It was really unrealistic to believe the "Concepts" of Darwin. However on one fine Wednesday, just 9 years ago, I was in the class waiting the Biology teacher, flipping the pages of Biology, I accedentally got a lesson descriping how human beings deriveed from monkeys... I was unhappy to hear that however the teacher come and explained the way that humans were derived from monkeys, along the time line as the days pass, the humans change their physical appearance bit by bit...
Incredible... One year ago I come across nearly the most practiced religions on earth... I read all the contents of the Holly Bible and all the contents of all the Holy Quran (Koran, the Muslim Holy Book), however I believed that the two Holy Scriptures have more features in common, specially they have related verses in the topic of the creation of humans, the uncestors of the human beings and much more... From there, I disbelieve the Darwinism, because, the heavenly scriptures are better than the theories of the Human Beings!
So, my question here is: Do you believe the Darwinism, and if yes, Why?
[/b]
I'm not religious (because I've yet to hear any solid reason to believe in any organized religion), so I don't believe in creationism. Evolution is a theory, it might be wrong, but since it seems to be the best explanation of how different species developed and are similar to each other in certain ways, I believe it.
I have a sense Darwin was half right - things evolve but the origin of life did not evolve here...
If a half yes on Darwins theory -> mutations in nature seem to sometimes be functionel.
| spinout wrote: |
I have a sense Darwin was half right - things evolve but the origin of life did not evolve here...
If a half yes on Darwins theory -> mutations in nature seem to sometimes be functionel. |
Darwin never claimed that life originated on Earth. Aside from a few comments and suggestions to colleagues, Darwin said very little on the topic of the origin of life.
Besides, you are aware that modern evolutionary theory has moved far beyond Darwinism, aren't you? Darwinism is a hundred year-old theory. We've moved on. Try to keep up, now.The theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection which are the real objects of this debate, are different and this should be noted.
Natural selection says that some animals survive and pass on their genes, and so animals change. This is obviously true or partly ture because a) artificial selection has worked in many animals, e.g. cows. b) animals are different.
Evolution depends on a mutation which causes a beneficial mutation which enables the organism to survive. There are masses of unaddressed problems with evolution which are ignored or unrealised. That's not to say evolution is completely wrong. I'm just saying evolutionists need to consider the evidence against, not just the evidence for.
Further complicating, whether evolution is true or not, both sides of the evolutionist debate use the same evidence which is entirely confusing. Pro-evols will say that the fossil record shows life gradually developed. Anti-evols will say the fossil record shows life began suddenly and that many evolved creates have existed before they evolved.
However some think there are only two sides to this debate: evolutionism and creationism. But there are other theories. E.g. intelligent design although some will say this is not a theory but an attempt by religious followers to put forward creationism again.
But, ID (intelligent design) is different to creationism. ID states we have been designed in other words: creater(s) designed us to become what we are.
This could potentially fuse both evolution and creationism.
Well, that's just some of my thoughts.
may God bless you al.
| loyal wrote: |
| Evolution depends on a mutation which causes a beneficial mutation which enables the organism to survive. There are masses of unaddressed problems with evolution which are ignored or unrealised. That's not to say evolution is completely wrong. I'm just saying evolutionists need to consider the evidence against, not just the evidence for. |
False. Evolution does not depend on beneficial mutations. I would guess that, for the most part, random beneficial mutations and genome rearrangements are not responsible for evolution. Rather, evolution probably works most effectively by altering expression of pre-existing quantitative traits, or by epigenetic effects.
Many fitness traits are quantitative, relying on multiple alleles on multiple genes. Height is a good example. Many genes effect height, and height is more or less normally distributed. If selection began to favor shorter individuals, the expression mode would shift towards shorter individuals. I would hazard a guess that modulation of quantitative trait expression is the most common form of early genetic change in populations. Note that in this case evolution occurs on alleles already present in the population!
| Quote: |
| Pro-evols will say that the fossil record shows life gradually developed. |
This is Darwinist thinking - the fossil record actually indicates that evolution occurs in fits and starts and that evolutionary change is more like a phase shift than a gradual change. Creationists are right to point out that the fossil record does not show a gradual, Darwinist, evolutonary process, but they are also taking advantage of the naivity of the public. Scientists are well aware that the fossil record does not match gradualist predictions, but that it does match predictions made by modern evolutionary theory.
In reality, we can observe natural evolution in extant populations. Invasive species are causing ecological disruptions that result in rapid, decade-scale evolution of both the invasive and the native species. In another example, pre-speciation processes may have been observed in a population of fruit flies, which has expanded it's host range to plants that do not fruit simultaneously. This results in reproductive isolation of the subpopulations, and a total loss in gene flow.
