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  > Open-minded Science?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 26
view profile
History
Open-minded Science?Page 2 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)

And this is how we know that horse evolution has been debunked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz-egW10kEk


Augh, s'like using a cheese grader to scratch an itch on your brain. One minute was all I could handle.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:02:18 PM
Lest anyone be misled, and further to the above, a fuller refutation of post #28 for anyone interested in reality, which presumably doesn't include the author of that post.


Evolution of horses(Pfft!) That was debunked back in 1920.


The evolution of horses was introduced (to the thread) to debunk the idea, raised earlier, that there are no 'transitional' fossils. All fossils, to some degree, are 'transitional fossils' and the evolution of the horse provides a comprehensive set.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/horse/the-evolution-of-horses
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html


Archaeopteryx was a bird.


Archaeopteryx is also an example of a 'transitional' fossil, or more correctly - a transitional form.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms#Definitions
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms#Dinosaur_to_bird.5B15.5D

Archaeopteryx had many bird-like features (notably feathers) but it also had teeth and a long bony tail. Just like the non-avian theropod dinosaurs from which it descended.
http://www.livescience.com/24745-archaeopteryx.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx.html
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/a/Archaeopteryx-Facts.htm
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/32599/Archaeopteryx

In other words, Archaeopteryx was neither clearly a bird nor clearly a dinosaur. It was a descendent of one and an antecedent of the other.



Tiktaalik was an alligator.

Likewise Tiktaalik, which was an intermediate form between fish and tetrapods (four-legged land vertebrates).
It was not "an alligator" - it was a fish that lived in the Devonian period - approximately 375 million years ago. The earliest ancestors of the crocodiles (and subsequently, alligators) didn't appear until approximately 250 million years ago.
Which means Tiktaalik pre-dated the appearance of the earliest crocodilians by 75 million years.

Your claim that "Tiktaalik was an alligator" is more than just wrong. It is bizarrely wrong. Which is strange, considering accurate information is so easy to come by.
Are you not interested in honesty and truth?

http://www.preceden.com/timelines/68990-evolution-of-the-alligator
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/a/crocodilians.htm
http://www.animalplanet.ca/Article.aspx?aid=630
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodilia

But anyway, back to Tiktaalik...

http://museumvictoria.com.au/melbournemuseum/discoverycentre/600-million-years/timeline/devonian/tiktaalik/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1219621/Tiktaalik-roseae
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140113154211.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalik


And finally, your silly - and completely irrelevant - claim about Wikipedia. To whit -
Perhaps you would be better served not quoting BS from atheist websites like Wiki (Pfft!)


I was arguing a point related to 'transitional fossils' and evolution. Atheism has nothing to do with either of those things, so it's mysterious why you would characterise Wikipedia as an "atheist website" as if that somehow changed the quality of the information about fossils.
None of which you challenged in any substantive way, other than by making a series of vacuous and demonstrably wrong assertions.

You also overlooked, or more probably ignored, that I didn't only quote Wikipedia in the post you 'responded' to. I also gave a link to another comprehensive resource - which itself links to primary resources and research - to support what I was saying.
Here it is again - CC200: Transitional fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Clearly, you are unable to engage in any meaningful or logical way in rational discourse and appear incapable of dealing with the actual content of posts - choosing instead to lie about irrelevancies, invent false biology 'facts', and baldly assert complete garbage.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 4/18/2014 9:20:47 PM

And this is how we know that horse evolution has been debunked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz-egW10kEk


Indeed. We should all question, all the time. But some people are so 'open-minded' their brains have fallen out.


Gravity? It's Just A Theory! Teach the Controversy!

QUESTION GRAVITY! Worldwide Campaign! JOIN US!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjiFjIlAk1g




Senator Challenges Theory of Gravity, Demands Schools ‘Teach Both Sides’
Republican Senator James Inhofe spoke out today against the scientific theory of gravity and what he called “secular extremists taking God out physics,” calling for an investigation into the infiltration of “pagan gravitationists” within the Federal Government.

