Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 1:13 AM
29 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (3 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,843 Year: 9,879/19,786 Month: 2,301/2,119 Week: 337/724 Day: 0/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
12Next
Author Topic:   Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution?
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 3356 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 91 of 167 (523913)
09-13-2009 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Archangel
09-13-2009 8:34 AM


Re: God using evolution
quote:
Some pseudoscientific theories explain what non-believers cannot even observe.

The web site of the US Department of Energy admits that no one has observed evolution happen in nature or the laboratory, but explains, ‘As for the fact that we haven’t made evolving life in the laboratory yet, I think that you’re expecting too much of your species. Let’s say, as a first guess, that it took blind Nature a billion years to make evolving life on earth. … How much faster do you want us to go? Even if you give us an advantage of a factor of a MILLION in speed, it would still take us a thousand years to catch up … ’.3

So it is totally unrealistic to expect to actually observe evolution, even under artificially accelerated conditions.


This is a pretty obvious misinterpretation of the letter originally answered on the DoE website. Creation.com actually weasels their way into this and you fall for it hook, line and sinker; note what they (creation.com) say:

quote:
The web site of the US Department of Energy admits that no one has observed evolution happen in nature or the laboratory...

Then read what immediately follows quoted from the DoE site:

quote:
As for the fact that we haven’t made evolving life in the laboratory yet...

Can you not see that these two lines say completely different things? And we're supposed to accept your interpretation of something as obtuse as scripture when you demonstrate you can't see the discrepancy if not blatant dishonesty in this line you quoted?

No, we can't make life...yet. But evolution to include macroevolotion has been directly observed. Your position is as silly as someone claiming the bible is false because it doesn't contain a recipe for custard.

Go to the original source and read the letter: Ask A Scientist: US Department of Energy

Edited by Tanndarr, : Erasing evidence of bad grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 8:34 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2363 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 92 of 167 (523919)
09-13-2009 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Archangel
09-13-2009 8:34 AM


Re: God using evolution
ArchangelThat is what science does, fine tune. There are no absolutes in science. writes:

You know what is interesting about your response here bluescat? Your very response to me is solid evidence of the religious type dogma of evolution and the very aspects of pseudo science which I have criticized above

The first blow to your insinuation of scientific dogma, is what I stated earlier.

bluescat48 writes:

That is what science does, fine tune. There are no absolutes in science.

As I said there are no absolutes. If would not be anything of major consequence if a new theory of evolution was to be brought out tomorrow which overturned the current theory. The point is that there has to be evidence not mere ancient writings. The point of no dogma is just that, science modifies itself through constant research. How can this be dogma, when it in itself is changed through research, and modified as the evidence shows?

Edited by bluescat48, : typ


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 8:34 AM Archangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Arphy, posted 09-14-2009 7:36 AM bluescat48 has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 93 of 167 (523928)
09-13-2009 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blissful
08-19-2009 6:17 PM


It's obvious.
Hi Blissful, sorry you haven't stuck around to debate your position.

Church teachings have changed over time as the Magesterium have reinterpreted the Bible and as such I feel it would be possible that the Bible is the Truth written in a manner suited for the people it was intended to be read by: not the scientific Man of today but the spiritual Man of the past. It seems a stretch to take the Bibles word as complete scientific fact if you then reject other scientific fact and evidence.

I wonder why you stopped there. Logically this could be applied to any religion, and you are left with god/s communicating with people in a manner they could understand.

From the point of view of early man, created by God in His image if you will, the world began around 6000 years ago, a time they could understand, and creatures were described as they were at his time. God created plenty of mysteries for people to explore, His very nature being the greatest example, and it seems a bit much to assume that He decided to reveal Creation in complete crystal detail.

Curiously, once you reach this conclusion, you have no need to adhere to a 6000 year old creation.

I'll end by saying I have no agenda in asking this, I'm simply curious of others thoughts and this is a line of thinking which I feel could yield some interesting ideas, though I doubt they'll be conclusive.

