Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#77996 Mar 1, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont have anything on Sheela-na-Gig except from the internet
This is not a particularly pretty site but it is quite in depth http://www.sheelanagig.org/index.html
There are still plenty of churches in Europe particularly eastern Europe and Ireland with the carvings
I used to have a very goodone that analysed romen attituted all the way to the use of vulva, penis, homosexual depictions and oralsex on churches to the old hag with the diamond shaped vuva.
Socaled withches were examined in the crude way seen in the depiction for the were thought to have nipples there that the devil sucked.(the innerlabia, clitoris) All nonsens , but it came down to the women no longer being the one giving birth but the man in some shamanic androgyn takeover grabbing all power and showing this of. So hostile takeover and destruction of formerly peacefull societies.

Apropos : death is the only salvation the great equalizer.
Sometimes those jesus-types can be real nerf-hurters.

real Christian wrote:
You being a bunch of idiots doesn't justify your posts.
The fish was used when Christians were persecuted by Romans (like your doing with your brainless comments)
The fish acronym means Jesus Christ the saviour, soon of God
Hope my psst won't be useless at least for one of you
God bless

"It's a vagina.
One of the names given to the pre-Jesus Jesus Fish is the vesica pisces (vessel of the fish), and it was used as a symbol of every female fertility god ever, from Atargatis (the Syrian fertility goddess), Aphrodite/Venus (the goddess of love and sex) to the pagan Great Mother goddess, where it symbolized her life-giving vulva. Basically, whenever you encountered an image of fish in the pre-Christian world, it was probably an opposite-of-subtle metaphor for lady parts."

http://www.cracked.com/article_19909_6-famous ...

And let's not forget the Odes of Solomon where the father has breasts with flowing milk.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#77997 Mar 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read the reference? It said that any number of insects were involved in early pollination specifically mentioning beetles. It is the remarkable success of the bee as a pollinator that is interesting. The article suggested that the switch from wasp-like predator to bee pollinator was a result of predation on pollen laden insects. That is, they developed a 'taste' for pollen. Since they were more efficient at pollination (flight), they helped spread flowering plants which, in turn, lead to more bees. And the die was cast.
here's a fun article...

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/23/science/whi...

i would have addressed it to Cybele also, but she seems to be ignoring the facts today...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#77998 Mar 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Then explain commensalism in nature. Or is natural selection all you got?
What don't you understand about it? It is not that difficult of a subject?

Cybele, here is a suggestion, rather than thinking you have all of the answers and doubting evolution, you should be taking basic science classes. MIT has some excellent free lectures you can watch on YouTube. Think about it, perhaps the best college in the U.S. when it comes to science and they are giving it away for free!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#77999 Mar 1, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I used to have a very goodone that analysed romen attituted all the way to the use of vulva, penis, homosexual depictions and oralsex on churches to the old hag with the diamond shaped vuva.
Socaled withches were examined in the crude way seen in the depiction for the were thought to have nipples there that the devil sucked.(the innerlabia, clitoris) All nonsens , but it came down to the women no longer being the one giving birth but the man in some shamanic androgyn takeover grabbing all power and showing this of. So hostile takeover and destruction of formerly peacefull societies.
Apropos : death is the only salvation the great equalizer.
Sometimes those jesus-types can be real nerf-hurters.
real Christian wrote:
You being a bunch of idiots doesn't justify your posts.
The fish was used when Christians were persecuted by Romans (like your doing with your brainless comments)
The fish acronym means Jesus Christ the saviour, soon of God
Hope my psst won't be useless at least for one of you
God bless
"It's a vagina.
One of the names given to the pre-Jesus Jesus Fish is the vesica pisces (vessel of the fish), and it was used as a symbol of every female fertility god ever, from Atargatis (the Syrian fertility goddess), Aphrodite/Venus (the goddess of love and sex) to the pagan Great Mother goddess, where it symbolized her life-giving vulva. Basically, whenever you encountered an image of fish in the pre-Christian world, it was probably an opposite-of-subtle metaphor for lady parts."
http://www.cracked.com/article_19909_6-famous ...
And let's not forget the Odes of Solomon where the father has breasts with flowing milk.
Don't forget the phallus worshippers! lol

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#78000 Mar 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read my question, I said "pollinating insects"
We are not talking about bees alone. I wanted to know the co-evolution of two different species. pollinating insects and flowers are example of commensalism. Geesh you guys still don't get it.
No, it is you that is not getting it.

as i stated, and gave you a real world example of, not all plants need insects to pollinate. in fact, many do not.

once flowers formed on plants, it was an incredible food source for insects, and other species, so of course they would take advantage of it. the symbiotic relationship developed from there. no magic or intelligent design needed.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#78001 Mar 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read my question, I said "pollinating insects"
We are not talking about bees alone. I wanted to know the co-evolution of two different species. pollinating insects and flowers are example of commensalism. Geesh you guys still don't get it.
Did you read your OWN post? You initially said bees:
Cybele wrote:
Any evolutionists dare to answer my question? Explain the co-evolution of bees and flowers and their symbiotic relationship in nature.
{snip}
Not my problem you can't keep track of your own stuff.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#78002 Mar 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
Like that's likely ;p

But thanks for the link, though i always wondered how those wasps got in the olive's closely folded flower in the first place. Seems an awfull lot of work. Just things to ponder before one goes to sleep. Probably because they prayed on the smaller female species (or male?) that hid away. Good article.
Parasitism and symbiosis in one go.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#78003 Mar 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read your OWN post? You initially said bees:
<quoted text>
Not my problem you can't keep track of your own stuff.
Yes I know because bees were a good example of pollinating insects, it's why they're called floral specialists. And if you find there are many articles about the mystery of bees and flowers, rather than beetles and flowers, etc. It's like saying which came first chicken or the egg. When there are other animals that lay eggs too. It's the basic idea that you're not getting and instead nitpicking on details that are irrelevant. I did try to ask a less-specific question.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#78004 Mar 1, 2013
Commensalism -- one organism benefits; the other is neither harmed nor helped.

So those 'cannibal' wasp/bee concestors practiced unassisted suicide?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#78005 Mar 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What don't you understand about it? It is not that difficult of a subject?
Cybele, here is a suggestion, rather than thinking you have all of the answers and doubting evolution, you should be taking basic science classes. MIT has some excellent free lectures you can watch on YouTube. Think about it, perhaps the best college in the U.S. when it comes to science and they are giving it away for free!
Actually, I wanted to learn more about noncoding DNA. It's why I keep asking here for DNA evidence for evolution. ERV is another story. I might try to look into that more.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#78006 Mar 1, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Commensalism -- one organism benefits; the other is neither harmed nor helped.
So those 'cannibal' wasp/bee concestors practiced unassisted suicide?
what cannibal? bees and wasp? lol

And you rely much on Dawkins terminology? Funny how he is open to the idea of advanced or intelligent life out there.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#78007 Mar 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I know because bees were a good example of pollinating insects, it's why they're called floral specialists. And if you find there are many articles about the mystery of bees and flowers, rather than beetles and flowers, etc. It's like saying which came first chicken or the egg. When there are other animals that lay eggs too. It's the basic idea that you're not getting and instead nitpicking on details that are irrelevant. I did try to ask a less-specific question.
there is no mystery about bees and flowers whatsoever. flowers provide a great food source, bees take advantage of it.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#78008 Mar 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What don't you understand about it? It is not that difficult of a subject?
Cybele, here is a suggestion, rather than thinking you have all of the answers and doubting evolution, you should be taking basic science classes. MIT has some excellent free lectures you can watch on YouTube. Think about it, perhaps the best college in the U.S. when it comes to science and they are giving it away for free!
Cool!

Thanks.

She doesn't have the guts to do that, though.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#78009 Mar 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I wanted to learn more about noncoding DNA. It's why I keep asking here for DNA evidence for evolution. ERV is another story. I might try to look into that more.
On the order of 98% of the genome is noncoding DNA, ERV's are only part of that, though extremely rarely the DNA in an ERV has been found to be of use for the host. Project ENCODE came out and claimed at first that parts of noncoding DNA still were vital. And perhaps as much as 100% of the genome was vital. Creationists seized onto this claim as if it were the Gospels themselves since the ones that understood DNA new that "junk DNA" made no sense from a creationist paradigm. Well, as with many other projects. the projections that they gave at the start fell far short of their claims.

They found that perhaps ten percent of the genome was regulatory, if you took a very lose definition of regulatory. So they were partially right, they found that more of the code was useful than before. They never met the creationist fantasies, though you will still here them claim that the projections were the result.

So what do you need to know about noncoding DNA? Again, that is pretty much the end of project ENCODE's claims of 100% usability.

Here is a quick and easy debunk of project ENCODE. If our DNA is one hundred percent functional then all DNA in all life should be 100% functional. An onion has over two times the DNA that a human being has, as far as size of genome goes. Why does an onion need over twice the DNA of a human? Isn't it more likely that an onion merely has over twice the junk DNA that a human does?

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#78010 Mar 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
what cannibal? bees and wasp? lol
And you rely much on Dawkins terminology? Funny how he is open to the idea of advanced or intelligent life out there.
Other life in the universe is a near certainty.

Why would it be funny for him to be open to it.

I would think it funny for him NOT to be.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#78011 Mar 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>there is no mystery about bees and flowers whatsoever. flowers provide a great food source, bees take advantage of it.
that is third grade level of understanding. It's like saying horse eats grass, so what. You haven't addressed the question I asked. How did these two different species, a plant and an insect co-evolve? So nothing created bees, they just sprang to life and started pollinating and found their niche. And yet there's nothing special about it. Please, don't give flowers to the woman in your life, because they probably don't mean anything as well. lol

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#78012 Mar 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I know because bees were a good example of pollinating insects, it's why they're called floral specialists. And if you find there are many articles about the mystery of bees and flowers, rather than beetles and flowers, etc. It's like saying which came first chicken or the egg. When there are other animals that lay eggs too. It's the basic idea that you're not getting and instead nitpicking on details that are irrelevant. I did try to ask a less-specific question.
The egg came first.

That question has been answered.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic...

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#78013 Mar 1, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Other life in the universe is a near certainty.
Why would it be funny for him to be open to it.
I would think it funny for him NOT to be.
Look it up on you tube. Why would they (tyson and dawkins) make a video on poetry of science eh?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#78014 Mar 1, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
The egg came first.
That question has been answered.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic...
nope it's still a paradox. nice try
Ascendo Tuum

Hamilton, Canada

#78015 Mar 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How embarrassing. "No bees needed" indeed.
Are you suggesting that he has bees in his front room?? Oh.. wait... you missed the front room part. Seems to me, if you can "miss" something as rudimentary as that, there is probably a whole lot of other things you have "missed" in this argument. How embarrassing!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Dave's bar and grill,is now open. (May '13) 16 min revilot2 5,772
Al-Qaeda 36 min Albert Einstein 7
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 1 hr wichita-rick 755
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) 2 hr wichita-rick 697
Favorite lines from a song (Mar '08) 2 hr wichita-rick 3,632
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr wichita-rick 155,263
tasteless jokes 2 hr wichita-rick 89
Lets Discuss Men (Dec '13) 6 hr Sublime1 386
"man" words 6 hr andet1987 208
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 7 hr TALLYHO 8541 38,437
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 8 hr -Lea- 28,571
More from around the web