Last edited by Gagnar The Unruly on Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:19 am; edited 1 time in total | loyal wrote: |
But, ID (intelligent design) is different to creationism. ID states we have been designed in other words: creater(s) designed us to become what we are. |
Actually, ID is evolution, except that it was guided by another intelligence (presumably a higher intelligence). Panspermia is the one that implies that we created on other worlds...
HMI believe that evolution is the best available explanation for the changes in the fossil record.
Also...
| Quote: |
| From there, I disbelieve the Darwinism, because, the heavenly scriptures are better than the theories of the Human Beings! |
...I believe that the "heavenly scriptures" are also theories of human beings. And I've yet to see any evidence at all of their being anything else. Religion can do wonderful things for people on individual levels, by allowing them to re-evaluate themselves and change destructive traits. But when the cosmology of a religion falls out of sync with what is observably true to the average human, the religion can cease to be useful. That's about where I am, and I'm sure a lot of people are in the same place.
Why can't looking at the fossil record and seeing the wonder of what actually is and actually has been be a religious experience? Looking out into the night sky and experiencing awe at the vastness of space compared to the tininess of humanity and all its knowlege - why can't that be a religious experience? The most spiritual moments I've ever experienced were those spent pondering mysteries. Why cling to ancient books that purport to tell you the truth of the universe, but fall short of even truthfully describing the earth? | Quote: |
| From there, I disbelieve the Darwinism, because, the heavenly scriptures are better than the theories of the Human Beings! |
How did I miss that? Weird...You'd think someone who paid attention to The Bible would realize that Evolution and The Bible match up rather well...
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| loyal wrote: |
But, ID (intelligent design) is different to creationism. ID states we have been designed in other words: creater(s) designed us to become what we are. |
Actually, ID is evolution, except that it was guided by another intelligence (presumably a higher intelligence). Panspermia is the one that implies that we created on other worlds...
HM |
Err....hmm.....actually, ID is a re branding of YEC (Young Earth Creationism) in the main, with a small element of older-earth and other creationist sects.
The Intelligence implicit in the title has never been assumed to be anything other than the Christian God of the bible - this is not some abstract philosophical line of thought based purely on developing a particular line of reasoning - this is opportunism coupled with necessity (creationism is largely discredited and, more importantly, seen as such by the majority in the West - ID offered a new brand with a veneer of academic bona-fides provided by the tame science/maths lecturers in the club - mainly Dembski and Behe).
ID should be seen for what it is and not given any grander, more inclusive or more intellectually dispassionate spin. If in doubt check the chief protagonists of the 'view' and you will find the same old names singing the same old songs - they just shifted the key a semitone and carried on singing...... | Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| loyal wrote: | | Evolution depends on a mutation which causes a beneficial mutation which enables the organism to survive. There are masses of unaddressed problems with evolution which are ignored or unrealised. That's not to say evolution is completely wrong. I'm just saying evolutionists need to consider the evidence against, not just the evidence for. |
False. Evolution does not depend on beneficial mutations. I would guess that, for the most part, random beneficial mutations and genome rearrangements are not responsible for evolution. Rather, evolution probably works most effectively by altering expression of pre-existing quantitative traits, or by epigenetic effects.
|
That's the near the same thing. Evolution is where organisms have mutations that are beneficial for them, enabling them to survive better. The mutations occur in the genes passed on to the offspring.
There are other ways too to evolve. See wikipedia.
| Quote: |
...note that in this case evolution occurs on alleles already present in the population!
|
i'm not really interested in how, nor was i trying to say exactly how it happens.
But, i DO know that it happens in existing alleles. I would have thought that would be common sense. Where else would they occur? Alleles that don't exist?
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Pro-evols will say that the fossil record shows life gradually developed. |
This is Darwinist thinking - the fossil record actually indicates that evolution occurs in fits and starts and that evolutionary change is more like a phase shift than a gradual change. Creationists are right to point out that the fossil record does not show a gradual, Darwinist, evolutonary process, but they are also taking advantage of the naivity of the public. Scientists are well aware that the fossil record does not match gradualist predictions, but that it does match predictions made by modern evolutionary theory.
|
Very well. my statement can simply be amended to "life developed".
Peace. | Bikerman wrote: |
| HereticMonkey wrote: | | loyal wrote: |
But, ID (intelligent design) is different to creationism. ID states we have been designed in other words: creater(s) designed us to become what we are. |
Actually, ID is evolution, except that it was guided by another intelligence (presumably a higher intelligence). Panspermia is the one that implies that we created on other worlds...
