Author Topic: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...  (Read 7795 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2531
  • Darwins +46/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #290 on: July 27, 2014, 01:29:10 AM »
I just read about a recent study that shows that religious kids are less able to differentiate between what is real and what is fantasy. Gee, I wonder why?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/children-religion-fact-fiction_n_5607009.html

I am VERY skeptical of that study. For instance, there are 2 billion children in the world and only 66 participated in the study. Is it scientific to take the results of a test of 66 children and project it onto 2 billion children? That seems very absurd to me.

I am in shock that a scientist would say those findings actually mean something.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2531
  • Darwins +46/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #291 on: July 27, 2014, 01:39:37 AM »
It was only after silly old Eve ate a piece of fruit that the sharks found that not only were their teeth perfectly designed to nibble vegetables, they also made darned good flesh rippers! Creationism would be comical if it weren't so dangerous.

I can perhaps give you a reason as to why the sharks were designed with teeth:

The teeth are aesthetically pleasing to look at. God could have made them for us to marvel at. Then after the fall, the teeth adapted to the current conditions (or microevolved) and started ripping apart flesh due to the fallen world.

if I can think of this as a good reason, then obviously God can think of it too.

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2531
  • Darwins +46/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #292 on: July 27, 2014, 01:55:10 AM »
I take it you haven't actually studied biology much, if at all.

There are serious problems with the idea of winged humans.  First off, the force needed to lift something off the ground must exceed the force drawing it back towards the ground.  Therefore, a wing must push against the air in order to create that lift, either very rapidly with small wings, like hummingbirds, or slowly push down a much larger amount of air, as other birds do.  I don't know about you, but I've played games where the object is to mash a button as quickly as possible; my finger gets tired after ten or fifteen seconds of it, and that's only a few small muscles.  Can you imagine the amount of muscle power (and therefore, the necessary metabolism to fuel it) that would be necessary to do that for hours on end?  Hummingbirds spend almost all their time either eating, or flying to the next food source.  So hummingbird flight is right out.

So that leaves large wings that push lots of air.  Well, let's take a bird most Americans are familiar with, the bald eagle.  The largest bald eagles have a body length of about 40 inches, a wingspan of 7.5 feet, and a body weight (including the wings) of 14 pounds.  Let me reiterate that for you; the bald eagle needs a wingspan that is longer than most humans are tall to lift something not much heavier than a healthy human infant off the ground.  Are you starting to see the problem with giving humans wings, or making birds with human-sized bodies?  Let's not forget the powerful muscles needed to move such huge limbs around.  A human would have to be almost completely muscle in order to be able to move by flapping wings around, because the power needed for a mass to takeoff increases by the square of that mass.

So, sure, it's nice to dream about the advantages that wings would give us, but the physics of the situation makes giving humans wings and thus flight effectively impossible.  Evolution can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, nor can it ignore the limitations of physics.  In short, it explains very well why relatively large humans wouldn't have evolved wings, whereas relatively small, lightweight animals would have.

That makes sense. Never looked at it that way, I see what you're saying.

Now I have some follow-up questions:

Did the birds become small because of the wings?
Or did the wings evolve because they were small?
What environmental factor would influence wings to start growing? Obviously, other small animals exist, yet they are not winged, and they are from the same area as birds. So, what was the factor?

Why didn't humans evolve to be small and winged?
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 01:56:42 AM by skeptic54768 »
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
  • Darwins +59/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #293 on: July 27, 2014, 07:51:17 AM »
It was only after silly old Eve ate a piece of fruit that the sharks found that not only were their teeth perfectly designed to nibble vegetables, they also made darned good flesh rippers! Creationism would be comical if it weren't so dangerous.

I can perhaps give you a reason as to why the sharks were designed with teeth:

The teeth are aesthetically pleasing to look at. God could have made them for us to marvel at. Then after the fall, the teeth adapted to the current conditions (or microevolved) and started ripping apart flesh due to the fallen world.

if I can think of this as a good reason, then obviously God can think of it too.

Hahahahaha!!!!!! Lol!!

