|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evolution or Intelligent Design?
I really think that evolution is the dumbest theory in the world. I mean come on. Seriously, how could we have evolved from chimps. They are like us, but we don't look, think, act the same as us.. Someone told me that nature messed up and we were created by an anomaly. So if evolution did take us here then chimps came from where? Dinosaurs? I don't think so. I also really disagree with the bing bang theory. That our world was created by spontaneous action and the right amount of gases coming together at the same time, and hence creating the perfect life-supporting environment. If it was up to me I would ban evolution, and make school teach things that actually make sense.
| b|ade wrote: |
| If it was up to me I would ban evolution, and make school teach things that actually make sense. |
Those who design school curriculums are generally required to be educated. In other words, it would seem that we are in no danger of it being up to you.
| b|ade wrote: |
| I really think that evolution is the dumbest theory in the world. I mean come on. Seriously, how could we have evolved from chimps. They are like us, but we don't look, think, act the same as us.. Someone told me that nature messed up and we were created by an anomaly. So if evolution did take us here then chimps came from where? Dinosaurs? I don't think so. I also really disagree with the bing bang theory. That our world was created by spontaneous action and the right amount of gases coming together at the same time, and hence creating the perfect life-supporting environment. If it was up to me I would ban evolution, and make school teach things that actually make sense. |
Yes. Things that make sense... like Creationism
Creating the perfect life-supporting environment? Then where did the dinosaur skeletons come come from. Heck, where did the things to live in this "perfect life-supporting" environment come from?
And gasses all spontaneously coming together? Then where do the elements that do not have a "gas" form come from? Actually, where do those gasses come from in the first place?
If the gasses spontaneously came together, wouldn't they form a "big bang" because of the implosion which would then explode?
How do you know we didn't evolve from chimpanzees? Our DNA may have changed itself, or we could be the byproduct of our ancestors being exposed to radiation.
Chimpanzeess probably came from a cell, which has slowly evolved over time, just like every other living thing on this planet.
Why do people who know nothing about evolution try to discredit it? It is the most successful theory in science. Especially when information about it is so widely available yet people still say "if we evolved from monkey why are they still here" "no ones ever seen one creature evolve into another" and other shit that no scientists says.
b|ade please read these
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution
b|ade please read these
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution
| Indi wrote: | ||
Those who design school curriculums are generally required to be educated. In other words, it would seem that we are in no danger of it being up to you. |
I can't help but agree; but then again, most teachers are stupid anyway!
Do you really think that it is more likely that the universe started off as a garden in the clouds which contained the very first human in existence from the very start (and where exactly is the beginning) and all of a sudden, his ribs get contaminated by something, one falls off and mutates into a woman... and so on and so on...
And if you are on about Intelligent Design, who is the architect? You didn't actually specify if you support the Creationist theory... You just said that you were against the Evolutionist theory...
| Quote: |
| Intelligent Design worths more then evolution. |
| hack_man_ wrote: | ||||
I can't help but agree; but then again, most teachers are stupid anyway! |
Most teachers are not qualified to decide curriculums. Most teachers are barely intelligent enough to follow them.
The opinion of one loud-mouthed bozo on the Internet matters not one squat. If evolution doesn't make sense to the original poster, that will be his problem when exam time comes. His ravings aren't coherent or intelligent enough to be of any concern to anyone else.
On the plus side, if the original poster cannot make sense of evolution or the "bing bang", then we are in no danger of him becoming a doctor or a scientist.
Recent history shows, however, that we remain in serious danger of him becoming president.
| Indi wrote: |
| Removed excess quotes...
Most teachers are not qualified to decide curriculums. Most teachers are barely intelligent enough to follow them. The opinion of one loud-mouthed bozo on the Internet matters not one squat. If evolution doesn't make sense to the original poster, that will be his problem when exam time comes. His ravings aren't coherent or intelligent enough to be of any concern to anyone else. On the plus side, if the original poster cannot make sense of evolution or the "bing bang", then we are in no danger of him becoming a doctor or a scientist. Recent history shows, however, that we remain in serious danger of him becoming president. |
It is completely true! Evolution is in many curriculums, so completely boycotting a very accurate theory is just asking for lost marks in the exams!
| hack_man_ wrote: |
| as a garden in the clouds |
Where exactly did you get the idea that it was in the clouds?
Methinks you are trying to make it sound less likely than it really is.
As for evolution, my problem with it is the complexity of life. Do you have any idea just how many complex organic molecules it takes to construct a single cell?
What are the chances that these molecules, even if they somehow came to exist close enough together (which is, itself, unlikely), would just happen to come together in a way that forms a self-sustaining, self-replicating structure?