HM |
Err....hmm.....actually, ID is a re branding of YEC (Young Earth Creationism) in the main, with a small element of older-earth and other creationist sects.
The Intelligence implicit in the title has never been assumed to be anything other than the Christian God of the bible - this is not some abstract philosophical line of thought based purely on developing a particular line of reasoning - this is opportunism coupled with necessity (creationism is largely discredited and, more importantly, seen as such by the majority in the West - ID offered a new brand with a veneer of academic bona-fides provided by the tame science/maths lecturers in the club - mainly Dembski and Behe).
ID should be seen for what it is and not given any grander, more inclusive or more intellectually dispassionate spin. If in doubt check the chief protagonists of the 'view' and you will find the same old names singing the same old songs - they just shifted the key a semitone and carried on singing...... |
That may be true bikerman, that the same people are promoting ID. But, ID is different to creationism. For we could be designed to evolve gradually (or in quick fits).
It's obvious that pure creationism is wrong, and that natural selection (notice the name of the theory...not evolution), has played a part. ID seems to combine both.
may God bless you. | loyal wrote: |
| That may be true bikerman, that the same people are promoting ID. But, ID is different to creationism. |
'Fraid not.
| Quote: |
| For we could be designed to evolve gradually (or in quick fits). |
And creation could itself have been staged or 'stepped' - there is no fundamental problem with that is there?
| Quote: |
| It's obvious that pure creationism is wrong, and that natural selection (notice the name of the theory...not evolution) |
I think I know what Darwinian Natural Selection is and how it functions, but thanks for pointing it out anyway.... | Quote: |
| ID seems to combine both. |
Think a bit more about Natural Selection and you will see that it cannot be combined with ID or any other form of creationism in such a way.
Evolution (and the term is perfectly acceptable, once we agree that we are discussing Darwinian Natural Selection) does not need, and in fact cannot have, a designer standing in the shadows. The whole point is that random mutations are selected for in a particular manner which ensures 'useful' variation will survive via offspring. Nobody can 'know' in advance what the demands of the environment will be and which particular adaptions will prove most successful.
If there were a plan or a design then this could not and would not work since evolution is, by it's nature, non-deterministic and cannot be planned-out in advance.
You can have DNS/evolution or you can have ID?Creationism but you cannot have a bastard mix of the two because they are mutually exclusive.
| Quote: |
may God bless you. |
Peace be with you too.To Loyal:
The point I was trying to make is that many people have a misconception about the process of evolution. Specifically, they have this idea that some random, novel mutation pops up that suddenly increases the fitness of the affected organism and that this is the fundamental process that powers evolution. My mistake, I think, was in reading too much into your statement. I thought that you were implying that evoution acted immediately on novel mutations.
My argument was that when the mutations occur, they are not likely to have much of a fitness impact. In fact, they may even be deleterious, but not to the extent that they become removed from the gene pool. Only following an environmental change do these mutations become advantageous. And when they do become advantageous, they still may not be advantageous for all individuals in a population. Therefore, it's not really safe to say that evolution acts on beneficial mutations -- rather, it's better to say that evolution acts on genetic diversity. Evolution is a narrowing of genetic diversity, and as such, is a much more complex process then it is usually made out to be.
It may seem like nitpicking, but I think it raises an important point. I believe that many people have misconceptions when it comes to evolution, and it's my responsibility, as a person working towards becoming an expert on evolution, to make sure people have the most accurate and up-to-date understanding possible. I think a lot of the people who both attack and support evolution do so with an incomplete/out-of-date understanding of it.
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| It may seem like nitpicking, but I think it raises an important point. I believe that many people have misconceptions when it comes to evolution, and it's my responsibility, as a person working towards becoming an expert on evolution, to make sure people have the most accurate and up-to-date understanding possible. I think a lot of the people who both attack and support evolution do so with an incomplete/out-of-date understanding of it. |
<brief intrusion> I could not agree more. The attacks I see all the time tend to use 2 fallacious lines of argument:
1) Evolution is 'random'
2) How can 'random' changes be beneficial - surely the chances are way higher that they wouldn't.
Gagnar points out the problems well enough so I only need a quick summary:
The answer to 1) is go and read a book until you know at least enough to be literate on the notion. Evolution is NOT random - it is very far from random.
The answer to 2) is Yes - Quite Right! So it does, all the time. Spontaneous abortions occur regularly but we never see them.
Last edited by Bikerman on Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:44 pm; edited 1 time in totalDo I believe in Darwinism? Well the answer is very simple, NO!