"Oooo I say Eve, aren't those shark teeth most aesthetically pleasing?! They look just like a triangle, similar to the one that is formed in trigonometry to show stars are older than the universe! They really are perfectly designed for nibbling seeds!"

Hahahaha!!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 07:55:30 AM by Ron Jeremy »
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 369
  • Darwins +42/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #294 on: July 27, 2014, 09:31:10 AM »
I can perhaps give you a reason as to why the sharks were designed with teeth:

The teeth are aesthetically pleasing to look at.
LMAO. Do you honestly find that aesthetically pleasing? That and their "lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eye. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be livin'. Until he bites ya and those black eyes roll over white. And then, ah then you hear that terrible high pitch screamin' and the ocean turns red and spite of all the poundin' and the hollerin' they all come in and rip you to pieces." - Quint from Jaws.
 Perhaps you meant we would look at their teeth and stay away? I struggle to think of something more fierce and unpleasing then rows upon rows of shark teeth. It's like a wood chipper.
Things like sharks, Crocodiles, or even chainsaws can hold me in awe. The sheer power and ability to destroy me in ways I could only imagine do hold my attention sure. But I do not find it aesthetically pleasing. Perhaps If I were a psycho killer?


Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #295 on: July 27, 2014, 10:31:42 AM »
That is literally one of the more ridiculous things a theist has said.

"Man that deadly looking tooth that could tear apart my guts looks so pretty."

If it looks like a saw, works like a saw, feels like a saw, it's a saw; not an effing bow tie.
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10921
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #296 on: July 27, 2014, 10:36:06 AM »
That is literally one of the more ridiculous things a theist has said.

"Man that deadly looking tooth that could tear apart my guts looks so pretty."

If it looks like a saw, works like a saw, feels like a saw, it's a saw; not an effing bow tie.

Yeah, but that's now. After the fall, the teeth "microevolved" into what we see now. Of course, "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are completely different processes, so the Bible is still true, even though it doesn't mention any part of what I just said.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #297 on: July 27, 2014, 10:39:43 AM »
I can perhaps give you a reason as to why the sharks were designed with teeth:

The teeth are aesthetically pleasing to look at. God could have made them for us to marvel at. Then after the fall, the teeth adapted to the current conditions (or microevolved) and started ripping apart flesh due to the fallen world.

if I can think of this as a good reason, then obviously God can think of it too.

Yet just 10 minutes earlier you post that you are skeptical about a study on the abilities of 66 children to differentiate reality from fantasy.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2531
  • Darwins +46/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #298 on: July 27, 2014, 10:49:57 AM »
Yet just 10 minutes earlier you post that you are skeptical about a study on the abilities of 66 children to differentiate reality from fantasy.

Yes, that study was based on 66 children out of 2 billion children. Hardly a significant number. Even if you tested 5 million children, it would be meaningless.

What does that have to do with shark's teeth? Haven't you marveled in awe at their teeth/jaws? There's a reason Jaws is one of the best selling movies of all time. If everybody hated sharks and thought they were stupid, the movie would have bombed.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4837
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #299 on: July 27, 2014, 11:54:27 AM »
That makes sense. Never looked at it that way, I see what you're saying.
Glad to see that you can come to see things a different way than you're used to.  That's a difficult thing for humans to do.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Now I have some follow-up questions:
Can't guarantee I'll be able to answer them, but sure.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Did the birds become small because of the wings?
Since the development of wings would be subject to evolutionary change, I doubt it.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Or did the wings evolve because they were small?
Given that there are lots of small animals that do not have wings, I doubt it.

Quote from: skeptic54768
What environmental factor would influence wings to start growing? Obviously, other small animals exist, yet they are not winged, and they are from the same area as birds. So, what was the factor?
If I knew the definite answer to this question, I wouldn't be working as a computer support specialist.  But I'm sure it has to do with ecological niches.  Specifically, organisms evolve to fit into ecological niches, and then impede other organisms which might also fit into that niche.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Why didn't humans evolve to be small and winged?
Because we haven't been around all that long, evolutionarily speaking, and because we were already evolving in a different direction than that.  Evolution isn't some cosmic experimenter; it's simply the result of blind natural forces which ultimately force organisms to evolve or die.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2668
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #300 on: July 27, 2014, 12:26:46 PM »
Ahhh! But consider the penguins and ostriches and emus and any other flightless "bird" and explain THAT!

CHECKMATE!

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #301 on: July 27, 2014, 12:51:50 PM »
Ahhh! But consider the penguins and ostriches and emus and any other flightless "bird" and explain THAT!

CHECKMATE!
God.

Chessboard catches on fire.
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 369
  • Darwins +42/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #302 on: July 27, 2014, 01:02:53 PM »
The teeth are aesthetically pleasing to look at. God could have made them for us to marvel at. Then after the fall, the teeth adapted to the current conditions (or microevolved) and started ripping apart flesh due to the fallen world.

Quote
What does that have to do with shark's teeth? Haven't you marveled in awe at their teeth/jaws? There's a reason Jaws is one of the best selling movies of all time. If everybody hated sharks and thought they were stupid, the movie would have bombed.

So which is it? Teeth were made for eating or teeth made to look nice and pretty for we humans? Until the fall that is. So did god make the ultimate eating killing machine or did it evolve into that after the fall? Is there anything in the book about animals becoming carnivorous? I don’t recall that.
Not that it matters at all really. Seems kind of a silly subject but.. I am game.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2668
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #303 on: July 27, 2014, 01:40:35 PM »
Why didn't humans evolve to be small and winged?

Obviously God wanted us to evolve into bipeds with opposable thumbs and large problem solving brains so that we could invent airplanes which cause pollution and are able to be used as weapons for the greater glory of Allah. Naturally.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #304 on: July 27, 2014, 02:26:35 PM »
Yes, that study was based on 66 children out of 2 billion children. Hardly a significant number. Even if you tested 5 million children, it would be meaningless.

Lol, well there we have it folks.  We can't study children cause it's meaningless unless all 2 billion are studied. 

What does that have to do with shark's teeth? Haven't you marveled in awe at their teeth/jaws? There's a reason Jaws is one of the best selling movies of all time. If everybody hated sharks and thought they were stupid, the movie would have bombed.

Nothing.  It has everything to do with how you think and evaluate the world around you.

The study very well does show something about the 66 children who were apart of the study.  You however, dismiss that fact because you don't like the implication, and then you go creating excuses for why shark teeth are really good at tearing flesh so sharks can eat meat, all so you can believe a story about how all animals were supposed to be herbivores before Adam and Eve disobeyed "God".

So while you aren't exactly wrong to be skeptical about what exactly the study proves, you completely fail to apply the same level of skepticism to a story you're committed to believing is true.  The point is skep, you are demonstrating that your skepticism is reserved only for that which doesn't conform to your a priori beliefs.  Your two posts are a prime example of confirmation bias.

Regarding the movie Jaws, it was successful because it relied on the imagination of the audience and its fear of the unknown.  Perhaps you should do some research on the impact that the movie had by utilizing that fear.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2531
  • Darwins +46/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #305 on: July 28, 2014, 01:32:17 AM »
If I knew the definite answer to this question, I wouldn't be working as a computer support specialist.  But I'm sure it has to do with ecological niches.  Specifically, organisms evolve to fit into ecological niches, and then impede other organisms which might also fit into that niche.

See? This is where evolution becomes unbelievable. All of these species all with different features and nobody has any clue as to why these new features would even start evolving. Think of all the different features of all the sea creatures. Yet, they all live in the ocean. The ocean is the ocean, so what factors influenced those creatures to start evolving all these traits willy-nilly?

The forest is the forest so why did gorillas turn black while the orangutan is practically redish/orangeish?

This is where we get down to the tough questions.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10921
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #306 on: July 28, 2014, 01:48:12 AM »
See? This is where evolution becomes unbelievable. All of these species all with different features and nobody has any clue as to why these new features would even start evolving. Think of all the different features of all the sea creatures. Yet, they all live in the ocean. The ocean is the ocean, so what factors influenced those creatures to start evolving all these traits willy-nilly?

Willy-nilly? No factors, since that's not how evolution works. Creatures don't evolve of their own volition. As for "the ocean is the ocean", that's bullshit. The ocean floor is in a state of constant flux. There are thermal vents that spray a certain kind of material into the water, but only in certain areas. There are significant differences in pressure in the ocean. Try diving, with nothing but an oxygen tank and a suit, as deep as you can into the ocean. I guarantee you won't reach 200 meters (and that's with an enormous margin for error, as I'm betting you've never went diving a day in your life). Wanna know how deep the ocean is? Over 4000 meters - on average. That means that there are places deeper than that. In fact, the deepest part of our planet is the Mariana Trench, at over 11,000 meters.
Now I'll wait for the obvious question from someone who doesn't know the first thing about evolution (you).

The forest is the forest so why did gorillas turn black while the orangutan is practically redish/orangeish?

Different forests, different species, different factors, and so on.

This is where we get down to the tough questions.

No, not really. You just have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2531
  • Darwins +46/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #307 on: July 28, 2014, 02:02:45 AM »
See? This is where evolution becomes unbelievable. All of these species all with different features and nobody has any clue as to why these new features would even start evolving. Think of all the different features of all the sea creatures. Yet, they all live in the ocean. The ocean is the ocean, so what factors influenced those creatures to start evolving all these traits willy-nilly?

Willy-nilly? No factors, since that's not how evolution works. Creatures don't evolve of their own volition. As for "the ocean is the ocean", that's bullshit. The ocean floor is in a state of constant flux. There are thermal vents that spray a certain kind of material into the water, but only in certain areas. There are significant differences in pressure in the ocean. Try diving, with nothing but an oxygen tank and a suit, as deep as you can into the ocean. I guarantee you won't reach 200 meters (and that's with an enormous margin for error, as I'm betting you've never went diving a day in your life). Wanna know how deep the ocean is? Over 4000 meters - on average. That means that there are places deeper than that. In fact, the deepest part of our planet is the Mariana Trench, at over 11,000 meters.
Now I'll wait for the obvious question from someone who doesn't know the first thing about evolution (you).

The forest is the forest so why did gorillas turn black while the orangutan is practically redish/orangeish?

Different forests, different species, different factors, and so on.

This is where we get down to the tough questions.

No, not really. You just have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.

but it is simply not good enough to just say "environmental factors." You have to identify these factors and find evidence these factors actually existed and that these factors (without a doubt) lead to different features evolving.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10921
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #308 on: July 28, 2014, 02:19:49 AM »
but it is simply not good enough to just say "environmental factors."

It's the short version.

You have to identify these factors and find evidence these factors actually existed and that these factors (without a doubt) lead to different features evolving.

The last thing has already been done. As for the first one, no I don't.
We didn't have to identify the Higgs boson before saying that particles had mass. We just knew they did and went looking for the source. We didn't have to identify neutrinos before saying that there was matter/energy missing from radioactive decay. We just knew there was and went looking for the source.
Saying something about something does not require absolute knowledge about that something. If I built a time machine and showed you, in a time-lapse-esque view, a single-celled organism evolving into something you'd consider a human, you'd then ask me to identify every elementary particle and show you the way they interacted from the very first moment in time, to rule out a creator. I doubt even a quantum computer could do such a thing. However, assuming I managed to do it, you'd then ask me to prove that there wasn't a non-interventionist creator that just created everything and watched. In short, you're asking for the impossible. Science deals in the possible. Religion does not. It does not surprise me that you'd go to such lengths as to ask science for the impossible in order to maintain your flimsy faith.
The second part has already been (partially) done. We know how the Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago, and not 6000-10,000 like can be derived from the Bible, as well as how planets in general form, so we can make an estimate based on that. Now I await your "brilliant" retort that "we can't know for sure, therefore (my) god (and no other, even though they're all the same)".
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #309 on: July 28, 2014, 02:39:49 AM »
If I knew the definite answer to this question, I wouldn't be working as a computer support specialist.  But I'm sure it has to do with ecological niches.  Specifically, organisms evolve to fit into ecological niches, and then impede other organisms which might also fit into that niche.

See? This is where evolution becomes unbelievable. All of these species all with different features and nobody has any clue as to why these new features would even start evolving. Think of all the different features of all the sea creatures. Yet, they all live in the ocean. The ocean is the ocean, so what factors influenced those creatures to start evolving all these traits willy-nilly?

The forest is the forest so why did gorillas turn black while the orangutan is practically redish/orangeish?

This is where we get down to the tough questions.

Why should evolution be unbelievable to you? Is your god not powerful enough to use it as a mechanism for the diversity of life?
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12205
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #310 on: July 28, 2014, 09:48:03 AM »
How else would they come to be?

people making them?  Really, man?  I know it uses the word "law", but it is not the same thing.  It is not a decree, or legislation.  It is a mathematical model of how the universe functions.

And if someone "made it", how is that dependent on whether it can be broken or not?

And that is an argument from ignorance.  "I dunno the answer, so GODDIDIT!"

The universe most certainly does function according to laws though.

not in the way you used above. You used the terms as if it were a piece of contrived legislation.  It is unfortunate that the community of people who are literalist xians do dishonestly use scientific words and attempt to apply colloquial meanings to them interchangeably.

Do you know the difference between the meanings of "velocity" when used in scientific and everyday contexts?


if the universe does not operate according to laws, then you are saying that I might throw a ball into the air and it might just stay suspended in mid-air one day.

No, that is not what I am saying and I have no idea how you derived that.  You are not answering the questions or addressing the points.  You are side-stepping the conversation.  I don't know if that is your intent or if you simply don't understand what is being said. 

Is that the road you want to drive down? That is a long and winding road filled with 3 feet deep potholes.

skep, please don't kid yourself.  Your arguments are not scary or intimidating in the least.  You are not the smartest or most knowledgeable person in the room.



Evolution also doesn't explain why birds evolved wings and humans didn't.

Yes it does.  It very clearly explains it.  I'm not going to explain it because it is a lot of work you should have done before posting this. 

You do this all the time, skep, and frankly, it is not acceptable.  You shoot off your mouth without educating yourself in the least on topics that are relatively easy to research.  It is lazy and inexcusable.

I can imagine wings would be pretty advantageous for humans.

sure it would.  So would shooting lasers out of our eyes.  But evolution is not a buffet where we get to pick traits simply because they happened to be advantageous.  That is not how it works.  You should know that by now.



I am VERY skeptical of that study. For instance, there are 2 billion children in the world and only 66 participated in the study. Is it scientific to take the results of a test of 66 children and project it onto 2 billion children? That seems very absurd to me.

Aaaand here we have skep shooting off his mouth, yet again, without having the vaguest clue as to what he's talking about. 



See? This is where evolution becomes unbelievable. All of these species all with different features and nobody has any clue as to why these new features would even start evolving. Think of all the different features of all the sea creatures. Yet, they all live in the ocean. The ocean is the ocean, so what factors influenced those creatures to start evolving all these traits willy-nilly?

The forest is the forest so why did gorillas turn black while the orangutan is practically redish/orangeish?

This is where we get down to the tough questions.

did you do anything at all to try to find answers to any of these questions?  If not, STFU.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4837
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #311 on: July 28, 2014, 11:47:24 AM »
See? This is where evolution becomes unbelievable. All of these species all with different features and nobody has any clue as to why these new features would even start evolving. Think of all the different features of all the sea creatures. Yet, they all live in the ocean. The ocean is the ocean, so what factors influenced those creatures to start evolving all these traits willy-nilly?
Who says that "nobody has any clue"?  I certainly didn't.  I said that I didn't know for sure, and that's because I'm not an evolutionary biologist (and thus don't have the in-depth knowledge to be able to give a reasonably definite answer).  You should probably avoid overstating your case like this, as it makes your argument quite unbelievable.