The chances of that, I think, would be about the same as a tornado going through a pile of building materials and building a house by random chance.
Whenever I see people claiming that we cannot have come together through chance I always think of the monkey and the typewriter coming up with the bible if he sits there long enough.
Now what are the chances of this 'perfect life supporting system' coming together? Say 1 in 100 billion?
So how many planets are there?
Best guess is pretty huge:
There are about 400 billion stars (44e9) in our galaxy alone.
There are an estimated 125 billion galaxies (125e9).
Thats 5.5e21 stars.
Now our star has 9 planets around it. Lets just say that each star has on average 1 planet and thats 5.5e21 planets.
So if we take the odds of this 'perfect' world and combine it with the number of worlds then 5.5e21/100e9=5.5e10 or in other words 55 billion worlds have combined to make this 'perfect' world.
It wasn't a long shot that made us - it was purely that when given enough chances on enough planets across the universe it was pure random chance that we happened here.
David.
Now what are the chances of this 'perfect life supporting system' coming together? Say 1 in 100 billion?
So how many planets are there?
Best guess is pretty huge:
There are about 400 billion stars (44e9) in our galaxy alone.
There are an estimated 125 billion galaxies (125e9).
Thats 5.5e21 stars.
Now our star has 9 planets around it. Lets just say that each star has on average 1 planet and thats 5.5e21 planets.
So if we take the odds of this 'perfect' world and combine it with the number of worlds then 5.5e21/100e9=5.5e10 or in other words 55 billion worlds have combined to make this 'perfect' world.
It wasn't a long shot that made us - it was purely that when given enough chances on enough planets across the universe it was pure random chance that we happened here.
David.
| powers1983 wrote: |
|
Now what are the chances of this 'perfect life supporting system' coming together? Say 1 in 100 billion? |
Well, let's figure up the odds:
1 in:(Chance that all the needed molecules exist in the same place X Chance that these molecules are in the right proportions X Chance that they are in a medium where they are able to rearrange and connect randomly X Chance that the first and second molecules connect properly X Chance that the second and third molecules connect properly X ... [and so on] ... X Chance that the 45,324,321st molecule connects properly with the 45,324,322nd molecule X Chance that all types of sustenance needed for the new cell is readily available X Chance that this cell dies before reproducing.)
No matter how you figure it, that's going to be a really big number.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
|
As for evolution, my problem with it is the complexity of life. Do you have any idea just how many complex organic molecules it takes to construct a single cell? What are the chances that these molecules, even if they somehow came to exist close enough together (which is, itself, unlikely), would just happen to come together in a way that forms a self-sustaining, self-replicating structure? The chances of that, I think, would be about the same as a tornado going through a pile of building materials and building a house by random chance. |
But this conflates two separate issues. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis (start of life) so your problem is with abiogenesis not with evolution surely?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| As for evolution, my problem with it is the complexity of life. Do you have any idea just how many complex organic molecules it takes to construct a single cell?
What are the chances that these molecules, even if they somehow came to exist close enough together (which is, itself, unlikely), would just happen to come together in a way that forms a self-sustaining, self-replicating structure? The chances of that, I think, would be about the same as a tornado going through a pile of building materials and building a house by random chance. |
As Bikerman said, they are separate issues.
Even if though the chances of life forming are small (we don't actually know that, but its more probable than it being common) that dose not mean life is going to form somewhere. Its like a lottery, you buy a lottery ticket that has 7 numbers 1 through 37 with an odd of winning 1 in 10295472.00, if enough people buy a ticket (an there are fools out there that but more than one, some buy many. Makes you proud to be human doesn't it)some one will match all numbers. If you have enough planets, life will form somewhere. And here is that somewhere
| Quote: |
|
The opinion of one loud-mouthed bozo on the Internet matters not one squat. If evolution doesn't make sense to the original poster, that will be his problem when exam time comes. His ravings aren't coherent or intelligent enough to be of any concern to anyone else. On the plus side, if the original poster cannot make sense of evolution or the "bing bang", then we are in no danger of him becoming a doctor or a scientist. Recent history shows, however, that we remain in serious danger of him becoming president. |
You misunderstand my intentions. I know my opinion won't matter at all, but I was simply making a hypothetical situation, about IF it was up to me. Also, I completely understand evolution but I said it doesn't make sense in way of it not being logical, instead of it meaning I was not able to understand evolution.