I don't believe it! First of all it's based mostly on the research of ONLY one human, Darwin. Secondly I just can't stand the evolution theory, it's just something I can't believe! 
For me the Bible is the place where I find my answers! 
| Whong wrote: |
Do I believe in Darwinism? Well the answer is very simple, NO!
I don't believe it! First of all it's based mostly on the research of ONLY one human, Darwin. |
Are you serious? If you are then this is an astonishingly silly and inaccurate statement... | Quote: |
Secondly I just can't stand the evolution theory, it's just something I can't believe!
For me the Bible is the place where I find my answers! |
You don't have to believe in evolution - it will be true whether or not you do; so you can feel free to believe whatever makes you happy....
In a philosophy forum, however, I would have hoped for a bit more reasoning and a bit less silliness. | Bikerman wrote: |
The Intelligence implicit in the title has never been assumed to be anything other than the Christian God of the bible - this is not some abstract philosophical line of thought based purely on developing a particular line of reasoning - this is opportunism coupled with necessity (creationism is largely discredited and, more importantly, seen as such by the majority in the West - ID offered a new brand with a veneer of academic bona-fides provided by the tame science/maths lecturers in the club - mainly Dembski and Behe). |
Although I agree that it is the Christian God, not everyone who believes in it is necessary opportunistic, nor necessarily believes it should be taught in school (it is a religious belief after all).
| Quote: |
| ID should be seen for what it is and not given any grander, more inclusive or more intellectually dispassionate spin. If in doubt check the chief protagonists of the 'view' and you will find the same old names singing the same old songs - they just shifted the key a semitone and carried on singing...... |
Does that mean that I discredit atheist modes of thought just because I don't like the people involved, too?
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
The Intelligence implicit in the title has never been assumed to be anything other than the Christian God of the bible - this is not some abstract philosophical line of thought based purely on developing a particular line of reasoning - this is opportunism coupled with necessity (creationism is largely discredited and, more importantly, seen as such by the majority in the West - ID offered a new brand with a veneer of academic bona-fides provided by the tame science/maths lecturers in the club - mainly Dembski and Behe). |
Although I agree that it is the Christian God, not everyone who believes in it is necessary opportunistic, nor necessarily believes it should be taught in school (it is a religious belief after all). |
Perhaps not, but to say it is the equivalent of evolution, or muddy the issue by pretending it has some higher philosophical ground (as in an undefined idea of 'creation' and 'design') is simply misleading and inaccurate. ID is the newest form of creationism, pure and simple. It is not scientific, philosophical or genuinely sceptical, all of which would be fine by me. It represents a narrow and rather ridiculous interpretation of Christian scripture and uses any means possible to further their message, whether honest or not. It is essentially, I hope, a last attempt to reconcile the strict biblical interpretation of YECs and similar creationists (which was the norm a couple of centuries ago) with the views and teachings of science and philosophy in the modern world.
Clearly it is at odds with the majority of scientific and philosophical thought today and it is difficult to see how anyone of good faith could take the position, as many ID supporters do, that there is good science in the belief and that this is anything other than a fundamentalist, and rather ridiculous, personal belief system, which is irreconcilable with modern science and is supported by no evidence other than the bible.
(I keep resisting the urge to use my own derogatory abbreviation of 'ID supporter' in order to remain civil, so I have to keep checking I have not slipped and typed IDiot by mistake...oops..)
The attempt to introduce this drivel into school curriculum is only the most well known example of duplicity and extremism - there are many similar but less well documented and reported activities going on all the time. In the UK we already have nearly 100 schools infiltrated and taken over by this bunch. The latest manifestation call themselves 'Truth In Science' which is as clear an illustration of their duplicity as anything I could present myself. Peter Vardy set-up a whole bunch of schools which run on ID/Creationist type curricula as much as they dare (the National Curriculum is quite clear about what should be taught in science - they believe otherwise).
This is not some laughable crackpot minority - this is a large, powerful and determined group of people who seek to force their nonsense onto schoolchildren in their science lessons and, I believe, are amongst the most pernicious threats to the delivery of a decent education that I know of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_in_Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | ID should be seen for what it is and not given any grander, more inclusive or more intellectually dispassionate spin. If in doubt check the chief protagonists of the 'view' and you will find the same old names singing the same old songs - they just shifted the key a semitone and carried on singing...... |
Does that mean that I discredit atheist modes of thought just because I don't like the people involved, too? |
It has nothing to do with the personalities involved or other peripheral matters. It is entirely a matter of their actions and words - ie what they openly say they wish to do and how they justify it.