To answer your question -- Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution? -- the answer is obvious:

Evolution exists. It is observed every day. It is observed in the natural history record of this earth.

Therefore, IF god/s created the world as it exists, THEN they must have incorporated evolution in that creation.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blissful, posted 08-19-2009 6:17 PM Blissful has not yet responded

  
SammyJean
Member (Idle past 2247 days)
Posts: 87
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 03-28-2009


Message 94 of 167 (523932)
09-13-2009 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Archangel
09-12-2009 9:29 PM


Archangel keeps posting writes:

Rapid Adaptation of Finches not Evidence For Evolution
by Patrick Young, Ph.D.

Your link to this article doesn't work. It appears that the website is down, so I did a search for it on google. It seems as though the article only appears there, at creation.org.
I also did a search for Patrick Young, Ph.D and found a bio on him at answersingenesis.org. It appears Dr. Young is a "Creationist Chemist and Materials Scientist" with his doctorate being in the field of chemistry. This article that you keep posting is not even listed in his publications.
It seems to me that it's you that is just throwing garbage around.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 9:29 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 5:38 PM SammyJean has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6319
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 95 of 167 (523935)
09-13-2009 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Apologetics
09-10-2009 8:47 PM


Re: A Few Simple Questions
There is only a 2% variation in them.

BS. Provide evidence.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Apologetics, posted 09-10-2009 8:47 PM Apologetics has not yet responded

    
Archangel
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 96 of 167 (523955)
09-13-2009 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Tanndarr
09-13-2009 9:06 AM


Re: Your sources aren't working
Tanndarr writes:

I tried following the link to your creationists.org site, the article you linked to returns a 404 not found and the whole site merely gives an under construction message. Perhaps it's just adapting, but until it finishes could you please provide a valid reference for us?

If you are referring post # 88 above by me, with this link: http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience I went so far as to also copy and paste the article itself with the link, so what is your complaint? unless you are speaking to a different link, then quote it and I will make it right. I must say though that I have clicked on every link I have posted and they all work for me. But let me know if any don't and I will C&P the content. But creation.com has already been done in post 88.

In the meantime you might want to consider that the ability of science to account for new evidence by changing is exactly why science is not a religion. Religions are revealed, science is discovered. We didn't pray a man onto the moon and Jesus did not personally deliver smallpox vaccine.

But true science doesn't claim new facts based on assumptions and unproven conclusions as evolution does. Science builds its conclusions upon foundations of proven and tested facts. You have no proof of anything in evo, yet you sit there and insist that your so called science is valid. Let me give you yet another example of the massive leaps you make which are based on observations made but which science hasn't determined how or why that observation occurs. Yet, without knowing the how or why, evolution adopts the observation to explain an end result in their unprovable theory.

dark energy

dark energy, repulsive force that opposes the self-attraction of matter (see gravitation) and causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate. The search for dark energy was triggered by the discovery (1998) in images from the Hubble Space Telescope of a distant supernova that implied an accelerating, expanding universe, which in turn required a new cosmological model (see cosmology). Although dark energy is predicted in particle physics, it has never been directly observed. It is generally agreed, however, that dark energy dominates the universe, which is projected to have a composition of c.70% dark energy, c.30% dark matter, and c.0.5% bright stars. By 2006, astronomers using the space telescope to examine more distant supernovas had found evidence of the effects of dark energy dating to 9 billion years ago.

The concept of dark energy was first proposed, and then discarded, by Albert Einstein early in the 20th cent. His theory of general relativity implied that the pull of gravity would make the universe collapse, but, like many scientists of his time, he assumed the universe to be static and unchanging. To make his equations fit these assumptions, Einstein added a “cosmological constant” whose effect was repulsive. When American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, it was assumed that the universe must be slowing down because of gravity and might even come to a halt. This led Einstein to remove the cosmological constant from his equations and to say that it had been the biggest blunder of his career. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0921524.html


As I said, we think we understand that dark energy is real, and I say THINK! But just look at the way it is use to extrapolate conclusions when we don't understand how, why or the full extent of its impact on space, the speed of light or gravity to just name 3 problems off the top of my head. How does evo apply something no man fully understands and hope to come to any reliable conclusions?