PS: I also have no intentions of becoming President.
| b|ade wrote: | ||
You misunderstand my intentions. I know my opinion won't matter at all, but I was simply making a hypothetical situation, about IF it was up to me. Also, I completely understand evolution but I said it doesn't make sense in way of it not being logical, instead of it meaning I was not able to understand evolution. |
So you completely understand evolution? OK, in that case what are the logical problems with it?
| b|ade wrote: |
| Also, I completely understand evolution but I said it doesn't make sense in way of it not being logical, instead of it meaning I was not able to understand evolution. |
Really? You comments say differently.
| Quote: |
| I mean come on. Seriously, how could we have evolved from chimps. |
The only people that say that ether trying to discredit evolution or don not understand it.
Humans did not evolve from Chimpanzees or any other modern ape, humans and Chimpanzees do share a common ancestor though but due to different environments they evolved in different directions. And just cause one species evolved from another dose not mean that the ancestor species would no longer exist, a species could be perfectly adapted to an environment and as that species spreads into different environments it adapts and untimely evolves into a different species but so long as th environment of the original species remains the same evolving would decrease its survivability thus t would not evolve and there are species that are perfect for what they do (such as alligator).
Like Conspirator, I have a problem reconciling these two postings :
On the one hand you say:
and then you inform us that:
Surely if the second were true then you would not have posted the first?
For the record - Conspirator dealt with most of the problems so I'll just pick up a few of the more obvious ones left....
1) Big bang theory does not say anything about how our Earth was formed - certainly not that it was 'created by spontaneous action and the right amount of gases coming together at the same time' because it wasn't.
2) How could nature 'mess up' ? That would mean that nature acted unnaturally which is, surely, a contradiction in terms.
3) Earth was never a perfect life supporting environment and, frequently in it's history, it has been rather the reverse.
4) You cannot 'ban' evolution'. That is like saying you would 'ban' gravity. You can hang up signs all over and tell everyone that all they have to do is try hard and flap their arms if they want to fly. You can even pass a law to make it illegal not to defy gravity at least twice a day..It won't change the effects of gravity and it won't change the influence it has. The same applies for evolution. Sure, you can believe whatever you like and tell people that evolution is bad, wrong or whatever you like. It will still be the best theory we have and almost certainly correct (when I say 'almost certainly' I use the phrase in a fairly precise way....I have no doubt that it IS correct, but there is always a possibility that any theory is wrong, no matter how unlikely).
5) Dinosaurs exist all around us. We have domesticated some of them, we eat others and yet others still roam wild and free. Some people have pet dinosaurs and others even race them or exhibit them in shows.
The notion that Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago is wrong - they didn't. There are currently at least 8,000 or more species of dinosaur in the world - they never died out and are doing very nicely thank-you. The notion that chimps evolved from Dinosaurs is silly and I don't know why you even mention it...evolution theory does not suggest anything of the sort - the phylogeny (family tree) of the primates is here if you want to see where chimps belong.
and here is the family tree for dinosaurs:
PS - if you don't understand where all the dinosaurs went...look upwards....
On the one hand you say:
| Quote: |
| I really think that evolution is the dumbest theory in the world. I mean come on. Seriously, how could we have evolved from chimps. They are like us, but we don't look, think, act the same as us.. Someone told me that nature messed up and we were created by an anomaly. So if evolution did take us here then chimps came from where? Dinosaurs? I don't think so. I also really disagree with the bing bang theory. That our world was created by spontaneous action and the right amount of gases coming together at the same time, and hence creating the perfect life-supporting environment. If it was up to me I would ban evolution, and make school teach things that actually make sense. |
and then you inform us that:
| Quote: |
| Also, I completely understand evolution but I said it doesn't make sense in way of it not being logical, instead of it meaning I was not able to understand evolution. |
Surely if the second were true then you would not have posted the first?
For the record - Conspirator dealt with most of the problems so I'll just pick up a few of the more obvious ones left....
1) Big bang theory does not say anything about how our Earth was formed - certainly not that it was 'created by spontaneous action and the right amount of gases coming together at the same time' because it wasn't.
2) How could nature 'mess up' ? That would mean that nature acted unnaturally which is, surely, a contradiction in terms.
3) Earth was never a perfect life supporting environment and, frequently in it's history, it has been rather the reverse.
4) You cannot 'ban' evolution'. That is like saying you would 'ban' gravity. You can hang up signs all over and tell everyone that all they have to do is try hard and flap their arms if they want to fly. You can even pass a law to make it illegal not to defy gravity at least twice a day..It won't change the effects of gravity and it won't change the influence it has. The same applies for evolution. Sure, you can believe whatever you like and tell people that evolution is bad, wrong or whatever you like. It will still be the best theory we have and almost certainly correct (when I say 'almost certainly' I use the phrase in a fairly precise way....I have no doubt that it IS correct, but there is always a possibility that any theory is wrong, no matter how unlikely).