I do not judge an argument on the clothes of the protagonist or any other such nonsense - I have debated long and hard with Creationists and latterly ID supporters for years. My distaste for them (and it is certainly true that I DO dislike the ones I've met - I admit that openly) is driven by their behaviour in open debate, which makes frequent and, to me indefensible, use of the tactics of the propagandist, if not the pathological liar. The frequent manipulation, distortion and downright lying about facts and statements is, to me, unforgivable in any debate from any debater - it just so happens that, in this group, we see combined the worst elements of the fundamentalist zealot, who believes almost any action is justified by their faith. Their argument is so weak that it does not survive in the adult world so they know that to keep their belief alive they need to take a leaf from the Catholic's book - get them young, still at school, before their critical faculties are fully developed.
I find it abhorrent, dishonest, and infuriating.
If you find a bunch of atheists like that then, yes, I think you should be very careful in your dealings with them and take what they say with a large pinch of salt. I certainly would and the fact that I am an atheist is completely beside the point. | Bikerman wrote: |
And creation could itself have been staged or 'stepped' - there is no fundamental problem with that is there?
|
Could you please rephrase that, cos i don't understand what you mean?
| Quote: |
Think a bit more about Natural Selection and you will see that it cannot be combined with ID or any other form of creationism in such a way.
|
I read your posts and understand that you are saying creationists have reput forward their theory under a new name.
But i still don't see a problem with the general idea of ID: being(s) designed us.
Assuming, they were of a higher intelligence, why could they have not designed us to evolve?
| Quote: |
...The whole point is that random mutations are selected for in a particular manner which ensures 'useful' variation will survive via offspring.
|
But probability states that there is a chance, no matter how small, that a mutation could be selected by random. The designers could have used mathematics to ensure a particular mutation would have definitely been selected.
| Quote: |
Nobody can 'know' in advance what the demands of the environment will be and which particular adaptions will prove most successful.
|
But we can easily predict what will happen. Scientists have learned to predict a lot of things. I'm not saying all things, but certainly alot of things.
Peace. | loyal wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | And creation could itself have been staged or 'stepped' - there is no fundamental problem with that is there?
|
Could you please rephrase that, cos i don't understand what you mean? |
OK...I'll go slower. Creation implies a creator which, in turn implies that the creator meant to create and therefore created 'something' in a particular way with a particular outcome in mind (otherwise the creator would be simply throwing the dice and seeing where they landed. That, strangely, is the most plausible creator scenario as far as I can see. Unlikely though it certainly is, it is at least conceivable that some highly developed entity simply caused a bang to see what would happen and eventually here we are. That is hugely more conceivable and, I think, more understandable,
than the notion that some entity caused a bang knowing exactly what would be the result billions of years into the future. That is too much for me to accept - even before we consider the philosophical implications involved - questions of free will, good, evil, responsibility, omniscience and the rest. The whole scenario is way to extreme and unlikely yo spend time actually considering, for me, even if there were a prospect of a useful outcome from such considerations - which there isn't. But let's consider your point a bit more generously and carefully...
You say that a creator could have created a starting point and then left nature to take it's course resulting in evolution and, eventually us. That is a reasonable point - it is the view taken by Deists, for example. My objection to that is that the creator would seem to be pretty redundant. By current reckoning the earliest that the creator could have 'set things going' is a bit over 13 billion years ago. So the creator sets in motion a 'Big Bang' which eventually leads to the formation of galaxies and stars, in turn leading to the creation of the earth and finally the creation of life which eventually, via evolution, leads to us.
The creator, therefore, does one small thing 13odd billion years ago, and the rest we can explain quite happily using physics.
My point is that this is such a small thing that it would be more sensible, having already relegated the creator to this bit-part, rather than his previous starring role, to go the whole way and eliminate the creator completely.
If we say a creator started the Big Bang, what new information does that give us? It actually tells us nothing more than if we were to assume that the BB was caused by a natural phenomenon.
In both cases we cannot (yet) explain how the BB came about, so assuming that it was supernaturally inspired (as opposed to the rest of the 13 billion years which we can explain pretty well) would seem to me to be a very strange step indeed.
The introduction of the notion of a creator does not solve any new problem or give any new information in our struggle to explain our place in the universe. We are in exactly the same situation as before we introduced the notion, no better off at all.
In such cases, science tells us that we should use Occam's Razor and eliminate any unnecessary steps in our chain of reasoning - this would tell us that the whole notion of a creator is redundant and should be discarded.
| Quote: |
I read your posts and understand that you are saying creationists have reput forward their theory under a new name.
