|
|
|
|
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/4/2009 5:48:48 PM | Religiosity votes. Look at the twice elected W.
According to Genesis.. god made evil, and god made evolution.
1st there was nothing, and in 6 days, god made EVERYTHING. He then put man on earth (the smorgasbord of items god created) and gave him CHOICE.
Anything man has chosen, was because god made it.
Man with his "free will" could NOT choose that which not is. Nor could he ever have the ability to choose anything that god did not INTEND him to choose.
Remember, according to religion, it all started with NOTHING. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/4/2009 5:49:50 PM |
In my heart i still feel so strongly connected too nature and cannot forget my creator, or that it is unfeeling, for such detail and care was given us.
By `your creator', I assume you mean your parents, or their parents, or.... well we could go back a good few billions of years. There's some confusion here between people's concept of the Transcendent and their concept of existence. You don't have to throw out the Transcendent and opt-in to materialism and functionalism to believe that Evolution is correct. I certainly don't. Rather, you accept evolution as a fact, but see that there's more "unknown unknown's" to discover. Perhaps sign was right (he deleted all his posts, which was a shame) that there's more to it than meets the eye. I'm sure there is. But his problem was throwing out the baby with the bath-water due to a category error. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 1178 | |
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/4/2009 7:14:50 PM |
What you have stated in your last post does resonate logic and reason, and can be backed up materially.
If that's all you get from it, then it failed to make the intended impression on you because the sense of awe, wonder and amazement in seeing a beautiful sunset isn't lessened by knowing the refractory process behind its manifestation. Scientific knowledge doesn't automatically disconnect one from a sense of wonder, ...in fact it can contribute to the greater sense of wonder that comes with understanding.
In my heart i still feel so strongly connected too nature and cannot forget my creator, or that it is unfeeling, for such detail and care was given us.
Science shouldn't negate this "feeling", that's the point, that "feeling" or absence of it; isn't a part of the purview or intent of science, by the same token, these feelings shouldn't be the motivation in denying science, they have nothing to do with it. Just as a preference for spicy food has no bearing on building box girder bridges. Different frames of reference, different terms of reference, different perspectives entirely.
I just hope that the knowledge we have is used correctly.
I would posit that correct usage hinges on understanding the knowledge, not the converse. Ignorance has never proved to be a means to anything other than the proverbial flightless-bird with its head buried in sand = not "knowing".
Evolution can show some of how things change. In certain enviroment's but not all has yet been revealed. But things change.
Yes, there are lateral shifts in understanding and clarifying the process, but the linearity of evolution principles has survived all of these tests, and in fact thrived because of them.
Every day, new knowledge, understanding and progress confirms that the fact of evolution, and the theory explaining the process of evolution are on the right path. The evidence of the usefulness of this path is especially explicit in the tangible byproducts of of this avenue of exploration and discovery.
What, other than ignorance, fear and arrogance; motivates this denial of an observed reality? Why should we teach children to doubt evolution based on these things? Do we really want to train people to deal with potential epidemics, by only praying for a positive outcome? Or perhaps even just succumb to infection because it's "god's will"?
I think you'll find that even the staunchest denier of evolution would rather place his hands in the biological sciences that relate to evolution rather than the bronze age knowledge that most theological texts are based on, ...if their life was at stake.
There's a word for this.
Religiosity votes. Look at the twice elected W.
Yeah sure, let's see this constituency vote disease away, or vote for better crop yields, or vote for... 
There's a reason that argumentum ad populum is defined as a fallacy, yours is a good example as any. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 1179 | |
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/6/2009 1:17:01 PM |
Is this thread closed?
Nope, but there is a possibility of this happening if people keep hijacking it.
Apparently thinking outside the box and asking questions in an attempt to view how things fit together on a grand scheme is just too much.
You miss the point, thread topics aren't chat rooms, these forums have a purpose, and part of this purpose is archival. Often some posters will use a thread to address a perceived forum constituency, ...if this is the case, one is supposed to start a new thread after checking to see if the topic isn't already being discussed/debated.
Thinking outside the box is fine, as long as the thinking addresses the topic of the OP. It's also considered basic discussion forum netiquette, as new arrivals to any thread should be able to post to the OP and have their comments still make sense on page 2, 20, 50, etc. It's a discussion/debate forum, not a chat room. If a reply or comment doesn't relate to the OP at all, it's off-topic, if off-topic posts take the thread in a direction unrelated to the OP, it's highjacked, If a thread is repeatedly hijacked it's closed as a result of people not cluing in.
It takes very basic comprehension skills to understand the "how" and "why" here. Some of it is based on the stated purpose of these forums, there is also the consideration of common courtesy and decorum.