“These people hate God, and are forcing their radical, non-Christian views on your children!” Warned Inhofe at a hastily-called press conference at the First Evangelical Church of Jesus Christ Our Savior. “This so-called ‘theory of gravity’ is nothing less than the second greatest hoax scientists have ever pulled on the good people of Oklahoma. The first, of course, being global warming. Or evolution. I forget which.”

Inhofe demanded that schools begin “teaching the controversy” with regards to gravity. “Allow both sides of this debate equal time in the classroom and let the children decide.
http://www.newslo.com/senator-challenges-theory-of-gravity-demands-schools-teach-both-sides/












And before anyone blows a fuse -


Poe's Law
It is an observation that it's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of fundamentalism or other extreme views and their genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane.

Originally the law only made the claim that someone will mistake a parody of fundamentalism for the real thing. However [...] has developed to include three similar but distinct concepts:

The original idea that at least one person will mistake a parody for sincere beliefs.
That nobody will be able to distinguish many instances of parody from the real thing.
That anyone not already in the grip of fundamentalist ideas will mistake sincere expressions of fundamentalism for parody.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 4/19/2014 6:22:04 AM
I know that this is hopeless. But just for the sake of knowing that I put it in:

Regardless of the exact details of what someone thinks evolution is, or how it works...

If we step back and look at evidence only, it is true that EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS can be shown to fit into one or more of the ideas of how Evolution works and occurred.

Everything.

NOTHING in the evidence contradicts it.
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 4/19/2014 10:05:37 AM
Ok, this is a gem right here...

Senator Challenges Theory of Gravity, Demands Schools ‘Teach Both Sides’
Republican Senator James Inhofe spoke out today against the scientific theory of gravity and what he called “secular extremists taking God out physics,” calling for an investigation into the infiltration of “pagan gravitationists” within the Federal Government.

“These people hate God, and are forcing their radical, non-Christian views on your children!” Warned Inhofe at a hastily-called press conference at the First Evangelical Church of Jesus Christ Our Savior. “This so-called ‘theory of gravity’ is nothing less than the second greatest hoax scientists have ever pulled on the good people of Oklahoma. The first, of course, being global warming. Or evolution. I forget which.”

Inhofe demanded that schools begin “teaching the controversy” with regards to gravity. “Allow both sides of this debate equal time in the classroom and let the children decide.
http://www.newslo.com/senator-challenges-theory-of-gravity-demands-schools-teach-both-sides/

And this is another gem indeed...

I know that this is hopeless. But just for the sake of knowing that I put it in:
 CynthiaSM
Joined: 3/29/2014
Msg: 31
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 4/19/2014 11:54:38 AM
I have not read the entire thread but this caught my attention

it is true that EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS can be shown to fit into one or more of the ideas of how Evolution works and occurred.

I thought the human sapien sapien missing link was still missing??
If it has been found, then I'm interested in reading about it; someone (not necessarily Igor) please provide a URL.
 CynthiaSM
Joined: 3/29/2014
Msg: 32
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 4/19/2014 11:59:37 AM
grrrr why can't I edit that post?

that should be homo sapien sapien lol
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 4/19/2014 4:10:18 PM
CynthiaSM:

Or here also, for a more comprehensive perspective, if you're someone who's willing to spend some time, yet you also need the "ease" or convenience of just watching efficient videos -

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC9A6E807AD05C906
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 4/19/2014 5:07:53 PM
Thanks Andyaa.

Besides, even if there WAS such a thing as a "missing link," it wouldn't be pertinent to the point I was making.

What I am saying is, that none of the evidence of our real past, contradicts the general evolution idea of how we came to be as we are. Whether changes came gradually, or fairly suddenly (evolution theory includes both rapid and gradual change), there is no evidence which requires us to look for alternate explanations, such as Alien manipulations.

The fact that we can't point to a collection including ALL of the evidence of any change, isn't a challenge to the theory that the change did occur. Someone who claims that without a complete set of skeletons showing a slow change from, say, ape-like creature to apes and to humans, that therefore evolution is false...