5) Dinosaurs exist all around us. We have domesticated some of them, we eat others and yet others still roam wild and free. Some people have pet dinosaurs and others even race them or exhibit them in shows.
The notion that Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago is wrong - they didn't. There are currently at least 8,000 or more species of dinosaur in the world - they never died out and are doing very nicely thank-you. The notion that chimps evolved from Dinosaurs is silly and I don't know why you even mention it...evolution theory does not suggest anything of the sort - the phylogeny (family tree) of the primates is here if you want to see where chimps belong.
and here is the family tree for dinosaurs:
PS - if you don't understand where all the dinosaurs went...look upwards....
| Quote: |
| 3) Earth was never a perfect life supporting environment and, frequently in it's history, it has been rather the reverse. |
Something to add to that: There is no such thing as something being "perfect for life" life can survive and thrive in many environment, environment we think of as hostile. Life has been found in boiling watter of Yellow Stone, deep with in the crust feeding on rock, at the bottom of the ocean around hydrothermal vents, on a probe sent to the moon, life even survived in a probe sent to the moon it survived the vacuum of space. With the right adaptations life could survive on Venus or Mars.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
But this conflates two separate issues. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis (start of life) so your problem is with abiogenesis not with evolution surely? |
True, they are separate issues, but if you discredit intelligent design, then you must have some explanation of how life came to be in the first place.
| Conspirator wrote: |
|
As Bikerman said, they are separate issues. Even if though the chances of life forming are small (we don't actually know that, but its more probable than it being common) that dose not mean life is going to form somewhere. Its like a lottery, you buy a lottery ticket that has 7 numbers 1 through 37 with an odd of winning 1 in 10295472.00, if enough people buy a ticket (an there are fools out there that but more than one, some buy many. Makes you proud to be human doesn't it)some one will match all numbers. If you have enough planets, life will form somewhere. And here is that somewhere |
Ah, there's at least a partial sympathizer for my thoughts in a certain thread in the philosophy forum...
Not necessarily. I would think that the odds against it happening far outweigh the number of planets capable of supporting life.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
|
True, they are separate issues, but if you discredit intelligent design, then you must have some explanation of how life came to be in the first place. |
Evolutionary theory starts with simple life and explains diversification and speciation. How that first single-cell life originated has no bearing on evolutionary theory and the reverse may also be true.
Alright, so we'll drop that for now,
Still, what about the different number of chromosomes in different animals?
A few small differences in a genome is a mutation I could fathom, but how could a creature gain or loose an entire chromosome and still be able to survive, and in fact, benefit from it?
Still, what about the different number of chromosomes in different animals?
A few small differences in a genome is a mutation I could fathom, but how could a creature gain or loose an entire chromosome and still be able to survive, and in fact, benefit from it?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Alright, so we'll drop that for now,
Still, what about the different number of chromosomes in different animals? A few small differences in a genome is a mutation I could fathom, but how could a creature gain or loose an entire chromosome and still be able to survive, and in fact, benefit from it? |
Quite easily.....we are a good case in point. The male 'Y' chromosome has lost a huge amount of genetic importance over time. Male Y chromosome used to have 1,438 genes, and only have 78 now. The reason is a bit involved and I'm no biologist, but I'll try to run through an explanation (references at the end).
Around 300 million years ago, the ancestors of mammals had two X chromosomes. Then, in an 'evolutionary moment', the SRY gene was mutated onto one of these X chromosomes. This gene had the function of telling the body to ignore everything else and become a male. To avoid being weeded out, the gene needed to stop exchanging DNA with the other X chromosome, as I'll try to explain.
DNA repairs itself using a process called recombination which means that pairs of chromosomes exchange DNA material and repair damage in the process. In order to avoid being weeded out in the recombination process the Y chromosome stopped recombination with the X and this meant that the SRY gene survived. It also, however, meant that the Y chromosome shrunk and shrunk and shed over 1000 genes to its 78 today. Some scientists think the decline will continue and that within a few thousand years the chromosome will disappear completely. The question then, of course, is how do we get males. There are, luckily, solutions to the problem since the SRY gene simple does in one go the job of several other genes. It is a bit like the master switch on an electrical supply cab - it switches several other genes off/on in one operation. Some animals can manage without the Y chromosome by carrying out the individual gene switching without the need for the 'master switch' which is the SRY gene. For instance, a weird little rodent from Asia called the mole vole has completely lost its Y chromosome (and the SRY gene!).
Other scientists think that the Y will be around for a long time to come and point out that there are 2 copies of the most important genes on the Y and that the Y has now 'learned' to recombine locally using these copies, instead of recombining with the other X chromosome as it originally did.
