Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 560
view profile
History
Evolution. and The Flying Spaghetti MonsterPage 23 of 64    (9, 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)
rodregas, thanks for the reply.
rockondon So your position is NOBODY cast a spell every so often to create new organisms.
You're absolutely right. Life can create new organisms on its own without the need for divine intervention - it wasn't God that god my mom pregnant, it was my dad. I suspect you meant new 'species' instead of new organisms. In which case I must add that speciation has been observed many times during the last century and even young earth creationists admit speciation occurs. Answersingenesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0908.asp) claims that Noah brought 8,000 'kinds' of animals which speciated to the innumerable number of species we see today. Considering that microevolution is about change within a species and macroevolution is about change between species, they are unwittingly admitting to macroevolution. And why not - admitting microevolution and denying macroevolution is akin to admitting that a person can clap their hands once but they can't do it ten times - macroevolution is nothing more than a lot of microevolution.
Genetic engineering by chance sounds like voodoo to me!
It sounds like voodoo to me too! But then again, since I accept evolution, the last thing I would believe is that we evolve by chance.
I think the ID position is that we are not the highest intelligences in the universe.
The ID position seems to be that there is a creator out there that is a complete moron. He makes animals with eyes that don't work, he fills us with genes that do nothing, he gives us an appendix which can kill us if we leave it in but we're fine when we remove it, and so on.
Gravity, electro magnetism, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces are perfectly balanced in proportion to one another...
blah blah blah none of this affects the validity of evolution - you're refuting nothing. If there is no god then evolution is true, if god made the universe then evolution is true, so there's no point bringing it up. Anyone who thinks you can't believe in evolution and a god at the same time is an idiot. How many people believe both these things these days - billions?
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 561
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/3/2009 10:16:14 AM
Its interesting that the ones who deny evolution continually refuse to offer an alternative explanation for what the ToE so elegantly explains.

In the fossil record the oldest (deepest) layers contain simple cells followed by more complex cells followed by invertebrate animals then the first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles then birds then mammals. Between these groups we find transitional fossils (fossils that retain traits from their ancestors). We find innumerable fossils with features of fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, and dinosaurs and birds. In essence, we see growing complexity in the fossil record from the simple cells of old to complex animals of today.

So what does it mean when, for example, every animal in the world is a fish then many years later there are fishlike amphibians then years later there are amphibians? - it means that species are changing over time. Unless you're a creationist, in which case it means that a god made fish, then killed them, then made fish-amphibians, then killed them, then made amphibians, then killed them, etc. Decide for yourself which makes more sense.

One nice example of a transitional species is the Tiktaalik, a fish with wrist and finger bones and lungs. This creature, an intermediate form between fish and tetrapods (which is essentially the precursor to amphibians and other 4-legged animals) was not found by chance. Research showed that vertebrates first invaded land about 375 million years ago from Canada and spread out from there. Thus, paleontologists went to Canada and searched rock layers that were about 375 million years old and found exactly what they expected to find and they confirmed what evolution predicted - the Tiktaalik, a 'fish' that could support itself on land and breathe air. And what's the creationist view on this I wonder - perhaps God deceives us by putting these seemingly transitional fossils in the right depth and the right location to fool us? If you replace the word 'Tiktaalik' with pikaia (invertebrate to fish), hylonomus (amphibian to reptile), archaeopteryx (dinosaur to bird), or a thousand other transitional forms you'll reach the same conclusions - either God is fooling us or species are changing over time. And when we're talking hundreds of millions of years, those changes add up to create vastly different forms of life.

The fossil record was more than enough to settle the issue of common descent (at least to those whose brains weren't destroyed by being religious fundamentalists) a century ago and yet it is not even the strongest evidence of evolution - that title likely belongs to genetics.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 562
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/3/2009 8:29:24 PM
not all creationists are that way, AND adaptation gets confused with "evolution".

thanks.
 heterotic
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 563
Evolution.
Posted: 9/3/2009 8:33:34 PM

adaptation gets confused with "evolution".