For example, you say "the ocean is the ocean", yet...is a beach going to support the same kind of life which can live in the open sea?  Is shallow, warm water going to support the same kind of life as frigidly-cold water three miles down?  What about water one mile down?  What about areas with coral reefs (which create habitats for different organisms than live in other shallows)?  You act as if the ocean is going to be the same everywhere, but it's clearly not.  Even in areas which have approximately the same conditions, there's going to be differences simply due to divergence (organisms developing differently in different areas)

Speaking of evolution, what makes you think that traits develop willy-nilly?  Traits appear in a population over time due to mutations, but it's the local conditions in ecological niches that determine if those traits allow an organism to prosper or make it more likely to die out.  For example, an organism which has a thick fur coat and thick blubber to survive sub-zero winter temperatures would not last long in tropical or sub-tropical areas, so mutations which favor those traits will not prosper.

Quote from: skeptic54768
The forest is the forest so why did gorillas turn black while the orangutan is practically redish/orangeish?
Same problem as above.  What makes you think "the forest is the forest"?  It isn't, any more than "the ocean is the ocean".  Even biologists who don't work with evolution at all would recognize the fallacy of this assumption of yours.

Quote from: skeptic54768
This is where we get down to the tough questions.
Hardly tough, not if you've studied ecosystems at all.  I get the impression that, like many Americans, you just have a vague general idea of things that are outside your own personal life experience.  The problem is, you can't draw accurate conclusions from such general assumptions, especially when your assumptions aren't based on actual data in the first place.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2531
  • Darwins +46/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #312 on: July 28, 2014, 11:32:30 PM »
See? This is where evolution becomes unbelievable. All of these species all with different features and nobody has any clue as to why these new features would even start evolving. Think of all the different features of all the sea creatures. Yet, they all live in the ocean. The ocean is the ocean, so what factors influenced those creatures to start evolving all these traits willy-nilly?
Who says that "nobody has any clue"?  I certainly didn't.  I said that I didn't know for sure, and that's because I'm not an evolutionary biologist (and thus don't have the in-depth knowledge to be able to give a reasonably definite answer).  You should probably avoid overstating your case like this, as it makes your argument quite unbelievable.

For example, you say "the ocean is the ocean", yet...is a beach going to support the same kind of life which can live in the open sea?  Is shallow, warm water going to support the same kind of life as frigidly-cold water three miles down?  What about water one mile down?  What about areas with coral reefs (which create habitats for different organisms than live in other shallows)?  You act as if the ocean is going to be the same everywhere, but it's clearly not.  Even in areas which have approximately the same conditions, there's going to be differences simply due to divergence (organisms developing differently in different areas)

Speaking of evolution, what makes you think that traits develop willy-nilly?  Traits appear in a population over time due to mutations, but it's the local conditions in ecological niches that determine if those traits allow an organism to prosper or make it more likely to die out.  For example, an organism which has a thick fur coat and thick blubber to survive sub-zero winter temperatures would not last long in tropical or sub-tropical areas, so mutations which favor those traits will not prosper.

Quote from: skeptic54768
The forest is the forest so why did gorillas turn black while the orangutan is practically redish/orangeish?
Same problem as above.  What makes you think "the forest is the forest"?  It isn't, any more than "the ocean is the ocean".  Even biologists who don't work with evolution at all would recognize the fallacy of this assumption of yours.

Quote from: skeptic54768
This is where we get down to the tough questions.
Hardly tough, not if you've studied ecosystems at all.  I get the impression that, like many Americans, you just have a vague general idea of things that are outside your own personal life experience.  The problem is, you can't draw accurate conclusions from such general assumptions, especially when your assumptions aren't based on actual data in the first place.

Well, that makes some sense. perhaps I was a tad bit mistaken and a bit hasty with the post.

I still have a hard time believing in evolution, but at least you made it sound a bit more understandable.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2531
  • Darwins +46/-416
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #313 on: July 29, 2014, 11:28:03 PM »
What I don't understand is that the evolutionists say that all things evolve, but when you ask about crocodiles remaining unchanged for supposedly millions of years, they say "well not everything evolves" or "their environment didn't change."

Really? The crocodiles environment never changed at all in millions of years? not even with the supposed mass dinosaur extinction? Yet, for every other species on Earth, the environment changed? It's like a game of pong back and forth with no real breakthrough.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2014, 11:30:37 PM by skeptic54768 »
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #314 on: July 30, 2014, 05:31:02 AM »
Mutations happen all the time, you must understand that. Not X MEN mutations, but slight.