You're not only demanding that science conforms to your worldview, you're demanding God conform to your worldview as well. Your position is based on the interpretation of a translation of a really old book. If you believe in God you are positively turning your back to him by studying a book written by man instead of the creation written by God.

Balderdash, TO THE MAX. You are just exposing first, your ignorance of the reliability of Gods word, and secondly your understanding of its consistency when one delves into every detail of it. You need to do better than that if your going to cause this believer to stumble and drop my belief system for the lies which yours represents.

Finally, you are equivocating when you try to differentiate adaptation and evolution. Change is change and that's really all that the theory of evolution says is happening. Once you accept a small change can happen then you have to accept that another can happen and so on...evolution.

No I'm not equivocating at all. The fact is that evolution claims more than changes take place. It claims that all species life on earth, from plants through insects, up to fish all the way to we human beings share a COMMON DESCENT FROM ONE UNIVERSAL ANCESTOR WHO BORE US ALL THROUGH GENETIC DRIFT. In other words MACROEVOLUTION. That is what you believe occurred and nothing discovered in rapid adaptation shows changes in alleles which allow one species to evolve or adapt into another.

Look at it this way, much of what you evos call junk DNA just because you can't figure out what it does, is precisely that DNA which allows for rapid adaptation based on environmental pressures throughout the animal kingdom.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Tanndarr, posted 09-13-2009 9:06 AM Tanndarr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by bluescat48, posted 09-13-2009 4:54 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 100 by Tanndarr, posted 09-13-2009 6:41 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2363 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 97 of 167 (523959)
09-13-2009 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Archangel
09-13-2009 4:48 PM


Re: Your sources aren't working
But true science doesn't claim new facts based on assumptions and unproven conclusions as evolution does.

1) Science does not deal in "facts or assumptions," but in evidence.
2) Evolution deals with the same method as the other science specialties. All science is based on conclusions drawn from the observed evidence. Whether it is evolution, astronomy, forensics or any other scientific discipline.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 4:48 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2289 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 98 of 167 (523961)
09-13-2009 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Archangel
09-13-2009 8:01 AM


If you do not wish to abide to the rules then you should not be posting here.

Please review the rules again. Or the mods will soon be handling you.

Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 8:01 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 99 of 167 (523967)
09-13-2009 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by SammyJean
09-13-2009 2:47 PM


SammyJean writes:

Your link to this article doesn't work. It appears that the website is down, so I did a search for it on google. It seems as though the article only appears there, at creation.org.

Here is the link again. It works just fine for me. If your computer is faulty, then I can't be held responsible for that. http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article02.html And here's all creation.org has on Young. If you have a problem with this then, well, I couldn't care less. http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung.html You can worry about irrelevant minutia if you like, I'll worry about defending my position.

I also did a search for Patrick Young, Ph.D and found a bio on him at answersingenesis.org. It appears Dr. Young is a "Creationist Chemist and Materials Scientist" with his doctorate being in the field of chemistry. This article that you keep posting is not even listed in his publications.
It seems to me that it's you that is just throwing garbage around.

Is it possible this article was written after that bio? Or is that possibility completely out of the question? Or maybe this article wasn't included with that list of article because the article is posted for all to see. And why don't you guys worry more about answering to the content of what we post rather than spending all of your time trying to attack the author, the source or our honesty in simply posting relevant evidence to support my position?

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by SammyJean, posted 09-13-2009 2:47 PM SammyJean has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by SammyJean, posted 09-13-2009 7:00 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 3356 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 100 of 167 (523971)
09-13-2009 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Archangel
09-13-2009 4:48 PM


Re: Your sources aren't working
If you are referring post # 88 above by me, with this link: http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience I went so far as to also copy and paste the article itself with the link, so what is your complaint? unless you are speaking to a different link, then quote it and I will make it right. I must say though that I have clicked on every link I have posted and they all work for me. But let me know if any don't and I will C&P the content. But creation.com has already been done in post 88.

