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
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1321
Evolution.Page 52 of 64    (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, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)
Ya'll keep acting like evoultion is for the educated and creationism is for stupid, yet thousnads and thousands of doctored scientist that study science on the cutting edge still hold Intelligent design as a rational idea.


Oh, and you have a citation for these "thousands of scientists that study science" (as opposed to scientists that study needlepoint, perhaps?) that hasn't been thoroughly debunked as a fraud?

Well, I wouldn't necessarily say creationism is for the stupid, but the amount intellectual dishonesty - from fallacious argument to out-and-out fraud - is stunning! So if you want to stay on your intellectually sinking ship, go right ahead. Maybe if you call out to your god, it'll magically pop your proof into existence and make us all look silly, eh? Go ahead. Give it a try....

As for your notion of a "rational idea," well, if you consider the notion that a magical being magically popped a world and people into existence without leaving a single shred of evidence behind as "rational," well....


It will just be deleted again and I will be banned. See atheist have backed themselves into a corner "evolution" and will fight and lie to make sure their theory stays in the forefront, b/c w/o the thoery of evolution, athiesm is too hard to feed to the masses.


Well, Ken Miller is a practicing Catholic. So the above statement is clearly a lie. Evolution is a scientific theory regarding the development (not origin but development) of life on this planet. Atheism is a philosophical viewpoint regarding the non-existence of god(s). And since atheists represent less than 5 per cent of the worlds believers, then clearly the theory of evolution has little impact on that.


I did not post proof of a certain Creator, only proof of a Creator. It doesnt matter how many variations of the Creator exist, b/c there is only ONE and they are all the same, some are just wrong interpretations of the ONE.


Hmmmm....I wonder if Paul Overton thinks he's one of those who has the "wrong" interpretation.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 1322
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/21/2011 8:12:43 AM

Just keep posting qoutes by men....

Would quotes from women convince you? Or would you find quotes from other species even more persuasive?

....or links to unscientific data.

To dismiss links to globally respected universities and peak science bodies as "unscientific" indicates there might be a problem with definitions...

Yet provide not one test which I can use to check your theory.

That's not true. Here it is again - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey
Kick it off and just wait a few billion years. Alternately you could use bacteria and get results in just a few weeks.


See atheist have backed themselves into a corner "evolution" and will fight and lie to make sure their theory stays in the forefront...

No, it's the ID proponents who do that. Necessarily, since their whacko fairytale has no rational foundation.
Proponents of biological evolution have no need to lie since the mountains of data collected all over the world by unconnected and independent researchers all point in the same direction - confirmation of the biological theory.
It's worth noting, in that regard, that the word 'theory' used in the scientific context doesn't have the quite the same meaning as it does in a general context.

That your attitude toward 'science' and the 'theory' of evolution is so dismissive reveals nothing about the theory, or science, but it reveals a lot about your knowledge of how things work and your understanding thereof.

...athiesm is too hard to feed to the masses. So anytime scientific data is revealed which denounces evolution w/o a Creator, it must quickly be taken out of sight of the public.

Atheism has no de facto connection to the theory of evolution. It concerns only disbelief in deities.
I suspect the real reason stories about evolution that include a 'creator' component might struggle to find an audience is because such stories are groundless fantasies that don't withstand even a few seconds of rational examination.


Ya'll keep acting like evoultion is for the educated and creationism is for stupid, yet thousnads and thousands of doctored scientist that study science on the cutting edge still hold Intelligent design as a rational idea.

I'd convert if you could name 'thousands and thousands' of "doctored scientist that study science on the cutting edge" who "hold Intelligent design as a rational idea".
But frankly, I'll be surprised if you can name just one even slightly respected PhD on the 'cutting edge' of 'science' who is a promoter of ID, simply because there's a massive contradiction inherent in the proposition.


No, I think he said "doctored scientists"...

Ahh... eugenics? Genetically modified scientists designed to wear white coats and promote ID.

http://i55.tinypic.com/2ryn1wz.jpg
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 1324
Evolution.
Posted: 9/26/2011 5:06:31 PM
Here is an interersting disscusion ..crackpot? Maybe..maybe not

The Source Field Investigations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR-klTa1y54

go to
1:08:36 to approx 1:40 discusses strange things within dna
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 1325
Evolution.
Posted: 9/26/2011 7:18:34 PM
LOL yes i think he is a bit of a crackpot :) however the science will tell i guess huh?
I think the work dr rick straussman has done on dmt and the pineal gland is interesting and important science does not like to deal with consciousness it seems. To hard to quantify but the measurement in itself is an ongoing delima no?
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 1326
Evolution.
Posted: 9/27/2011 5:05:31 AM
Glen Beck and Obama are part of the dream world they are manufactured actors for your entertainment in "tick tock"