I hope that explains it without too much confusion.....
References:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1710838.htm
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=51
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_7_111/ai_91040458
| ocalhoun wrote: |
|
[color=green]Not necessarily. I would think that the odds against it happening far outweigh the number of planets capable of supporting life. |
You don't seem to know the scope of the universe, hundreds of billions of galaxy's, with hundreds of billions of stars. Thats hundreds of billions times hundreds of billions thats a number with nine zeros at least and I strongly doubt that the chances are anywhere near that small, its probably 1 in millions not in a number that big.
What I don't understand is how some religious people seem to equate evolution with utter blasphemy. I'm not sure how these people cope with all of the technology, science, and medical breakthroughs happening around them. I mean, do they not believe in... I dunno... the known universe? The Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics? I mean really, that is by FAR more blasphemous and difficult to accept than evolution, but it's the foundation of most of our modern technological advances in the past 40 years. I think at some point you have to reconcile the fact that science is what it is, it's not a faith in and of itself. All these theories, QM, Evolution, General Relativity, are our attempt to write down what we observe. There are definite ways to reconcile religion and faith with science.
As I've said before in other threads of a similar theme, I see no conflict between the Bible and the theory of evolution. And that does not mean that I believe in "Intelligent Design." As a Christian, I do believe in a God who was/is a creative force, though. Maybe the only thing He did was ensure the accuracy of the gravitational constant. Maybe He interfered more or less than that. Personally I don't think it matters since that is not the point of scripture.
So unless someone takes the Bible to be a science text book, which I don't think it was ever intended to be, there is no conflict.
Respectfully,
M
So unless someone takes the Bible to be a science text book, which I don't think it was ever intended to be, there is no conflict.
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
So unless someone takes the Bible to be a science text book, which I don't think it was ever intended to be, there is no conflict. |
OK - let me ask this, then. Are there any physical, testable 'truths' in the bible that you believe cannot and/or should not be interpreted allegorically or metaphorically. In other words are there any facts which you regard as non-negotiable (other than thngs like 'love god' or 'love thy neighbour' which I have no problem with and think to be sound advice, but that can be said in much less space and much more clearly...what are the bedrock facts which holds up your faith? Which doctrinal matters do you regard as both crucial and factual?
I ask in all politeness, and out of my own personal interest, not malice or mischief
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
OK - let me ask this, then. Are there any physical, testable 'truths' in the bible that you believe cannot and/or should not be interpreted allegorically or metaphorically. In other words are there any facts which you regard as non-negotiable (other than thngs like 'love god' or 'love thy neighbour' which I have no problem with and think to be sound advice, but that can be said in much less space and much more clearly...what are the bedrock facts which holds up your faith? Which doctrinal matters do you regard as both crucial and factual? I ask in all politeness, and out of my own personal interest, not malice or mischief |
Off the top of my head, the only "bedrock facts" for me would be that Jesus Christ was/is the son of God, took human form by immaculate conception, lived a sinless life, died by crucifixion and was resurrected three days later. If Jesus is not the son of God and there is no resurrection then Christianity is false.
However, I don't think any of these are testable.
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
Off the top of my head, the only "bedrock facts" for me would be that Jesus Christ was/is the son of God, took human form by immaculate conception, lived a sinless life, died by crucifixion and was resurrected three days later. If Jesus is not the son of God and there is no resurrection then Christianity is false. However, I don't think any of these are testable. |
Fair enough. My position is the latter, as you know, but I have no intention to attack beliefs simply for the sake of it and if someone tells me that they believe things which cannot be tested then the only proper response I can and should make is...fine, your choice, and why not.
Anti evolution people, listin to this ( go to about 18 minuets and 45 seconds into it.)
Evolution is proven.. anythging else just doesnt make sense..
Evolution vs creationism
ah the old argument ...
Is it hard to believe that someone somewhere created everything that we see? The universe is so large and we don't know a fraction of what is out there. If we look at ourselves we can create something like an ant farm. Do the ants think that there was a big bang and suddenly there was an ant farm? or a beehive for that matter.
could a supernatural being have created and yet we cannot see him? It seems impossible, nothing is created by speaking a word and all of it in 6 days. It takes faith to believe and some people just don't want to believe.
Is it hard to believe that we, live other living things, evolved from a more primitive being? We can see the correlations btween us and other primates, so that is easy. But where is the "missing link"? That being that is living that we can prove where the two species diverged? Why are there still fish in the sea if every thing evolved from sea creatures? Why is a pig heart and a human heart so close in design yet another primate is not?
Both are easy to believe and equally hard. Its down to the individual to make up their own mind ...
ah the old argument ...