I checked the link again from post 83, that appears to be working now. I followed the link in post 88 which was working fine. Evidently just a temporary issue which another user noted above. Nothing to worry about.

I couldn't help noticing how you completely ignore the way your source is lying to you. Do you think that's the only lie they're telling or could there be more? Try following those sources sometime and see for yourself.

But true science doesn't claim new facts based on assumptions and unproven conclusions as evolution does. Science builds its conclusions upon foundations of proven and tested facts. You have no proof of anything in evo, yet you sit there and insist that your so called science is valid.

Nonsense. No true scotsman falacy aside, your understanding of how science works is just plain wrong. I'm not a scientist by vocation, but I understand that science is tentative and that we change our explanations to fit the facts. There is no proof; there is a tested explanation that fits all of the evidence we see. The explanation may be wrong but nobody has come up with anything better...especially the god botherers.

Dark energy stufff...

Off topic and you'll note that info.com is not a link to what scientists are actually saying...it's dumbed down so people like me can sort of understand it. This is no more science than a grade-school crayon drawing of the Mona Lisa is art.

Balderdash, TO THE MAX. You are just exposing first, your ignorance of the reliability of Gods word, and secondly your understanding of its consistency when one delves into every detail of it. You need to do better than that if your going to cause this believer to stumble and drop my belief system for the lies which yours represents.

Well, I was going to disagree but when you said "TO THE MAX" in all caps like that I had to reevaluate my position...such a potent and lucid argument. Consistency in the bible is a matter of interpretation. Oh, I don't want to make you give up your belief system Archangel, I just don't want you to try and teach it to the children of strangers under the color of science.

No I'm not equivocating at all. The fact is that evolution claims more than changes take place. It claims that all species life on earth, from plants through insects, up to fish all the way to we human beings share a COMMON DESCENT FROM ONE UNIVERSAL ANCESTOR WHO BORE US ALL THROUGH GENETIC DRIFT. In other words MACROEVOLUTION. That is what you believe occurred and nothing discovered in rapid adaptation shows changes in alleles which allow one species to evolve or adapt into another.

Look at it this way, much of what you evos call junk DNA just because you can't figure out what it does, is precisely that DNA which allows for rapid adaptation based on environmental pressures throughout the animal kingdom.

More caps...wow. Look, common descent is just fallout from the ToE; an observation of what we see in the light of evolution. If evidence that is contrary shows up then common descent will be abandoned which may or may not take evolution as we know it with it. Theories have been overturned in the past, so it's not impossible, in fact it's what every scientist lives for. But you're kidding yourself if you think all it will take to overturn the theory is rhetoric, opinion polls and school board meetings. When push comes to shove you will need an explanation that fits all the evidence better than the theory you're trying to overturn.

Show us the work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 4:48 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
SammyJean
Member (Idle past 2247 days)
Posts: 87
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 03-28-2009


Message 101 of 167 (523978)
09-13-2009 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Archangel
09-13-2009 5:38 PM


Coyote asked you a good question, you should answer it.
I wouldn't go to a physicist to get his advice on a medical issue. I surely will not listen to the opinions that a creationist chemist has about evolution. Why is it I don't see any peer-reviewed scientific publications from Dr. Young on the subject of evolution. Oh, I know because none exist.

Back in post 82 Coyote asked:

Coyote writes:

Care to get back to the original topic? Remember, dealing with deities and it/they being responsible for evolution? Have you any empirical evidence that there are any deities? Any empirical evidence for any supposed deities at all? Or are you going to keep ducking the question?

It appears you've ducked his question again!

Please answer the question!

Edited by SammyJean, : No reason given.


