devoting time or effort to proving that god was not part of the process but understanding the process as much as we can. And to do that we must only examine the evidence we do have and draw conclusions based upon it. So far there has been no evidence of a god created system of evolution or designed evolution. So we must conclude that on a scientific and explanatory level there was no direct intervention of god. If one wants to believe that god simply acted through these various supernatural processes in order to create what we can refer to as "us" then so be it. But on a scientific level there will be no claim that god did do it or didn't do it.

 

[FearGod]

No scientist is devoting time or effort to proving that god was not part of the process but understanding the process as much as we can. And to do that we must only examine the evidence we do have and draw conclusions based upon it. So far there has been no evidence of a god created system of evolution or designed evolution. So we must conclude that on a scientific and explanatory level there was no direct intervention of god. If one wants to believe that god simply acted through these various supernatural processes in order to create what we can refer to as "us" then so be it. But on a scientific level there will be no claim that god did do it or didn't do it.

I have no problem to be in that direction but some used it as an evidence that God doesn't exist and in a fanatic way i may say.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I have no problem to be in that direction but some used it as an evidence that God doesn't exist and in a fanatic way i may say.

Some might. But most don't. Evolution has historically never been an argument against god but an argument against some of the teachings of the churches. It does throw into question the claim that the world was made in 7 days and that all humans and animals were created as they are now 6000 years ago. That is simply false. But if people believe in god and believe he is behind the processes then at least they accept that those processes are valid and this is a huge step. Despite popular belief I don't want you to stop believing in god. I don't want you to continue believing in god either. I honestly don't care either way and this applies to the vast majority of people. I do feel the need to fight religion and irrational thinning when it becomes an issue however.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Did the fruit bearing trees evolve first or did the creatures who ate those fruits evolve first? And just how did the trees LEARN that they had to produce fruits so that creatures ate them and thus their seeds were spread far and wide to produce more trees?

The fossil record shows that plants evolved first, and growing fruit is a reproductive mechanism for plants. Later animals evolved and discovered by trial and error that some fruits were edible. Tree's didn't learn anything because they have a very low IQ.

 

[David M]

My questions were based on facts which he offered, one is how Nitrogen came to existence and the 2nd Oxygen, it isn't my problem if you have no answers, "neither" isn't an answer, better to say i don't know how such things started than saying stupid things.

You refused to accept the correct answer, insisting that only your two, incorrect, alternatives were acceptable.

Its a bit like asking what time it is, only allowing the answers "Yellow" or "Fish" then claiming that the person doesn't know the time.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I have no problem to be in that direction but some used it as an evidence that God doesn't exist and in a fanatic way i may say.

I haven't seen much of that myself. Evolution clearly removes the need for God though, which is why theists find it so challenging.