DMT-The Spirit Molecule
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQEMhxgIXBU
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1327
Evolution.
Posted: 9/27/2011 6:43:01 PM

DMT-The Spirit Molecule
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQEMhxgIXBU


This has what to do with the OP?
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 1328
Evolution.
Posted: 9/28/2011 5:01:15 AM
I agree and i also believe that as our consciousness evolves , so do we. They are connected. We are only picking up one station of many available stations. Just as quantum mechanics is starting to prove and Qabalists have been saying for thousands of years..it is all illusion. The paradox in wave–particle duality quantum mechanics explains as a fundamental property of the Universe. So what effect does that have on evolution and what is evolving exactly? Is it all physical or more our collective perception? I dont claim any absolutes I DONT KNOW, but it is part of the conversation of evolution. I have nothing against science Irregulator.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1329
Evolution.
Posted: 9/28/2011 6:20:59 AM
The paradox in wave–particle duality quantum mechanics explains as a fundamental property of the Universe. So what effect does that have on evolution and what is evolving exactly? Is it all physical or more our collective perception?


This is the same woo-woo we've been hearing from the new age movement since quantum physics was first come across. It's no more true now as it was then.

The wave-particle duality of light only applies to that. It has nothing to do with whether or not we're "spirits" or "the universe is consciousness," etc.

At its heart, evolution in this context is a biological process. Intelligence and consciousness emerged from increasingly complex brains. Until someone can come up with a reasonable hypothesis (and a means of testing) the assertions of the new age movement for greater significance than that, well...I'm not holding my breath.
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 1330
Evolution.
Posted: 9/28/2011 12:42:27 PM

The wave-particle duality of light only applies to that. It has nothing to do with whether or not we're "spirits" or "the universe is consciousness," etc.


Your so sure huh Stargazer. What we think is true is really an illusion, What is your body made of? Nine systems including muscular,skeletal,nervous,respiratory,circulatory, digestive,reproductive etc. What are those made up of? Tissues and organs.What are tissues and organs made of? Cells.What are cells made of? Molecules.What are molecules made of? Atoms. What are atoms made of? Sub-atomic particles. What are subatomic particles made of? Energy. This is a valid statement no? Science is a religion in itself and often it ignores that which cant be measured.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MXehXcs2rc
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 1331
Evolution.
Posted: 9/28/2011 2:14:38 PM
Rationalwiki? is that the best you can do? Hold on tight ;)

Consciousness is often left out of the discussion by those who worship science. Lots of attacking chatter irregulator... another fine word salad.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1332
Evolution.
Posted: 9/28/2011 2:25:42 PM
Your so sure huh Stargazer.


As sure as anyone can be of anything, I guess, pending additional data.


What we think is true is really an illusion


Oookaaaayyy.....


What is your body made of? Nine systems including muscular,skeletal,nervous,respiratory,circulatory, digestive,reproductive etc. What are those made up of? Tissues and organs.What are tissues and organs made of? Cells.What are cells made of? Molecules.What are molecules made of? Atoms. What are atoms made of? Sub-atomic particles. What are subatomic particles made of? Energy.This is a valid statement no?


True...to a point...


Science is a religion in itself and often it ignores that which cant be measured.


And this is the point where it goes too far...

Despite the best efforts of you and others to caricature science as "religion," it is nothing of the sort. Science relies on facts and observable evidence. Religion is reliant on supernatural entities and ethereal "mysteries." What you espouse is religious in nature, despite your best efforts to parasitize legitimacy from science through meaningless rhetoric.

While we're at it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MXehXcs2rc

Ah yes, Robert Anton Wilson. Yet another wannabe guru of New Age silliness.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 1333
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 9/30/2011 6:38:55 PM
Interesting finding Kreb...What do ya think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw&feature=player_embedded#!

And what would precipitate such a shift of wit?
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 1334
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/1/2011 11:52:51 PM

dont wanna argue...

That's fortunate, since what you write following this statement is unarguable, being only a series of irrational assertions, wrong facts, and strange myths which are all allegedly told about in a magic book.

All i say is look at th real facts ,search for evidence of th truth.

Take your own advice.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 1335
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/2/2011 3:11:13 AM
Interesting, Kreb. Thus we ARE what we eat, in an even MORE profound way, we actually BECOME ourselves from what we eat.