But i still don't see a problem with the general idea of ID: being(s) designed us.
Assuming, they were of a higher intelligence, why could they have not designed us to evolve? |
ID supporters do not say that - they know which God created us (they probably know his telephone number if their certainty is anything to judge by) - the vengeful and demanding God of the Jewish Bible is who they claim is the creator, and they do not make the allowances that you do here - they insist, almost to a person, that it happened like described in the Bible, specifically Genesis.
OK, lets consider this from a more detached and hypothetical perspective, as you seem to want to do.
Is it possible to have a designer at all?
I suppose it is but, as I said above, the notion brings nothing new or useful to the consideration of the central question implied in all this - the problem of existence and how to understand our role and place in the universe. It answers no questions and provides no new information or insights - therefore it is an extra complication and, I believe, quite unnecessary.
| Quote: |
| But probability states that there is a chance, no matter how small, that a mutation could be selected by random. The designers could have used mathematics to ensure a particular mutation would have definitely been selected. |
You are using probability in a way which is not appropriate or useful. Probability cannot 'select' in the way we mean here. Probability is simply the chance of some event occurring. A genetic mutation cannot be 'selected for' at Random as you suggest - the phrase is meaningless. The mutation occurs and the carrier of that mutation will either survive and breed or will not. The factors which come into play may be simple - if the mutation is obviously detrimental (as most are) the creature will probably never be born or will die very quickly. Even healthy animals have to survive in the fierce and cruel world of nature and unhealthy animals do not tend to last long. We forget this because we are well beyond the stage of having to devote all our energies into simply surviving but most animals do not have that option.
If the mutation is marginal then the creature will probably live a relatively normal life and may or may not pass the gene through to future generations. If the mutation is beneficial (very very very rare) then there is a good chance that the creature will do better than it's peers and, therefore, will be more likely to breed successfully and pass the gene on to it's offspring. It's a very simple, and very wonderful system which produces such a mind-boggling degree of diversity that we observe around us. There is no need, or even a place at all, for a designer in this scheme because a designer will want things to develop according to plan, regardless of the actual circumstances, otherwise why create in the first place?
| Quote: |
| But we can easily predict what will happen. Scientists have learned to predict a lot of things. I'm not saying all things, but certainly alot of things. |
OK, so tell me, what will the climate conditions in, say, 30 years be like for the common earthworm? Will the changing climate mean that earthworms with a genetic trait that causes them to burrow deeper will be more successful, or conversely will it be the shallow burrowers who do better?
I am only talking about a generation here, remember, not an evolutionary time-span such as the one in question. The fact is that the number of variables in even the simplest case is so great that all our science can only make vague guestimates in most cases and, in the rest, it can't even do that. Life is complicated - much more complex than galaxies and stars, and we are nowhere near being able to make predictions of the sort that would be needed to pre-plan a creation spanning millions and billions of years - we can barely manage a week with some systems such as the weather and far less than that with other more complex systems such as us.
Sure, OK, we can predict that, for example, a comet will pass Earth in several hundred years from now - we can do so with stunning accuracy - to the minute or even second.
On the other hand, can you predict what colour trousers I might wear tomorrow?
Can you sit down and pre-determine which, if any, particular woman at which particular time and which place might find me strangely attractive, and set in chain events which lead to children? You would need to do so, of course, to predict my genetic input into the species and how it would be affected by that of a potential mate...
Nope, you can't do that, of course - the question is rhetorical.
The variables involved with even relatively simple life-forms are horrendous*. The simple truth is that the time-scale and the number of possible outcomes when considering human evolution from microbes is staggeringly bogglingly stunningly crushingly stupendously more that we could even have a wild guess at. The notion that we could ever reach a stage where we could be a creator and set in train a BB of our own to unfold in a predetermined manner is, to me, quite absurd - no matter how much we develop and no matter how powerful our machines become.
* (And all this is assuming that the problem is actually solvable to start with - some systems are not predictable at all, to our knowledge, no matter how much you know and they would possibly never be deterministic (predictable) no matter how powerful our science and our tools. You may be aware of Chaos theory, for example?).
Nope - I'll allow that there is an infinitesimally small possibility that a creator could possibly have done what you suggest (I don't actually believe it, but I'm willing to allow it as a debating point). Since the creator has, by implication, not involved itself in any way for 13 billion years or so then I would, even then, be inclined to wonder whether there was any point in thinking about it, let alone worshipping it. Any interpretation we might put on the actions of such an entity would be wild guesses based on our own anthropomorphic experiences and bias and would be about as reliable as me telling you what the very first microbial life form to appear was thinking, or claiming that I not only know what my dog is currently thinking at this moment, but I also knew what he would be thinking at this moment long before I bought him, before he was born and, in fact, before there were any dogs at all...