"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts." -Albert Einstein

"I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief."
~ Gerry Spence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 5:38 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 102 of 167 (523984)
09-13-2009 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Archangel
09-12-2009 6:31 PM


Hi Archangel,

Looking over your many posts in this thread, I see you make repeated references to "common sense" going against the theory of evolution, but you don't really provide any common sense examples that contradict the ToE. You also present a variety of misconceptions or misrepresentations about what constitutes the ToE, and for added confusion, your various attempts to present your own position are really not at all clear.

In your first reply to bluescat48, you said:

... here is what evolution teaches at its most basic level, and it supports me to the T. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.../IIIENaturalSelection.shtml

The site you linked to there is actually part of a fairly good introductory presentation of the ToE. When you say "it supports me to a T", do you mean that you agree with the content of that web site? If you do, AND you declare that you have beliefs that are based directly on the Bible, then (getting back to the OP topic), it must be the case that your belief involves an interpretation of scripture that does not conflict with the ToE.

If you mean that you don't agree with that content, in what way does it "support" you? In this regard, it might be best to launch a new thread, in which you provide the references from that web site that you intend to refute; please be specific, and/or provide particular examples that support your position ("common sense" and "observable reality" things will do for a start, so long as you have specifics and present them in a logical, coherent way).

In your first reply to Huntard (and also in a couple later replies) you quoted some material that you attribute to "Patrick Young, Ph.D.":

The January 11th, 2002 issue of Science magazine reports on research confirming rapid adaptation of house finches in Montana and Alabama1,2 . The documents’ recount, (1) male and female finches grow differently both within and between populations, (2) males grow faster than females and have wider bills and longer tails in Alabama, and (3) females grow faster and are bigger overall in Montana3 . Both writings are proclaiming these finch adaptations are evidence for evolution.

I'm not sure what is being referred to there as "both writings"... While the article by Young seems to have disappeared It's still possible to read the article about finches from the January 11, 2002 issue of Science (you will probably need to complete a free registration at the Science Magazine website to view this link):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;295/5553/316

If there's another article involved, I hope you can point it out to us. In any case, I just noticed the working link to the Young article, and I see that the "other article" in that issue of Science is just a summary of the main article that I linked to.

Can you explain how this the summary by Pennisi and the main article by Badyaev et al. should be considered problematic for the ToE? Have you read them yourself? Do you dispute them? If so, then once again, it would be an excellent idea to start a new thread about that, with a specific statement of the problem.

Maybe this bit, from your second reply to Coyote, is the clearest statement of a position that is fairly consistent throughout your posts:

... in reality we have a world full of plant and animal life which does ADAPT in order to survive changing environmental pressures, this we agree with. But animals defenses against the predators which hunt them have never been proven to have evolved as much as having been inherent in the species. In other words, since the beginning of creation Marmots have been hunted by Badgers, and they have never evolved a defense against them...

This conception of things is way too narrow and ignores too many facts that are easily established. Also, please understand that the part about "since the beginning of creation..." is just a bare assertion with no "common sense", let alone any empirical or objective basis to support it. Scientific research, consistent with and supporting the ToE, has made very clear observations and has drawn firm conclusions, indicating that marmots and badgers were not present at "the beginning of creation".

{AbE:} It's important to understand that those conclusions about the timing of when various species are and are not present can be refuted if we find, say, fossilized remains of these mammals collocated (concurrent) with, say, Cambrian life forms in the geological column. That's the sort of thing that would be needed in order to assert that these mammals have been around as long as all other forms of life. Just quoting verses from the Bible isn't going to be enough.

Consider projecting things forward: over time, some marmots will occupy niches where they have predators other than badgers, and some badgers will occupy niches where they prey on things other than marmots; and meanwhile, in those places where there continue to be both marmots and badgers, there will be lots of other things going on (other things preying on and preyed on by both badgers and marmots). As explained by the "evo101" site you mentioned, there are several situations that will lead to some very distinct subgroups of marmots, to the point that any "common sense" view would consider these subgroups to be different species, albeit descended from a common ancestor (and likewise for badgers).