For the umpteenth time... adaptation (observed beneficial genetic mutations) over an extended period of time IS evolution.
 forum_moderator
Joined: 1/24/2003
Msg: 564
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/4/2009 2:53:20 AM
Off Topic Posting removed. Address the topic

DO NOT ADDRESS OTHER POSTERS/INSULT/FLAME/BAIT etc

Do NOT change the topic and hijack threads.

'Hijacking' simply means changing and detracting from the Topic or Subject under Discussion, as set out by the initial Post on any given Thread.

Thanks to those who remained on topic.


Why do you suppose that the volumes of facts and data in support of evolution have been repressed in public schools. I know that religious leaders are opposed, but they aren't enough to persuade the boards to not teach the theory.

 forum_moderator
Joined: 1/24/2003
Msg: 565
view profile
History
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





 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 566
view profile
History
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.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 567
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.
 coveredinpaint
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 568
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.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 569
view profile
History
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.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 570
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. =)
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 571
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.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 572
view profile
History
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?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 573
view profile
History
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!
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 574
Evolution.
Posted: 9/16/2009 1:45:51 PM
aremeself -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QrGAJJ2sSc&feature=PlayList&p=F5366FCC4E334086&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=10
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 575
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/17/2009 1:56:24 AM
cool,

is there a consensus that something had to have been here forever?

and

magic is not real.
do I have to explain that?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 576
Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 7:44:35 AM

Religon is merely a much more elegant way of explaining science.


It is a mistake to refer to religion as "merely" anything, in my opinion, at least whee human affairs are concerned. However, science and religion have completely different social contracts so comparisons between them miss the mark, too.

The problem comes when religion tries to cross the boundary to science which it does much more than the other direction. That's because religion is based on a belief in a greater deity (deities). Science has phenomena.

Religion attributes everything to the deity. Science can't.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 577
Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 8:34:28 AM

Religon is merely a much more elegant way of explaining science.


Religion is a way for those in power to control the masses; let the rabble think things will be ok after they die and they may not riot. And I haven't heard of any schools or science foundations burning people at the stake for having opposing views.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 578
Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 11:34:27 AM

Questions about ultimate origins are not within the purview of science.


I couldn't disagree more. That's the ultimate point of science. If a physical process exists that can create entire universes, then science is the means to that end. Religion is designed to fulfill a different need.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 579
Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 11:46:20 AM

Go ahead and create a theory about ultimate origins that makes specific and distinguishing predictions that are subject to falsification, and my ears are wide open.


Don't I wish I could...but that wasn't my point.

To simply say that science isn't able to come up with some kind of "ultimate origin" of the universe is to say that things are "unknowable." Which is rather antithetical of science, non?
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 580
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 12:26:51 PM

How could you falsify any theory of ultimate origins, even in principle?

By proving any of its prerequisites or predicted outcomes wrong.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 581
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 12:37:54 PM
to emphatically say that there is nothing other then what meets our pathetic few senses and understanding at the moment, is a little limiting, no?

don't read anything else into that, thats all I am saying for now.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 582
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 12:43:20 PM
If it can't meet our senses or understanding, then it is beyond detection or measurable influence, and not worth considering. Anything which has an influence should also be measurable, even if indirectly.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 583
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 12:45:26 PM

1/2 right. If the ontology had any prerequisites it would not be ultimate, by definition.

My statement holds, regardless, since disproof of either aspect alone is sufficient.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 584
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/18/2009 1:14:17 PM

If God were a biological supercomputer that designed the universe, and all of the fundamental elements and forces as a test, would the statement GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE be any less true?

Irrelevant. God lacks a definition of any kind and is unobservable and untestable.


If physicists are creating mini universes themselves, then it is ipso facto, arrogant as hell to assume the same could not have been done for us

Fallacious reasoning, and the arrogance lies in anthropomorphizing where no evidence exists. We assume this was not done because there is no evidence that it was. Additionally, if physicists are doing [or attempting to] this, they are doing it with natural processes. That means it could happen with no intelligent assistance whatsoever. That would render your argument a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: just because intelligence CAN cause it, does not mean that intelligence DOES cause it.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >