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  > Evolution.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 dardikadrake
Joined: 5/10/2010
Msg: 1501
Evolution. Page 61 of 63    (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, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63)
We came from another planet...but we started out as tads in water.

Eventually, like water-dogs we grew legs and walked. We been around awhile, in one form or another.

We are basically experiments. Our watchers come and go as they please and sometimes they guide us, most of the times, they leave us alone. Some of us have been taken away and have started new worlds in new galaxies, but for the most part, we are just being observed. They want to see just how long it takes to fuque everything up again.

See, we do that a lot too. Fuque everything up. It is part of the social/political gears we oil. It turns and turns until it takes all the earth has to offer and then POOF the earth will be exactly like Mars. Then off to the next planet.

We get a clean slate each time....so that part is pretty cool.

If you go down to Wingdings you will find our original language....lol and you thought HTML was something that just recently...(slaps her knees)...lol I just can't even finish the sentence I am laughing so hard

 dardikadrake
Joined: 5/10/2010
Msg: 1502
Evolution.
Posted: 10/28/2014 8:29:57 PM
interesting...........

I didn't know I was being far fetched! I actually do have my personal belief system.

I mean...think about it....we have a tail bone but no need for a tail...we have evolved from it, that is all....in 100's of years, we won't have pinky toes or fingers because they are not needed. We may not have toes at all. Many parts of the body are no longer needed to sustain life so...sooner or later we are going to look like little lanky things with big heads.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 1503
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/29/2014 6:15:50 AM

I cant help but ask previous posters to prove their points, since the burden of proof is in their own backyard. Im not speaking of theories either, but pure concrete proof.

To demand that something like evolution be explained and "proven" beyond a certain point in forum is crazy and simpleton. Laziness. Forget expecting folks in a forum to demonstrate it...go find out for yourself by looking at the real science of it, not a dating site forum. That burden of proof has already been carried, quite a distance. Go find out about it for yourself.

Do you understand what a "theory" is? And what you think you mean by "pure concrete proof"?

A single smoking gun does not exist

What exactly is meant by "single smoking gun" anyway?? Is this more stupidity?
 1saved
Joined: 10/19/2014
Msg: 1504
Evolution.
Posted: 10/29/2014 4:49:07 PM
^ Really? Tell that to all posters who have ever had a religious debate on here.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 1505
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/30/2014 10:49:42 AM
The moral of all this? If you trip and fall off of a ledge, don't worry...gravity is "just a theory". It's never been "proven". If a nuclear bomb is dropped into your town, don't worry...atomic theory is "just a theory". It's never been "proven".
 1saved
Joined: 10/19/2014
Msg: 1506
Evolution.
Posted: 10/30/2014 4:12:04 PM
Gravity is a law, not a theory. Atomic hypothesis has also been proven.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 1507
Evolution.
Posted: 10/30/2014 7:59:51 PM
You are partially correct-- gravity is both a law and a theory. The law involves the calculation of gravity's strength (the "what") whereas the theory is the "how"-- the curvature of spacetime.

Similarly, evolution is both a fact and a theory. Small changes over time (evolution) is the observed fact, whereas natural selection is the theory that explains how these small changes allow for organisms to adapt to their environment via reproduction over time.

Put simply, fossils of simple lifeforms are found in the deepest earth strata, and the fossils of more complex lifeforms appear up from those. With that forensic evidence, we can conclude that life evolved from simple to complex lifeforms. Not in a straight line though but like a very large family tree-- that explains why we continue to see simple lifeforms as well as complex.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1508
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/30/2014 10:08:25 PM
Um, as soon as evolution is proven to be a fact, it will be called a fact.
Weather they are right or wrong will be another story.

The fossils do have a tendancy to be layered.
Its not as organized as is popularly believed and shown to be
.there are other possible reasons for the layering

Its moot because pretty much all life disappears as the same life form as it appears.
Much of today's life forms were the same, only much larger then.

Pretty much all of today's organized religions are out to lunch.
Thats in the bible too.

Theres no single smoking gun, obviously.
There also does not seem to be all the evidence we should see (molecular pathways) that we would expect to see for the mind boggling amount of evolving taking place.
Also
Mutations are arguably always bad, or at least good information adding ones are pretty much impossible to find.
The idea of mutations creating all of life's parts was thrown out 100 years ago.
You can guess why they reluctantly went with them again to this day.

I suppose you all know that a single gene does multiple jobs.
So
A single mutation could really screw that up.
Don't worry, the math has been done too, for say, protein creation.
Not possible in the present universal age.

Hey, you can believe what ever you want,

Evolution has a million imagined answeres.
I've checked several, and non of them paned out.
So what am I supposed to think? Huh???

Anyways, its your responsabilty to check it out for yourself.

For example; life forms in the fossil record don't change.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 1509
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/31/2014 7:51:48 AM

Theres no single smoking gun, obviously.

I'm still wanting to know what this is supposed to mean? A "single smoking gun"?
 HFX_RGB
Joined: 7/26/2014
Msg: 1510
Evolution.
Posted: 11/3/2014 12:11:49 PM
Irony alert.


Um, as soon as evolution is proven to be a fact, it will be called a fact.
Weather they are right or wrong will be another story.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1511
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/3/2014 9:22:05 PM
Sorry about the weather!
 PirateJohn09
Joined: 1/7/2009
Msg: 1512
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/4/2014 2:28:05 PM

Gravity is a law, not a theory. Atomic hypothesis has also been proven.

Yeah, you have no idea how science works. Both of your sentences are completely wrong.

First of all, the only reason some things are called a "law" is because they come from days when it was believed that the universe operated under very simple laws that needed to be discovered. We are no longer that naive. In fact, all of Newton's "laws" have been disproven since the advent of relativity.

And nothing in science is ever proven true. They simply do not get proven false despite decades of trying. So, no, atomic hypothesis has never been proven. It has simply never been proven wrong despite decades of trying, and that is why we call it "theory" now.

Same goes for evolution. It has never been proven false despite over a century of data. It has made testable predictions that have been realized. Therefore we call it "theory" which is the LAST step of the process. In science, you don't get to be called a "theory" until the scientific community is so sure of the model that they start to treat it as accepted fact.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1513
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/8/2014 11:57:11 PM
The increasing in complexity must have happened in between the layering, because there is no evidence of it within the layers.

Mutations have to have already existing genetic information available to jumble up.

Toe does not fit the facts, mutations can't increase complexity.

Some forms of life that live today were a lot larger in the past, dragon fly's etc.

Babies look different then their parents because of a combination of existing father and mother genetic information. There is nothing new introduced into the mix.

If you want materialism to work for you, then yes evolution is the only game in town......today.
But,
My resesearch does not show the evidence to support evolution.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 1514
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/10/2014 11:25:52 AM

Some forms of life that live today were a lot larger in the past, dragon fly's etc.

^ That is the funniest part of that post. If you're not sure if good sense is being reflected, that sentence is the litmus test. If you don't know why...then you need information as much as the poster does.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1515
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/10/2014 7:41:07 PM
Andya

Your still reading the fossil layering one way.

The father mother dna thing, we know something about the coding part of dna not anywhere near all!

We know shit about the rest, 90 plus %!
We still call it junk!! Some paid scientist do!
There's a lot of combo's in the 3 billion plus base pairs.

50 kids, if you like, all gonna be different my friend.

We ain't evolving into nothing, just different looking PEOPLE.

mutations are mistakes that screw up existing working DNA.

Andya, did you know that a single gene controls more than one function?
So really, how's a screw up (all mutations are screwups) gonna improve that in a billion years!

Now this TOO, you will have to research.
Bones that don't fit are thrown into the lake, or, ignored, or, 'filed'.
How big do you think the drawers of filed evidence are?
Andya, do you think those drawers even exist?

You know they do.
The drawers of shit that don't fit with today's evolutionary paradigm.

It will take unconventional effort to find anything even near to the truth.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 1516
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/11/2014 9:17:27 AM
aremeself has a lot of catching up to do concerning evolution and dna and fossils, and how it all really works. Too much misinformation in there too. Aremeself, you should really try to be able to identify the misinformation.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 1517
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/11/2014 9:17:41 AM
aremeself has a lot of catching up to do concerning evolution and dna and fossils, and how it all really works. Too much misinformation in there too. Aremeself, you should really try to be able to identify the misinformation.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1518
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/11/2014 9:58:43 PM
Back to bashing again, well, thats what evolutioners reliable do.

I type reeeally slow for yous.

You can't find a single smoking gun.
(Drink doesn't even know what that means.)
No evidence of evolutionary pathways.
No evidence of bacteria turning into anything multicellular
The boneyard record sucks for evo evidence.
(As spoken by your hardcore evo high priest's).
Common descent could just as well be common design.

Do your own research without using evolutionary dogma.
(That would be some challenge!)

Have fun with your evolutionary just so stories, and always be predictable and pick on the messengers, shows the limits of your intelligence very well.
 HFX_RGB
Joined: 7/26/2014
Msg: 1519
Evolution.
Posted: 11/12/2014 5:18:43 AM
Irony Alert:

First we get these:

I type reeeally slow for yous.
(Drink doesn't even know what that means.)
(As spoken by your hardcore evo high priest's).
(That would be some challenge!)


Followed up with:


Have fun with your evolutionary just so stories, and always be predictable and pick on the messengers, shows the limits of your intelligence very well.
 AlienHumanHybrid
Joined: 10/31/2014
Msg: 1520
Evolution.
Posted: 11/28/2014 6:47:20 PM
I was thinking about verses pertaining to creation (not creation"ism").

God is quoted as stating he formed the heavens and earth specifically to be inhabited -which would mean all of the building blocks of life were included in the plan -as would be the interactions between life and its environment.

Many religious people get stuck on the "creation" story -make assumptions about it -and keep themselves from considering awesome concepts.

Another verse says that the things of God are apparent in what was made, so they should be interested in new understanding.

What is known about evolution, and can be observed, is not in conflict with anything in the bible -and also can't be reasonably used as a basis for denying the possibility of the existence of a being predating the universe and possessing "God-like" abilities.

The bible really isn't concerned with what happened in the eternity before man to any great degree. We can't know what God was doing before man -even on earth-except what little is said about the angels. It does not specify a time frame for the initial completion of the earth. It specifies that Adam was created about 6,000 years ago. Adam is called the first "man" by biblical definition. Even if all other life came to be by evolution alone, it does not mean God did not initiate it -but what can be observed does not exclude the possibility of directly changing things at certain points, either. The fact that we can observe some aspects of evolution does not mean God is not able to also create a man by more direct means than evolution. Even man is nearing that capability!

Pure "Science" isn't concerned with God -especially a God described as one who hides himself.
Science is very good at what it does, and should not be ignored. One would do well to ignore unreasonable people on any side of any issue, however -inasmuch as they are unreasonable.

Those who conclude that a God cannot exist aren't doing themselves any favors, either -and aren't being very scientific.

Given the history of human religion, however, people are understandably averse to the idea of God -and cringe at the mere mention.


 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 1521
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/28/2014 7:40:54 PM

I was thinking about verses

Good for you. I prefer non-fiction.
 HFX_RGB
Joined: 7/26/2014
Msg: 1522
Evolution.
Posted: 11/29/2014 6:08:05 AM

Those who conclude that a God cannot exist aren't doing themselves any favors, either -and aren't being very scientific.


Really, so what scientific rules are they breaking by coming to such conclusions?




Given the history of human religion, however, people are understandably averse to the idea of God -and cringe at the mere mention.


Do you mean given the fact we know it is all made up beased on the shear number of gods that have been created by mans stories?
 AlienHumanHybrid
Joined: 10/31/2014
Msg: 1523
Evolution.
Posted: 11/29/2014 8:06:46 PM
If one CONCLUDES a God CANNOT exist.... I really shouldn't have to explain.... though a specific God based on a specific description can definitely be known to not exist. Still, a God who is misrepresented or misunderstood can still exist.
Some do not accept the Ark/Flood story -and many others -because they reject the idea of a being who could manipulate/suspend/supersede natural laws -such as when the sun stood still in the sky (Jos 10). Rejecting that idea altogether is not scientific. Not accepting it because they have seen no proof of such is scientific.

It is very unscientific to know that it is all made up based on the fact that some things are made up.
 AlienHumanHybrid
Joined: 10/31/2014
Msg: 1524
Evolution.
Posted: 11/29/2014 8:30:42 PM
"Visual evidence suggests that animals came into existence gradually over long periods of time with massive extinction events destroying most of life. The bible gives us a different story."

Actually, it does not. It does not tell the complete story, however.


"Life was created in block form as in day five, all fish, the birds, day 6 all animals then man, then woman."

Again -not actually -not all life and not the beginning of all life -and not necessarily all life on earth. It doesn't say anything about microbes or viruses, either -but it's not a science textbook. It is toward salvation (humans becoming immortal with bodies not subject to decay, and having extreme creative power) -not specific scientific education. The first and second verse of Genesis say that the heavens and earth were created -and the earth had become/became formless and void (H1961). What follows is a renewal/repair which may or may not be based on 24 hour days (given other verses).
It does not specify that there was no life on earth prior to its becoming formless and void (an extinction, perhaps) -though it does describe things which came to exist by means other than evolution alone. God has eternity -creating by the slow process of evolution would not be long for him -and creating more directly with available knowledge and material would not be impossible for him. If I design a system once, repairing and replicating it would not require as much work.
Much is assumed about what is written which isn't actually written.

If you consider what visual evidence might be left by our own manipulation of DNA thousands of years in the future -especially with no record -it would be quite difficult to know whether what was observed was a natural or imposed change ("real" sheep or clone, for example).

Still looking into the actual time frame of Genesis -what it says and does not say -and what evidence might be observable today.

A bit off the subject.... I was thinking that if one does not consider the possibility that the "big bang" was by intent -to create an inhabitable universe and its inhabitants -one might overlook certain evidence -even layers of data within the elements, subatomic particles, etc. -as everything would essentially be a part of -or a layer of -the code. Otherwise, we might not think to look for code or data beneath the atomic "layer" if you will -but see it as accidental or random.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 1525
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/29/2014 8:40:10 PM
All I hear is:

"If one CONCLUDES magic CANNOT exist.... I really shouldn't have to explain.... though a specific magic based on a specific description can definitely be known to not exist. Still, a magic which is misrepresented or misunderstood can still exist.
Some do not accept the magic story -and many others -because they reject the idea of a magic which could manipulate/suspend/supersede natural laws -such as when the sun stood still in the sky (magic 10). Rejecting that idea altogether is not scientific. Not accepting it because they have seen no proof of such is scientific.

It is very unscientific to know that it is all made up based on the fact that some things are made up."
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Evolution.