"how things fit together on a grand scheme" isn't the topic of this thread.
expect these message to be deleted too.
Especially: Flames/Trolling/Moderator Protest - posts, ...the consequences of these are clearly outlined as well, and often permanent, as it implies that those who employ them feel they are above the rules/guidelines that all agree to when they create an account here. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/6/2009 1:56:56 PM |
For the veteran Hijackers - keep your opinions about the posters to yourselves and discuss the subject matter - or haven't the following sank in yet?
Replying To A Thread Subject or Post
Please ensure that all your replies are to the topic and nothing else. If your reply isn't related to the actual topic, then it's considered off topic or simply chatting, and will be removed. Replying to another post other than the original post is obviously permitted as long as what you are replying to, is also to the topic. As soon as you start replying to off topic comments, the thread is in jeopardy of being hijacked or derailed - leave off topic replies alone or the thread, if unsalvageable, will be deleted.
Remember that as soon as you utter any personalized characterizations about a poster, addressing them by name, making a direct character judgement, or an indirect generalized character judgement that is meant to include them for the purpose of belittling or insulting them, you have just turned your reply to a personal one and is subject to deletion and your posting rights suspended or removed permanently depending on severity. The full list of infractions can be found in the Acceptable Use & Posting Rules
For those of you who are not aware of the rules and the consequences of not following them, read the following:
Posting Guidelines
Acceptable Use and Posting Rules
Continue With the Thread Subject Only
|
 | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/7/2009 6:00:40 PM | The squid's beak is an intresting peice of natural enjineering, how something so hard is attached to a body that has no bone's. How that evolved is a mystery to me?...
Any one got any idea?
Changing density from root to tip, how very strange eh? | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/7/2009 6:34:27 PM | Cuttlefish have an internal skeleton, and are close relatives of squid. Nautili and ammonites have external skeletons and are also members of the limbed molluscs. Snails, shelled slugs, mussels, scallops, clams, chitons, etc, are all molluscs with external calcareous skeletons. All of these are squid relatives which have hard skeletal features, and many have hardened jaw elements as well. It's not a big mystery.
Even excluding these, there is no shortage of organisms which have hardened mineralized features attached to soft tissues. Mineralization is very easy to achieve. If it proves useful to the organism, it's a feature which will last and be adapted. Sponges, for instance, are considered the most "primitive" animals. One group of sponges secretes silicon, forming crystals which give them structure. Another group secretes calcium for a similar result. Still others produce no hard skeleton at all, such as the freshwater species. Diatoms produce an external mineral skeleton. Fungi, are considered the closest kin of animals, and most of those produce complex structures using cellulose as the strengthener. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/7/2009 8:03:11 PM | http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/03/a_squids_beak_is_a_marvel_of_biological_engineering.php
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110432861/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
The squid beak seems to be a remarkable piece of engineering made up of the modified carbohydrate chitin - the material used for insect skeletons - and hard proteins which form the progressively harder tip. I couldn't find anything on its evolution. It's probably a tough one to research since it probably doesn't fossilize well.
Chitins seems to be a fascinating molecules in evolution, present in both plants and animals, possibly even used as a type of hormone.
The squid sucker rings seem even more remarkable - a ring of sharp teeth around every sucker on the tentacles (http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=9710) | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/7/2009 9:16:51 PM | How that evolved is a mystery to me?...
.. not to mention that beyond evolving his physical characteristics man also evolved into having a conscience, complete with an on and off switch.......blessings | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/8/2009 8:25:53 AM | I have recently read an artical that claims depression is actually a part of human evolution. It claims that a certain receptor is responsible for depression and that because it hasnt been eliminated by natural selection that it must have a purpose. I agree with that to a point, untill I look at my nipples and ask if natural selection was so accurate then why do I still have nipples ?..why didnt natural selection remove those over the generations ....oh well....the rest of the artical made sence to me tho.
It claimed that people with depression had the ability to block out distractions and are able to focus on a selected problem with a very analitical mind.
Interesting artical that perhaps could shed light into this global problem....perhaps its not actualy a problem at all ,but rather a gift we have yet to learn how to assemble properly ,so we are frusterated with it so far.......so could depression actually be the latest evolution for mankind ?
enjoy the artical..
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=depressions-evolutionary | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/8/2009 8:47:23 AM |
I agree with that to a point, untill I look at my nipples and ask if natural selection was so accurate then why do I still have nipples ?
Because every fetus is inherently female until a certain stage of development. At that point, hormones take over direct the development of the fetus' gender. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/8/2009 10:57:00 AM |
untill I look at my nipples and ask if natural selection was so accurate then why do I still have nipples ?..