....could have it pointed out to them that unless they have continuous video records showing that they are the adult which grew up from a picture they present of themselves as a child, that by their reasoning, they are NOT the end result of that child growing up.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 6/14/2014 11:59:29 PM
Ya, cinthea, you sure would have heard a lot of squealing in the evolution department if they ATUALLY found an intermediate form of chimp/human type.
Bacteria do nothing more than what they seem to be designed to do.
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 6/21/2014 9:17:10 AM
From andyaa's link, concerning "missing links", the one thing that is pertinent and reveals why it's incorrect to think of a "missing link" in the first place, is this -

...There was no one, single moment when...

Things like this is why many people have a problem with Evolution...because you have to first understand what it is, and people don't. This stuff keeps people from understanding what it really is.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 37
view profile
History
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 6/21/2014 10:06:35 AM
One other factoid to put in, related to evolution, and to transitional fossils, and to "missing links..."

is something I mentioned in a previous, now defunct thread about this subject area.

That is, that the vast majority of things that die, DO NOT LEAVE FOSSILS FOR US TO FIND.

In order for an argument based on lack of evidence to work, one must first demonstrate that all possible evidence, is available.

Besides, if I understand the histories of the formulation of the theories of evolution correctly, they were not begun as a way to explain the fossil record. They were conceived to explain the large number of very similar modern species, which were nevertheless different from each other. Once the theories were published, a great deal of the fossil records available, were recognized to make much more sense than ever before.

The sequence of acquisition of knowledge and ideas is especially fascinating to me, often more than the ideas themselves. I guess that's why I'm an Historian, more so than an experimental scientist.
 whippedboi
Joined: 3/12/2013
Msg: 38
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 6/21/2014 10:33:21 AM

Senator Challenges Theory of Gravity, Demands Schools ‘Teach Both Sides’
Republican Senator James Inhofe spoke out today against the scientific theory of gravity and what he called “secular extremists taking God out physics,” calling for an investigation into the infiltration of “pagan gravitationists” within the Federal Government.


well, no one ever said you had to be 'intelligent' to be elected to the US Senate did they?

(nor to any elected office in any country)
 CarefreeBeauty
Joined: 5/30/2014
Msg: 39
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 6/21/2014 10:34:05 AM

the vast majority of things that die, DO NOT LEAVE FOSSILS FOR US TO FIND.


That is truly profound.

I'm going to write that one down. Thanks, Igor< ;-)
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 6/24/2014 2:11:49 PM
That should be part of what people say to each other when being friendly or respectful, or as a farewell, like "live long and prosper"...

"And may you leave a fossil after you die, which will be observed by a future passer-by, and reflected upon."
 CarefreeBeauty
Joined: 5/30/2014
Msg: 41
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 6/24/2014 5:59:16 PM
^^^

That should be part of what people say to each other when being friendly or respectful, or as a farewell, like "live long and prosper"...

"And may you leave a fossil after you die, which will be observed by a future passer-by, and reflected upon."


So true-- in our hearts of hearts don't we all really hope we'll be remembered by SOMEONE after we're 'gone'? Even if it is as a reflected upon fossil?
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 42
view profile
History
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 6/24/2014 10:34:30 PM
How about a "fossilized friendly" burial, rather than a coffin?
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 43
view profile
History
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 6/27/2014 4:18:00 PM
Feel free to grind up my bones for a barefoot friendly path to the view with the picnic area or add them to the sandbox.

Or toss them to the dogs, I wouldn't mind that either.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/10/2014 4:40:32 PM
Slowly but surely we are establishing that there are no transitional fossils.

Some will be stuck forever pretending that they exist.
Cause after all there are stories and pretty artistic pictures that say so.

Some of you on here think for your selves, even though commited to evo.

I respect those of you who admit there is no proof of mindless evo.
Or any evo.
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/12/2014 1:47:17 PM

Slowly but surely we are establishing that there are no transitional fossils.

Some will be stuck forever pretending that they exist.
Cause after all there are stories and pretty artistic pictures that say so.

Some of you on here think for your selves, even though commited to evo.