Is it hard to believe that someone somewhere created everything that we see? The universe is so large and we don't know a fraction of what is out there. If we look at ourselves we can create something like an ant farm. Do the ants think that there was a big bang and suddenly there was an ant farm? or a beehive for that matter.
could a supernatural being have created and yet we cannot see him? It seems impossible, nothing is created by speaking a word and all of it in 6 days. It takes faith to believe and some people just don't want to believe.
Is it hard to believe that we, live other living things, evolved from a more primitive being? We can see the correlations btween us and other primates, so that is easy. But where is the "missing link"? That being that is living that we can prove where the two species diverged? Why are there still fish in the sea if every thing evolved from sea creatures? Why is a pig heart and a human heart so close in design yet another primate is not?
Both are easy to believe and equally hard. Its down to the individual to make up their own mind ...
| springbok wrote: |
| Evolution vs creationism
ah the old argument ... Is it hard to believe that someone somewhere created everything that we see? The universe is so large and we don't know a fraction of what is out there. If we look at ourselves we can create something like an ant farm. Do the ants think that there was a big bang and suddenly there was an ant farm? or a beehive for that matter. could a supernatural being have created and yet we cannot see him? It seems impossible, nothing is created by speaking a word and all of it in 6 days. It takes faith to believe and some people just don't want to believe. Is it hard to believe that we, live other living things, evolved from a more primitive being? We can see the correlations btween us and other primates, so that is easy. But where is the "missing link"? That being that is living that we can prove where the two species diverged? Why are there still fish in the sea if every thing evolved from sea creatures? Why is a pig heart and a human heart so close in design yet another primate is not? Both are easy to believe and equally hard. Its down to the individual to make up their own mind ... |
The individual is free to believe whatever nonsense they want. They can believe the Earth was shat out by Brahma if they want.
But creationism and "intelligent" design are not science. Period. Look up a definition of science. They don't fit.
Believe whatever the hell you want. But don't think for a moment that what you believe is scientific unless it satisfies the requirements for being scientific.
if our world wasnt the perfect place for life in the first place.. we wouldn't be alive, which means it isnt exactly chance that a place like the earth has life
| Indi wrote: |
| But creationism and "intelligent" design are not science. Period. Look up a definition of science. They don't fit. |
Agreed.
| Bofia wrote: |
| if our world wasnt the perfect place for life in the first place.. we wouldn't be alive, which means it isnt exactly chance that a place like the earth has life |
Unless multiverse theory is correct. If it is then the fact that we exist is downright inevitable.
Respectfully,
M
| Bofia wrote: |
| if our world wasnt the perfect place for life in the first place.. we wouldn't be alive, which means it isnt exactly chance that a place like the earth has life |
Theres is no such thing as perfect for life, sure its good enough for life as we know it but its far from perfect and life as we know it isn't the only way for life to live. Bacteria can feed of rock deep inside, creators live deep in the ocean near black smokers in total darkness. There care many ways fro life to survival and thrive and many more that we are unaware of.
| The Conspirator wrote: | ||
Theres is no such thing as perfect for life, sure its good enough for life as we know it but its far from perfect and life as we know it isn't the only way for life to live. Bacteria can feed of rock deep inside, creators live deep in the ocean near black smokers in total darkness. There care many ways fro life to survival and thrive and many more that we are unaware of. |
I think Bofia was referring more to things that must be exact amounts for life to exist at all, such as the gravitational constant and the mass of our sun just to name two.
Respectfully,
M
But even if you change the strength of the gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and week forces that won't make life imposable, it can even make life more possible and even if you change them dramatically, that won't make life imposable, life could still form, just not life that could exist in this universe.
The problem is people keep thinking of life as life as we know it but on other worlds the environment could be very different than then the environment on earth and life could still flourish and if you add in the possibility of other universes with different laws of physics, well literately anything is possible.
The problem is people keep thinking of life as life as we know it but on other worlds the environment could be very different than then the environment on earth and life could still flourish and if you add in the possibility of other universes with different laws of physics, well literately anything is possible.
evolution is the best idea ever. there is nothing so fascinating like evolution, there are also scientific proofs of this so i'm sure of this teory.