The whole thing starts to take on the absurdities of a surrealist nightmare - and, believe me, I have only scratched the surface of the absurdities here....
Anything, science tells us, is possible and that means that I have to admit that a God of this type is possible. I'm not going to waste time, though, calculating exactly how unlikely it is.....suffice it to say that I consider it to be perhaps the most unlikely thing I can imagine and even then I thnk I might strain my imagination trying to fit it in.....An Agnostic take:
Science hasn't progressed enough to be able to "prove" or "disprove" the existence of a God/Creator. It may, but probably not within the century, perhaps not even within this millenium.
But even if irrefutable scientific proof were found against the existence of a creator, there will always be some who'd rather "beleive" scripts written thousands of years ago than newly available evidence. And the rest will still "beleive" in science rather than actually question its credibility. This debate might never be resolved![/code]
What do you mean by 'question science's credibility'? Testing is build into the scientific method and any scientific theory will already have been subjected to prologued attempts to refute it by the best minds in the field. Any scientific theory will, either explicitly or implicitly, tell us how it can be refuted and it is then up to the experimenter/observer to show that the theory does not correctly account for experimental results/observational data.
Yes, I believe in evolution, Holly Bible have tons of words that represent something else. Creation in seven days is a better way to explain it, for people of ancient times, that needed an explanation and had nothing else for that, than their religion. We have more evidence now, we can see things that aren't described by the bible, and we have more ways to explain what was accepted as a matter of fact before.
I also believe in God, my personal belief is that He leaves the universe goes its course, he acts directly only if he wants to. He didn't need to make the earth in seven days to have power over the universe.
I also keep in mind that Holly Bible was inspired by God, but writen by humans.
Evolution is a much more plausable theory than creationism. Firstly just because something was concocted a long time ago I dont see why some people see that as a basis for credibility. The church is not infallable they used to think the world was flat and they persecuted Gallileo, one of the greatest minds, along with Darwin, the world has known. Evolution is pretty much proven through archaeological, genetic and the clear advances in thought since biblical times when people thought that the mentally ill were possessed.
Also,
| adeeengotha wrote: |
An Agnostic take:
And the rest will still "beleive" in science rather than actually question its credibility.[code] |
Im not trying to be a dick but you cant question sciences credibility religious or not. Science is the truth and science has not, will not and cannot change. Science metaphorically governs the laws on which the universe adheres strictly to. If there is a God it too is science even if it is omnipotent. Scientists can get the nature of a science wrong and the scientific community can believe that the wrong thing is fact however science is absolute and cannot be questioned. | loyal wrote: |
But i still don't see a problem with the general idea of ID: being(s) designed us.
Assuming, they were of a higher intelligence, why could they have not designed us to evolve? |
If there is no Almighty God's creation, and the Evolution is true, why don't we evolute to another species more powerful than the humans we are right now. Why there is no evidence of Darwin rather than the fossils?
| Whong wrote: |
| Do I believe in Darwinism? Well the answer is very simple, NO! |
More intelligent, I disbelieve him too. The reason is, the sun has never changed from the direction it rises of east, she never rose from the west and set to the east, why the evolution never changed her, why the evolution never change the elements like helium and iron into another types of elements never seen on earth!
Almighty God Bless You all!
The JMLWorld 
Last edited by jmlworld on Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:50 am; edited 1 time in total | breebree wrote: |
| Evolution is a much more plausable theory than creationism. Firstly just because something was concocted a long time ago I dont see why some people see that as a basis for credibility. The church is not infallable they used to think the world was flat and they persecuted Gallileo, one of the greatest minds, along with Darwin, the world has known. Evolution is pretty much proven through archaeological, genetic and the clear advances in thought since biblical times when people thought that the mentally ill were possessed. |
Ha, the science fiction movies could be believed as true, if Darwin's theory of evolution was true. Besides, you know, the Monkeys in Africa could transform into other species, they could at least change from the shape they were more than 1000 years, we could see an explanation about mysterious transformation in the books of explorers of Africa, the UFO aliens could come here and join the humans once they become human-likes.
Another point is, do you believe someone like you, just human? Or do you believe Almighty God?