For the same reason that women have a clitoris?
natural selection is not accurate or inaccurate..it just is. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/8/2009 12:33:54 PM | | Also, natural selection does not necessarily mean that useless traits (like nipples on males) will be filtered out of the gene pool. It just means that nipples will provide no survival benefit to the organism. There is no force at work which compels your nipples to go away just because they serve no purpose. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/8/2009 12:47:46 PM |
I agree with that to a point, untill I look at my nipples and ask if natural selection was so accurate then why do I still have nipples ?.. This is an argument against creationism, not natural selection. Why would a creator give man nipples? And mammary glands?
But as far as natural selection goes, there was no reason to weed them out. Are nipples lethal to us? Do they hurt our ability to reproduce? Do they impede our ability to find a mate? - No - therefore there is no evolutionary pressure to remove them. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/8/2009 2:46:01 PM | can we stop talking about my friggin nipples now...lol
I already found a use for them years ago......its where I keep my roach clips.
what are your thoughts on the artical that claims depression
might be part of the human evolution ? | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/8/2009 3:21:50 PM | I've had a look at that article about evolving depression, and dont you think we have enough to ruminate about?. Without the prospect of dissappearing nipples and i've got attached to my clitoris ;0( and dont like change!) . lol
 It all sound's like the work of the devil hahahahaha | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/8/2009 4:06:31 PM |
what are your thoughts on the artical that claims depression
might be part of the human evolution ?
There are differing opinions on this. It's true that depression/mania can be beneficial to creativity at various stages. There's also the possibility that it's a side-effect of some other trait (genes in general act in concert, i.e. there isn't neccessarily a one-to-one mapping between a gene and a specific trait), or of course that it's just not selected so strongly against that it dissapears entirely. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/15/2009 3:48:32 PM | Hi!
Throughout history we’ve asked ourselves, what came first and what came after. Was it creation or evolution? The answer to that question is creation. Creation came first and evolution came after. Without creation evolution cannot exist. Creation is proof that evolution exists. Everything has a point of origin and creation is the origin of evolution. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/15/2009 6:54:23 PM |
Everything has a point of origin and creation is the origin of evolution.
That would seem logical based on our day-to-day experiences but it's a huge assumption. Your statement may not be true although it is a compelling argument. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/15/2009 7:42:29 PM | | Not really, because for it to be a compelling argument you must for prove that there is a creator. If you can't prove that a creator exists, then you are using a baseless claim. Baseless claims never hold up in court. =) | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/15/2009 8:47:24 PM | Just read a story about a woman killing a snake with a shoe. Normally, that wouldn't impress anyone except this snake actually had a foot growing out of its body.
Now, some of the creationist types here say that information can't be added to the genome and that, for all intents and purposes, snakes must be snakes and that means no feet.
So where did the foot come from. Or did God create that snake that way? If so, God must have a nasty sense of humour. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/15/2009 8:50:12 PM |
If you can't prove that a creator exists, then you are using a baseless claim. Baseless claims never hold up in court.
I was taking the claim more generically than you do. By his use of creation, I was taking it to mean "come into being" which can include present materials. No magic stuff, that is. Much like diamonds are "created" from coal by heat and pressure.
The irony of the creator paradigm is that its subscribers are compelled to believe that a god for which they have no evidence existed forever while they insist that the very matter they stand on could not possibly have done so. Point out to a proponent of ID that they believe in abiogenesis and watch the sparks fly. Some humans are too busy believing stuff to think about it. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/15/2009 11:43:59 PM | well some of us think that something had to be here forever.
a source of the energy.
got to go by human rules to come up with an opinion on here, other than on topic and such? | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/16/2009 12:43:16 AM | I agree with this:
well some of us think that something had to be here forever.
a source of the energy.
If there's anything now, it always had to have been here, in some form. Of course I have only a limited primate brain but my limited logic agrees: since there is more than nothing now, there was always all this stuff. It's in different places and different shapes, but it must have always been here.
To the OP, the reason the idea that all stuff was always here and just keeps changing is censored/denied may be that it's not 'special' enough. You can't get people to follow you or put tithings in your collection basket by telling them you're just as much re-ordered space dust as they are. | |
|
| Evolution.
Posted: 9/16/2009 1:40:06 PM | there is much that we can't prove, of which some we will NEVER prove.
some of us are consumed with an opinion about the forever unprovable.
Oh, is there a consensus that SOMETHING had to have been here forever?
other wise we are getting into magic, which is not real. [NO MAGIC PLEASE!]
if we DO believe in magic, then anything goes! | |
|
|
| Page 48 of 50
|
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 |
|
Home
login 