The problem is that the time required for this may be tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and since we don't yet have the ability to predict all the environmental factors that will play a role, we can't predict how things will look at that time. But we can look at how things stand now, and project backwards in ways that are consistent with all available evidence. That is the sort of view that makes clear, when we look back far enough, that ancestors of badgers were very different from current badgers, and likewise for marmots.

One last point, again from your second reply to Coyote:

can you show that there was ever a direct descendant of the Blow fish which didn't possess a deadly toxin as a natural defense system? Have you evidence that Sea Urchins or Jelly fish have ever NOT had toxic tentacles as natural defense systems?

Perhaps this will turn up -- perhaps someone has already identified non-toxic jellyfish (this actually seems rather likely, but I'm not a marine biologist). Indeed, perhaps research on genetic modification will demonstrate an ability to breed non-toxic varieties of blowfish, urchins and jellyfish. You've heard about genetic modification, right? Scientists can create novel types of certain organisms that have specific new traits, and this works, in a very common-sense way, in accordance with the ToE.

Edited by Otto Tellick, : Considerable revision regarding the references to Young and Science materials, having found the paper by Young; also reworked the discussion of marmots/badgers.


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 6:31 PM Archangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2009 9:15 PM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 103 of 167 (523986)
09-13-2009 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Otto Tellick
09-13-2009 7:55 PM


cone jellies
Hi Otto,

Perhaps this will turn up -- perhaps someone has already identified non-toxic jellyfish (this actually seems rather likely, but I'm not a marine biologist).

A lot of cone jellies are not toxic. There is a species in the waters here in RI that absorbs sunlight energy during the day and if disturbed at night will light up. Makes for fun night swims when there are a lot of them (bloom). I've held them in my hand.

http.../the-singular-picture-in-palau-jellyfish-lake-of-philippines

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJfzWv5pHU0

http://mildre.../day-six-sloshy-shoes-and-mounds-of-goo.html
http://mildredbelle.blogspot.../day-7-cone-jelly-buffet.html

quote:
As it got dark, we swam with the bio-luminescent, sting-free cone jellies, which glow in the dark every time you disturb one with a swimming stroke.

We pulled up the net with another load of pure cone jellies, but this time was more exciting because everyone got up the courage to eat one. These deceptively slimy-looking jellies are non-stinging and actually quite edible, and some of us developed quite the taste for them.


Now you might argue that they are not jellyfish, as they are Ctenophore rather than Cnidaria, but they are popularly called jellyfish by people and are mostly non-toxic.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_jelly for more

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-13-2009 7:55 PM Otto Tellick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by bluescat48, posted 09-13-2009 11:58 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2363 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 104 of 167 (523992)
09-13-2009 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by RAZD
09-13-2009 9:15 PM


Re: cone jellies
Now you might argue that they are not jellyfish, as they are Ctenophore rather than Cnidaria, but they are popularly called jellyfish by people and are mostly non-toxic.

That is the problem with common names. The same goes for people calling apes, monkeys or non bug insects(insects not of the order hemiptera), bugs.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2009 9:15 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 2606 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 105 of 167 (524025)
09-14-2009 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by bluescat48
09-13-2009 9:48 AM


Re: God using evolution
bluescat writes:

If would not be anything of major consequence if a new theory of evolution was to be brought out tomorrow which overturned the current theory. The point is that there has to be evidence not mere ancient writings. The point of no dogma is just that, science modifies itself through constant research. How can this be dogma, when it in itself is changed through research, and modified as the evidence shows?


Sure if a new completely materialistic theory came out tommorrow that excludes God and the Bible, you might believe it. However all this does is show that you do have a dogma that only completly naturalistic explanations are allowed, instead of searching for the truth where ever it leads.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by bluescat48, posted 09-13-2009 9:48 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by bluescat48, posted 09-14-2009 9:43 AM Arphy has not yet responded
 Message 107 by Huntard, posted 09-14-2009 10:08 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019