I respect those of you who admit there is no proof of mindless evo.
Or any evo.

Oh...reeaally?

I am always disappointed whenever a liar's pants don't actually catch fire.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/12/2014 6:09:35 PM
Old drink is getting something personal off his chest again.
 Etritonakin
Joined: 7/10/2014
Msg: 47
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/13/2014 6:14:03 PM
The ultimate truth is essentially all that has ever been -all that can be known -(though by creativity there may be infinitely more to know in the future).

Even among conscientious scientists there are sometimes disagreements, and no one scientist's mind contains all that can be summed up in the words "scientific knowledge". There are also things which may be known or experienced by individuals which might be of little interest to the scientific community at any given time -or scoffed at due to individual or social bias.
It is also true that scientific knowledge does not necessarily equate to truth, wisdom, understanding, etc... and it might be said that science is looking for facts -not necessarily the truth. This is not to say that there is no scientific proof for truth, wisdom, understanding, etc., but that it's not necessarily science's department -especially considering the goals of scientists and societies as a whole which aren't necessarily toward true individual happiness or the common good of all.

The (truth) is greater than the sum of its parts.
 Etritonakin
Joined: 7/10/2014
Msg: 48
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/13/2014 6:28:20 PM
On the subject of transitional fossils (somewhat).....

We are only now beginning to change species -essentially create new species -by manipulating DNA -and are ourselves altering the course of evolution by decision. Only now can we truly begin to understand what sort of evidence might be left -if any -by such activities -which could eventually lead us to the conclusion that we were not the first to do so.

Also, transitional fossils aren't necessarily proof that creative influence was absent. Species changing due to their nature and the environment does not mean every change was natural and without decision.

In the world of design, the word evolution is often used, and in the world of evolution, traits of creative designers are often attributed to things which lack even self-awareness.

I don't know why we want to believe in only one or the other when both obviously exist.
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/14/2014 4:37:06 PM
^ Because you are being careless with the words that you're using: Design, and Evolution.

Evolution isn't about a lack of design, nor the opposite of design. It's very much about design...life is designed, but it is designed by evolutionary mechanics.

Does that clear things up?
 Etritonakin
Joined: 7/10/2014
Msg: 50
Open-minded Science?
Posted: 7/14/2014 6:05:53 PM
No -and "life is designed, but it is designed by evolutionary mechanics" is certainly true in microcosm, but is simply an assumption overall.

"Evolution is Nature’s design process. The natural world is full of wonderful examples of its successes, from engineering design feats such as powered flight, to the design of complex optical systems such as the mammalian eye, to the merely stunningly beautiful designs of orchids or birds of paradise. With increasing computational power, we are now able to simulate this process with greater fidelity, combining complex simulations with high-performance evolutionary algorithms to tackle problems that used to be impractical."

(http://www.springer.com/computer/ai/book/978-3-540-74109-1)

In the above, "Nature" is identified as the designer -and the term design most certainly implies a plan, purpose or forethought essentially intelligence. I was not be careless at all with my words. It is careless, however, to simply assume that there can be design without intelligence -and the fact that "With increasing computational power, we are now able to simulate this process" [Nature's design process] "with greater fidelity," at least strongly suggests that intelligence precedes design -even designs which in turn then design.

The vague term "nature" (which includes everything of which we are ignorant) does not rule out a creative influence -even as the designer of evolutionary mechanics or "nature" itself.

To simply say that life is designed by evolutionary mechanics does not explain how evolutionary mechanics came to exist (fortunate accident? is that really the scientific conclusion?) -or why there is a tendency toward increased complexity or even survival, for that matter.

1de·sign
verb \di-ˈzīn\

: to plan and make decisions about (something that is being built or created) : to create the plans, drawings, etc., that show how (something) will be made

: to plan and make (something) for a specific use or purpose

: to think of (something, such as a plan) : to plan (something) in your mind
Full Definition of DESIGN
transitive verb
1
: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive
2
a : to conceive and plan out in the mind
b : to have as a purpose : intend
c : to devise for a specific function or end
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Open-minded Science?