Local evolution makes complete sense - why pelicans develop large beaks than other species for example to catch more fish etc
however the natural state of the universe is entropic ie tends towards chaos. In this background, how does natural chance and survival of the fittest allow single celled amoeba to eventually evolve to human beings and everything else. Something is missing somewhere.
however the natural state of the universe is entropic ie tends towards chaos. In this background, how does natural chance and survival of the fittest allow single celled amoeba to eventually evolve to human beings and everything else. Something is missing somewhere.
| j_f_k wrote: |
| Local evolution makes complete sense - why pelicans develop large beaks than other species for example to catch more fish etc
however the natural state of the universe is entropic ie tends towards chaos. In this background, how does natural chance and survival of the fittest allow single celled amoeba to eventually evolve to human beings and everything else. Something is missing somewhere. |
Entropy ≠ chaos or disorder. The two are analogous but not identical. Entropy is a measure of useless energy - energy unavailable to do work. Recent work has show cases where systems with higher degrees of molecular order has higher entropy. There is a move in modern physics to dissociate the idea of disorder from entropy.
So what was missing was a proper understanding of what entropy is. The universe does not tend towards chaos, it tends towards a state where there is no available energy. The universe may be totally and completely, perfectly ordered in that state, from a molecular perspective, but be perfectly entropic at the same time.
| j_f_k wrote: |
| Local evolution makes complete sense - why pelicans develop large beaks than other species for example to catch more fish etc
however the natural state of the universe is entropic ie tends towards chaos. In this background, how does natural chance and survival of the fittest allow single celled amoeba to eventually evolve to human beings and everything else. Something is missing somewhere. |
Evolution is about passing from one form of life (species) to a different form of life. The real tricky parts are the beginning (from non-life to life) and the end (man different from the other primates).
First problem: passing fron non-life to life! It's not in the scope of the evolution!? Maybe.
Second problem: unthinking life forms to man. Birth of conscience?
| b|ade wrote: |
| Also, I completely understand evolution but I said it doesn't make sense in way of it not being logical, instead of it meaning I was not able to understand evolution.
|
Ok, so you're saying it's not logical, I guess you mean it's not logical to assume a chimp had a human baby and that's where we came from. The point is over hundreds of generations, the differences between a chimp and a human added up to enough that we became a separate species.
You want logical? Try thinking about the stuff that a bunch of blood thirsty tribes wrote down 2,000 years ago as the factual basis for creation.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Bacteria can feed of rock deep inside, creators live deep in the ocean near black smokers in total darkness. |
I've never disagreed with a word Conspirator says, I just had to laugh at the typo. So that's where the Creators live!
| smarter wrote: |
|
First problem: passing fron non-life to life! It's not in the scope of the evolution!? Maybe. |
No...Not maybe. It is NOT in the scope of evolution.Evolution describes how life changes, it has nothing to say about how life began.
| mOrpheuS wrote: |
| Please put copied text within quote tags |
I subscribe to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
| Quote: |
| The Church of the FSM, while having existed in secrecy for hundreds of years, only recently came into the mainstream when a letter (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/) was published in May 2005.
With millions, if not thousands, of devout worshippers, the Church of the FSM is widely considered a legitimate religion, even by its opponents - mostly fundamentalist Christians, who have accepted that our God has larger balls than theirs. Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment, satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, but rather a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push Creationism into public schools. These people are mistaken. The Church of FSM is real, totally legit, and backed by hard science. Anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental. |
For more information, please visit: http://www.venganza.org/
| Indi wrote: | ||
Entropy ≠ chaos or disorder. The two are analogous but not identical. Entropy is a measure of useless energy - energy unavailable to do work. Recent work has show cases where systems with higher degrees of molecular order has higher entropy. There is a move in modern physics to dissociate the idea of disorder from entropy. So what was missing was a proper understanding of what entropy is. The universe does not tend towards chaos, it tends towards a state where there is no available energy. The universe may be totally and completely, perfectly ordered in that state, from a molecular perspective, but be perfectly entropic at the same time. |
Also relevant to this discussion is that a biological organism (or a population, for that matter) is not a closed system, so entropy could still be increasing locally.
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
|
Also relevant to this discussion is that a biological organism (or a population, for that matter) is not a closed system, so entropy could still be increasing locally. |
I think it is actually stronger than that. Entropy IS increasing. Consider that the energy received (sunlight) is highly organised (low entropy) and the energy produced by life is highly disorganised (high entropy).
(I should clarify that I know that definition of entropy is a bit general and inexact, but it works in this example.)
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
I think it is actually stronger than that. Entropy IS increasing. Consider that the energy received (sunlight) is highly organised (low entropy) and the energy produced by life is highly disorganised (high entropy). (I should clarify that I know that definition of entropy is a bit general and inexact, but it works in this example.) |
Whoops, I meant to say it could be decreasing with respect to the organism, but is definitely still increasing when the system is taken into account. But my understanding of entropy is very shaky.
My own understanding was just as shaky. I have to thank Indi for correcting me and forcing me to read up on the issue.
I always wondered if people that believe in the evolutionary theory, also believe in Adam and Eve being the first man and women on Earth.