Now I have to find out what to eat to BECOME Bill Gates.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 1336
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/2/2011 5:12:25 AM
Kreb...When I first read of the Zhang study a couple of weeks ago, there was one of those oh-oh moments. With our endless tinkering of Frankenfoods, we could very well engineer a rapid decline in human population by accident/ignorance. GMOs have already been shown to reduce birth weight and increase infant mortality and it's becoming likely that there are serious implications for sterility in a couple or 3 generations. If we are what we eat, then we're dead meat.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1337
Evolution.
Posted: 10/2/2011 3:46:04 PM

there is more evidence of th earth being less than 10,000 years old.in fact the earth itself is ulikely to support life for more than 300 years from now.


Still waiting to see it.

But if you're inclined to quote AIG...then you might as well declare defeat now.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 1338
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/5/2011 2:33:19 PM
Meanwhile, back in reality on Earth...

Loren Eiseley exposed me to slime mold in his writings of the 60s and 70s, comparing the human race to slime mold comparing their building critical mass of towers that would shoot off spores to travel and recolonize, to our tiny efforts at space travel to spread the human species.

This is a lovely piece further exploring one of the most ancient and resilient species on earth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/science/04slime.html?_r=2&ref=science
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 1339
Evolution.
Posted: 10/7/2011 9:06:14 PM
Consciousness is what determines your ability to imagine why the octopus and coral reefs are "smart" in their own way. Everything survives vis a vis survival...but much is damaged and mutated through human action.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1340
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/8/2011 10:44:03 AM
but much is damaged and mutated through human action.


especially;
Very true. And also through nature's action(s).

thats exactly what is happening, everything is going from perfection to more and more imperfection.

some caculate with all the deliterious mutations and slightly deliterious mutations adding up, our genes will eventually be so damaged, we won't be able to reproduce anymore.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1341
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/8/2011 6:17:11 PM
What creatures ( humans included) were ever 'perfect"?

well, we are acquiring more and more bad mutations [thousands of diseases and useless mutations] so we must have been at least MORE perfect at one time.

beneficial mutations can be a byproduct of a bad mutations.

and mutations act only on existing dna, so they can't help in the molecules to man story.
and they are always destructive, as in wrecking dna information
they don't add anything.

even so called non deliterious mutations take up valuable realestate.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1342
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/8/2011 6:38:41 PM


"Who are these "some" that made the calculations, and how did they arrive at their conclusion?" quote


when our dna is filled with more and more useless mutations [do you agree that this is
happening?].............well, you do the math.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 1343
Evolution.
Posted: 10/8/2011 8:16:34 PM
I kind of think that the "some" you refer to is you.

You're really not making any sense here.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 1344
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/8/2011 8:55:23 PM
aremeself:

WE don't determine which mutations are "useless." Circumstances do that. That's what evolution is all about.

As for the notion that we "were" more perfect before we mutated, that's more or less a contradiction to how we think evolution works. You can be a more "perfect" match FOR YOUR CURRENT ENVIRONMENT, but you are not more or less perfect without reference to anything else.

By the way, some "useless" mutations can turn out to be very useFUL, later on.

It has recently been discovered that there are some people who are naturally immune to the HIV. Guess why? Because they carry left over mutations that occurred in response to the medieval plagues. Now, the descendants of those "useless" mutants have helped to actually CURE the first person to BE actually completely CURED of HIV.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1345
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/8/2011 9:23:59 PM
wish I WAS the one who came up with that, halftime.


we get deleterious mutations=many sicknesses caused by mutations. [several thousand]

even more mutations are not good or bad, but add up taking up space.

very few, if any are 100% beneficial.

so add it up, useless mutations seem to keep coming, doesn't it stand to reason that there will at some point in the future be some problems?

ccr5 is a deletion mutation [something is destroyed in the dna]

duplication also doesn't add anything new. [not proven to add genetic information]

where am I wrong here?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1346
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/8/2011 10:05:02 PM
so you guys really have faith in most neutral mutations [they are adding up] becoming useful some day?
the mutations you speak of appear totally at random.
environment does not pressure the correct mutations in appearing.
they are all 100% mistakes.
and you are all betting on mistakes!

I presume that there is very little clearcut evidence of this.

and I still can not in all the information about evolution find out how information is added to the genome [adding base pairs to come up with a more advanced spieces].

not just mutating existing information.
you do realize that mutations always destroy.
somtimes there are benefits to that, not often.

quote;

Changes or mutations in our DNA occur at a certain rate. They are an inevitable byproduct of our cellular functions. From one perspective, mutations happen very rarely; on average, only 1 in 30 million nucleotides mutates per person every generation. However there are 3 billion nucleotides in our genome. Therefore every individual carries, on average, 100 new mutations!

Most of these 100 new mutations have no effect by themselves. They are said to "drift", either accumulating or disappearing across generations purely by chance. Therefore, within a population, there will be a large stock of mutations represented in different individuals, the so-called "gene pool".
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >