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
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 1797
view profile
History
Evolution.Page 94 of 96    (56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96)
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."
 AlienHumanHybrid
Joined: 10/31/2014
Msg: 1798
Evolution.
Posted: 11/29/2014 8:41:18 PM
All I hear is:......

All I hear is:
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 1799
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/29/2014 8:54:27 PM
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
 AlienHumanHybrid
Joined: 10/31/2014
Msg: 1800
Evolution.
Posted: 11/30/2014 7:05:11 AM
The definition allows for became rather than was. It is no twist. Therefore you can't say there is no gap described. Even if the verse can mean either given the language, other scriptures support the idea of a gap.

ha^ya^h
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass

You "concluded" that I did not know how science works -or chose to ignore it -based on one possible definition of a word -and were quite incorrect.

So, you can conclude that there is no God -and be incorrect. You can also conclude that there is no God -and be correct by definition and scientific principle, but be incorrect about the existence of God. If you completely bring an end to allowing any consideration of the subject of God, it is different than being of the opinion that there is no God due to a (possibly temporary) lack of evidence.

"So, if I conclude there is no god because I have no evidence to support this conclusion...AND not to speculate on what may or may not exist based on that lack of evidence... that is perfect science"

By definition 1, you are incorrect, by definition 2, you are correct. Similar to the situation with the word was/became, ironically.

1.
bring (something) to an end.
"they conclude their study with these words"
synonyms: finish, end, draw to a close, be over, stop, cease More
"the meeting concluded at ten"
bring to an end, close, wind up, terminate, dissolve;
informalwrap up
"she concluded the press conference"
antonyms: commence, start, begin, open

come to an end.
"the talk concluded with slides"
formally and finally settle or arrange (a treaty or agreement).
"an attempt to conclude a ceasefire"
synonyms: negotiate, broker, agree, come to terms on, settle, clinch, finalize, tie up; More
bring about, arrange, effect, engineer;
informalsew up
"an attempt to conclude a ceasefire"

2.
arrive at a judgment or opinion by reasoning.
"the doctors concluded that Esther had suffered a stroke"
synonyms: deduce, infer, gather, judge, decide, conjecture, surmise, extrapolate, figure, reckon
 HFX_RGB
Joined: 7/26/2014
Msg: 1801
Evolution.
Posted: 11/30/2014 7:31:28 AM

So, you can conclude that there is no God -and be incorrect. You can also conclude that there is no God -and be correct by definition and scientific principle, but be incorrect about the existence of God. If you completely bring an end to allowing any consideration of the subject of God, it is different than being of the opinion that there is no God due to a (possibly temporary) lack of evidence.


In related news, Unicorns are real because despite there being no evidence, there is the possibility we just have not found it yet so it must be considered real.





"So, if I conclude there is no god because I have no evidence to support this conclusion...AND not to speculate on what may or may not exist based on that lack of evidence... that is perfect science"


Ah the old, because you do not have any evidence to disprove my claim then there is a chance my claim is correct.

Fantastic little circlejerk you have there.
 AlienHumanHybrid
Joined: 10/31/2014
Msg: 1802
Evolution.
Posted: 11/30/2014 7:31:57 AM
There was/is enough evidence available to many individuals throughout history -and even now -to suggest that God (or at the very least a being with God-like powers) exists and to warrant at least a hypothesis.

That evidence may not be available to all, and some may not see it as such.

"Science" is one thing, but "scientists" quite another. "Scientists" exist in a world that doesn't like to share possibly advantageous information.

For example...

Just because you don't see the spirits like frogs -or for what they are -doesn't mean they aren't there... and "science" will only see the end result.

Rev 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
Rev 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty
 AlienHumanHybrid
Joined: 10/31/2014
Msg: 1803
Evolution.
Posted: 11/30/2014 7:33:49 AM

"In related news, Unicorns are real because despite there being no evidence, there is the possibility we just have not found it yet so it must be considered real.


Ah the old, because you do not have any evidence to disprove my claim then there is a chance my claim is correct.

Fantastic little circlejerk you have there."

That's not at all what I'm saying.
 HFX_RGB
Joined: 7/26/2014
Msg: 1804
Evolution.
Posted: 11/30/2014 10:10:05 AM

That's not at all what I'm saying.


Yes it is, unless you can provide examples of the scientific principles used to conclude that there is a god, because you stated: "...You can also conclude that there is no God -and be correct by definition and scientific principle..."


So lets see your work then and prove it, or at the very least explain how it can be proven.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 1805
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/30/2014 11:56:22 AM
Many scientists do realize & admit that not everything CAN be proven.

"It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science,"

Not saying either way, but the numbers of scientists who feel that discoveries & the inexplicability of same hint at God or some spirituality are growing. For those who adhere to this notion, there is no need to explain.
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 1806
Evolution.
Posted: 12/1/2014 10:56:28 AM
wishing to prove Scientifically that which can only be measured in faith is not science but Scientology ......funches 3:16
 robaustralia
Joined: 12/1/2014
Msg: 1807
Evolution.
Posted: 12/4/2014 9:33:45 AM
MSG 2929
Abiogenesis is not a fact.

MSG 2942

Siblings don't look different due to mutations.I is due to random gene inheritance.

MSG 2945
Humans don't have a tailbone.It is called a coccyx, without which it wouldn't be possible to sit upright.

MSG 2958
Newtons laws have never been disproved. They took us to the Moon.

MSG 2960
Common descent and Natural Selection have never been proven.Both are speculation.

MSG 2992
Just because viruses mutate and can become resistant to antibiotics doesn't prove evolution.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 1808
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/4/2014 11:09:39 AM

Abiogenesis is not a fact.

Life did actually "start". So, that's a fact.

Siblings don't look different due to mutations.I is due to random gene inheritance.

Gene inheritance and mutations both take place.

Humans don't have a tailbone.It is called a coccyx, without which it wouldn't be possible to sit upright.

So, it really is there. Right?

Newtons laws have never been disproved. They took us to the Moon.

Is this being phrased correctly?

Common descent and Natural Selection have never been proven.Both are speculation.

You have parents. And grandparents. Etc. This is a really real thing. And, organisms really do die or get killed. This actually happens.

Just because viruses mutate and can become resistant to antibiotics doesn't prove evolution.

When viruses mutate and become resistant, that's part of what the word "evolution" is referring to. If it happens, then it is happening. Because it is happening.
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 1809
Evolution.
Posted: 12/4/2014 2:16:35 PM

wishing to prove Scientifically that which can only be measured in faith is not science but Scientology ......funches 3:16


Faith = Pretending you know something you dont know
 robaustralia
Joined: 12/1/2014
Msg: 1810
Evolution.
Posted: 12/4/2014 4:59:43 PM
MSG 2996
Abiogenesis is not defined by at what point Earth didn't have life and then did. Abiogenesis is the notion that life cam from non life. Which has never been proven or disproven therefore it is not a FACT.
I
Ask anyone who has had their coccyx removed if they can sit comfortably ever again . No they can't. It was once thought that the coccyx served no useful purpose and was a remnant of evolution when we had tails. That has been discounted because the coccyx supports the bones around the pelvis which enables humans to sit comfortably to start with.

NASA uses Newtons equations to this day to calculate missions. Newtons laws are exceedingly accurate in relation to non relativistic speeds and low gravity fields . Einstein proved that Newtons laws do not apply to relativistic speeds and high gravity fields. Neither of which apply to sending a rocket to the Moon. So your statement that Einstein showing us that Newtons laws were wrong that we went to the Moon is wrong.
Perhaps you need to do some research.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 1811
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/5/2014 12:28:03 AM

In a world that isn't over run with goblins and gods we look for likely candidates, either abiogenesis occurred off world and was brought here by meteorite or by some natural process on this planet.

Why can't you just admit that it might have been magic? Where's a faith defender when we need one?!
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 1812
Evolution.
Posted: 12/5/2014 7:21:19 AM

posted by Island Home
Faith = Pretending you know something you dont know


Faith= the ability to turn one's Delusion into one's Reality
 robaustralia
Joined: 12/1/2014
Msg: 1813
Evolution.
Posted: 12/6/2014 2:30:44 PM
MSG 2998

Newton never made any claims about objects moving at or near light speed, so he wasn't inaccurate about anything. Understanding Newtons laws of motions is how engineers calculate how to get a rocket into space to start with.
As for firing a rocket to the moon, relativistic equations are not necessary as the rocket is not travelling at relativistic speeds and it wouldn't work anyhow.

BTW As you believe abiogenesis is a fact and there is no evidence to support it , that equates to faith.
 robaustralia
Joined: 12/1/2014
Msg: 1814
Evolution.
Posted: 12/7/2014 3:02:49 PM
MSG 303
You just refuted your own argument saying that Newtons laws are inaccurate.The article you quoted is what I have already stated, which is that Newtons laws are accurate. Under certain conditions but not others.

Here is an Axiom
(1) Some natural process produced produced life from non life ( Naturalism)

(2) from (1) is abiogenesis.

(3) If (1) is true (2) must be true. As abiogenesis has never been shown to be true (1) is false.



The syllogism of that is:

(1) If naturalism is true, then abiogenesis is true

(2) Abiogenesis has never been shown to be true

(3) Therefore Naturalism cannot be demonstrated to be true.

Once again it all boils down to faith.
 thompson1919
Joined: 11/30/2014
Msg: 1815
Evolution.
Posted: 12/9/2014 6:15:40 PM
https://m.facebook.com/video_redirect/?src=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-video-a-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhvideo-ak-xaf1%2Fv%2Ft42.1790-2%2F10680354_10153427677234899_1273616976_n.mp4%3Foh%3D6bbe14e6d0482bf0dd739302760a5aeb%26oe%3D5487C574%26__gda__%3D1418185245_a03d658c67f9b4d5f47ba6c9853cd84b&refid=52&ref=m_notif¬if_t=close_friend_activity&__tn__=F

My uncle is a Baptist minister. I constantly get bombarded with silly sh!t like this across my fb wall. It says animals can't get new genetic information. Any truth to that at all?
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 1816
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/10/2014 6:39:09 AM
^ You need to first make someone explain what they think they're trying to mean by "new" information. Stuff like that usually indicates right from the start that they have some weird-assed ideas about it all on a basic level.

"New" information? Organisms can't get any new information? Why can't they? How do you know that?
 thompson1919
Joined: 11/30/2014
Msg: 1817
Evolution.
Posted: 12/10/2014 5:25:21 PM
I don't think they know what they mean. It's incredible the amount of ignorance posted on the web as fact. These people are very religious and have a clear agenda. It's just so sad that they remain blissfully ignorant. One woman posted on the link " I don't get it if we evolved from monkeys why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?". *facepalm* These people I am ashamed to say are related to me. How do you or do you even bother to respond to this sort of ignorance that gets posted? I'm at the point where I'm just going to have to let some people live and die with their stupid ideas.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 1818
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 1/31/2016 10:16:20 AM
If science could today explain how evolution actually works (you know, how the genetic information went from no base pairs to 3 billion plus) we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 1819
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 1/31/2016 11:44:45 AM
^ I see that you (or this sock puppet troll) has recently conducted a campaign to post pot-stirring idiocies in various threads concerning science. I repeated my question in another thread already - "are they really this stupid, or are they doing it on purpose from malign intentions?"
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 1820
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/16/2018 5:53:29 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dySwrhMQdX4
 lnitia
Joined: 10/11/2018
Msg: 1821
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 10/19/2018 9:23:29 PM
why does indeed a "faith" in "science" and discussion of evolution result in this :attempting to falsify both science and god?? Within the same discussion-lets do one at a time lol...
Evolution has offered much understanding of the development of "life" evolution does not claim to decide the "creation of life- therefore, there need be no war between the two. Even in the case of abiogenesis - that which exists "naturally" would need be present and part of said beginning/formation of life.
There is no contradiction even biblical genesis stories account for these facts- the nothing unto a solar system, waters, firmament, days, nights seasons, finally from such a teeming of creatures, then the human form-this recounts evolution; Until humans existed- there was none alive to decide the day length_ the animals certainly didn't recount the length of the day unto their formation or anniversaries of such??? So science chooses not to claim any other faith except science great and the deist attribute that to a more personal faith. What's the problem? Can't we discuss the fabulous mad skills with which we have evolved and become as humans, utilizing these skills and attributes unto sustenance rather than destruction..
Btw-this is a test of integrity-checking whether discourse is in good faith or FEAR, inferiority, or insecurity...
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Evolution.