*Think About It:
If Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth, wouldn't we all be related to each other?
And if they were genetically perfect, why aren't we?
Respectfulness,
Blade
*Think About It:
If Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth, wouldn't we all be related to each other?
And if they were genetically perfect, why aren't we?
Respectfulness,
Blade
| b|ade wrote: |
| I always wondered if people that believe in the evolutionary theory, also believe in Adam and Eve being the first man and women on Earth.
*Think About It: If Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth, wouldn't we all be related to each other? And if they were genetically perfect, why aren't we? Respectfulness, Blade |
There is no way I can see that you can accept evolution and also accept the story of Adam and Eve since Adam and Eve did not evolve. On the broader issue, we DO share a common ancestor so we are all related to each other in a sense. I don't know if the bible says that Adam and Eve were genetically perfect - I don't read that into the story myself. It is also perfectly possible to accept evolution and still be a Christian - most Christian churches accept evolution, there are a minority who don't.
So tierd of this kind of discussion Evolution seems to strange it can be true lets take ID is sound easier. Read about evolution then you see the dinosarius and monkeys has no realtionship. ID has no proof, eveidence nothing that support the theory. It is just fanactic religus persons that mix and manipulate evidenc for ID.
If you wnat to belive in ID you can belive on santa to.
If you wnat to belive in ID you can belive on santa to.
If you look at how super bacteria and fruit flies are bred under controlled conditions, it is obvious that evolution is there, but i have a feeling that something else is going on to control all that. Well who knows, really.
| chris20 wrote: |
| If you look at how super bacteria and fruit flies are bred under controlled conditions, it is obvious that evolution is there, but i have a feeling that something else is going on to control all that. Well who knows, really. |
Evolution is, by definition, not a controlled process.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
There is no way I can see that you can accept evolution and also accept the story of Adam and Eve since Adam and Eve did not evolve. On the broader issue, we DO share a common ancestor so we are all related to each other in a sense. I don't know if the bible says that Adam and Eve were genetically perfect - I don't read that into the story myself. It is also perfectly possible to accept evolution and still be a Christian - most Christian churches accept evolution, there are a minority who don't. |
There was a Jewish theologian in the first or second century AD I believe (forgive me for I am going by memory and cannot remember the name and I may be off by a few centuries give or take) who taught that Adam and Eve were not the first humans, just the first humans with souls. He believed that God took them (or at least Adam) out of a population of humans that already existed on Earth, gave them souls and set them apart. This explains the otherwise perplexing passages after Cain murders his brother, where Cain fears being attacked by people after he is exiled. If the story of Adam and Eve is taken to be absolutely literal, there would be no other humans in existence for him to fear.
As far as I know (which isnt saying much!), this is a commonly accepted position in Judaism.
Respectfully,
M
I think there is evidence that evolution is currently occurring (bacteria and other quickly replicating organisms) but there is no proof that evolution is how life began or that we all originated from the same organism. No one has found the root of the tree of life.
As a Christian, I believe in Creationism as the way that life came to be. I think it can all fit together... God created all different types of organisms (bacteria, plants, animals, ...) but at the same time evolution occurs as organisms adapt to their environment.
As a Christian, I believe in Creationism as the way that life came to be. I think it can all fit together... God created all different types of organisms (bacteria, plants, animals, ...) but at the same time evolution occurs as organisms adapt to their environment.
Well thats fine and all but I still haven't found the root to your tree of life, God, either.
Deities (God, Rah, Allah etc) are a simple solution to a complex problem.
However, it has been proven that the more educated a state, the less likely it is to have a religious majority (it's more secular).
The fact of the matter is, apart from the USA, there is no developed country in the world with a higher level non-secularism... the polarisation of the US is ridiculous.
Shame, shame, shame... most of the world's countries hate you (because you voted for such a *$#!@#.) I'm not religious at all but the faux pas is all yours....
If your president continues to waste money on a BS war about nothing, you are going down. Vote him out before you get dragged down with his stupid drunken ass.
However, it has been proven that the more educated a state, the less likely it is to have a religious majority (it's more secular).
The fact of the matter is, apart from the USA, there is no developed country in the world with a higher level non-secularism... the polarisation of the US is ridiculous.
Shame, shame, shame... most of the world's countries hate you (because you voted for such a *$#!@#.) I'm not religious at all but the faux pas is all yours....
If your president continues to waste money on a BS war about nothing, you are going down. Vote him out before you get dragged down with his stupid drunken ass.
Not sure what that last part has to do with the topic but we don't need to vote him out. He'll be gone soon, too bad the damage has been done.
Ok, back on topic please!
Ok, back on topic please! |