But if a crocodile already has the best type of mutation for his environment, why would a new mutation take over, especially if the first was already best fit?

If a crocodile lives in a jungle, and has green (almost perfectly camouflaged skin), and a new croc pops up with a slightly more vibrant and brighter green, who would still survive?

The prey of the crocodiles would have a much harder time seeing the old, camo croc. The new one, more visible because of its mutation, would have a less chance of getting food, and therefore less chance of surviving and reproducing to pass on its mutation.
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1234
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #315 on: July 30, 2014, 05:31:23 AM »
What I don't understand is that the evolutionists say that all things evolve, but when you ask about crocodiles remaining unchanged for supposedly millions of years, they say "well not everything evolves" or "their environment didn't change."

Really? The crocodiles environment never changed at all in millions of years? not even with the supposed mass dinosaur extinction? Yet, for every other species on Earth, the environment changed? It's like a game of pong back and forth with no real breakthrough.

Your still applying the misnomer that all things have to evolve.
The question that you're asking about crocodiles is "why do crocodiles still exist in the ecological niche that the have adapted to fill?"
The answer is in the question.
I'm sure there were crocodiles living in central europe millions of years ago[1] however as the environment changed they either evolved or died. This is why there are no wild crocodiles in europe.
 1. http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/fossilgroups/crocodylomorpha/fossilrecord.html

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4837
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #316 on: July 30, 2014, 08:50:34 AM »
What I don't understand is that the evolutionists say that all things evolve, but when you ask about crocodiles remaining unchanged for supposedly millions of years, they say "well not everything evolves" or "their environment didn't change."

Really? The crocodiles environment never changed at all in millions of years? not even with the supposed mass dinosaur extinction? Yet, for every other species on Earth, the environment changed? It's like a game of pong back and forth with no real breakthrough.
Most crocodile species went extinct, though.  The ones which survived did so because, even with all the ecological disruptions that happened due to the meteor impact, smaller animals tended to survive much more easily than large ones.  It's the same reason that mammalian ancestors survived, as well as insect species such as cockroaches (which are even older than crocodiles).  Most large species couldn't adapt to the changed Earth and perished (mainly because larger animals are far more vulnerable to ecological disruptions, due to needing a larger area in which to find food), whereas smaller ones survived quite handily.

However, that doesn't answer the question of why bird and mammals changed pretty drastically, whereas crocodiles and cockroaches stayed much the same.  The answer to that is that evolutionary winners tend not to evolve much ("much" being relative - humans haven't evolved much in 200,000 years, and we have plenty of diversity), because they have a selective pressure called "regression to the mean".  What this means is that the further away an evolutionary change falls from the 'mean', or average, for the species, the less likely it is to be conserved.

It's organisms which aren't doing well that fall under selective pressure to evolve.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12205
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #317 on: July 30, 2014, 09:01:39 AM »
What I don't understand is that the evolutionists say that all things evolve, but when you ask about crocodiles remaining unchanged for supposedly millions of years, they say "well not everything evolves" or "their environment didn't change."

Really? The crocodiles environment never changed at all in millions of years? not even with the supposed mass dinosaur extinction? Yet, for every other species on Earth, the environment changed? It's like a game of pong back and forth with no real breakthrough.

skep,

It is getting tedious watching you ask basic questions, do no research and then give wrong answers.  I am going to have to insist you earnestly try to find an answer to this question and then report back.

 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4593
  • Darwins +104/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #318 on: July 30, 2014, 06:25:35 PM »
What I don't understand is that the evolutionists say that all things evolve, but when you ask about crocodiles remaining unchanged for supposedly millions of years, they say "well not everything evolves" or "their environment didn't change."

Really? The crocodiles environment never changed at all in millions of years? not even with the supposed mass dinosaur extinction? Yet, for every other species on Earth, the environment changed? It's like a game of pong back and forth with no real breakthrough.
in other than knowledge and technology,would you say humans have evolved? We still kill each other at an alarming rate,people stave to death when food is available,certain organisms can still kill us and we pretty much look the same for the last 10,000 years or more. we live longer,are generally healthier,diet and medicine have helped us get there.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)