In the Holy Quran:
| Quote: |
| 41:53 Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things? |
Signs= everything freak we see on earth like UFO, etc.. Verses related to the creation from the holy Quran:
| Quote: |
| 4:1 O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, His mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women;- reverence Allah, through whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you): for Allah ever watches over you. |
In the Holy Bible:
| Quote: |
JOB 4:17 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure
than his Maker? |
So was Darwin more right than his Lord, who created him?
| Quote: |
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created
him; male and female he created them. |
Hope you all the best,
The JMLWorld | breebree wrote: |
| adeeengotha wrote: | An Agnostic take:
And the rest will still "beleive" in science rather than actually question its credibility.[code] |
Im not trying to be a dick but you cant question sciences credibility religious or not. Science is the truth and science has not, will not and cannot change. Science metaphorically governs the laws on which the universe adheres strictly to. If there is a God it too is science even if it is omnipotent. Scientists can get the nature of a science wrong and the scientific community can believe that the wrong thing is fact however science is absolute and cannot be questioned. |
Oh my god. >_< Seriously, man... you have no idea of what science is. Let's review your mistakes line by line.
"... you cant question sciences credibility..." - Of course you can. In fact, you're supposed to. Science works by questioning everything, and seeking answers to those questions. And yes, science requires even questioning itself and its own methodology.
"Science is the truth and science has not, will not and cannot change." - What in the hell possessed you to say this? First of all, science is not the "truth", it is our best guess at what the truth might be using the tools we currently have available. And... it can't change? Seriously? So... we're still using Aristotelean mechanics? Nothing changed when Newton or Einstein came along? Yeah, right.
"Science metaphorically governs the laws on which the universe adheres strictly to." - Aiya. -_- Science "governs" nothing, metaphorically or otherwise. Science does it's best to figure out the way things work, using certain starting assumptions. That's it. There is no reason to assume that the universe actually works the way science says it does (the classic example of that is that for millennia we assumed that the universe was deterministic... but the early 20th century, we found out that we were probably wrong).
"If there is a God it too is science even if it is omnipotent." - Nonsense. Science attempts to define the physical universe, working on the assumption that that's even possible. It might not be. And even if it is, there is no reason to assume that any god - if one exists - would be governed by the laws of the physical universe.
"Scientists can get the nature of a science wrong and the scientific community can believe that the wrong thing is fact however science is absolute and cannot be questioned." - Good grief. i don't even know what to say to this. It is internally contradictory, and nonsensical. Science can be wrong but it cannot be questioned? Give me a break.
Seriously man, read up on what science is. Spend some time with scientists. Even the most hard core Richard Dawkinsesque scientist would NEVER in a million years let words like "science is absolute" or "science cannot be questioned" pass across their lips. Those are the words of a religious fanatic, not a scientist of any stripe. | jmlworld wrote: |
| Besides, you know, the Monkeys in Africa could transform into other species, they could at least change from the shape they were more than 1000 years |
The answer to why monkeys never transformed into a more powerful species than human is very simple, they evolved into humans, they were never given the choice of what to 'transform' into and are still evolving and it should be the case that humans will evolve to a more superior species than they are given the time. You cannot evolve further than is needed as that would defeat the object, evolving is in simple terms adapting to suit a new environment.
| jmlworld wrote: |
| Another point is, do you believe someone like you, just human? Or do you believe Almighty God? |
There is no actual proof to believe that any holy doctrine was in fact the word of God, Darwin was obviously unconvinced by the farfetched stories in the bible and made his own mind up about what he was to believe. There is proof that man appeared on earth may years after the first creatures and it is pretty much proven that the world and everything in it was not created in six days. One theory of why the old testament was written is that lesser civilisations who had a very limited grasp on science needed to try to understand something they could not comprehend.
| jmlworld wrote: |
| So was Darwin more right than his Lord, who created him? |
There is no proof that God made Darwin or in fact anything and the fact is that the evidence is very much against the idea.
Indi, I think we have different definitions of science. I say science as a broad term covering all branches of science (physics, chemistry, biology, etc) and to my understanding you consider science to be to be the current knowledge on the physical world.
| indi wrote: |
| Science works by questioning everything, and seeking answers to those questions. And yes, science requires even questioning itself and its own methodology. |
Science does not work that way, granted the generally accepted scientific theories evolve in that way but the laws that govern the way in which everything acts, science, have never changed, and will not change, since the beginning of time.
| indi wrote: |
| And... it can't change? Seriously? So... we're still using Aristotelean mechanics? Nothing changed when Newton or Einstein came along? Yeah, right. |
Nothing has changed since Newton and Einstein came along, are you trying to say that there was no gravity before Newton? Or that Bose-Einstein condensation would never occur if Einstein never equated it? As for Aristotelian Mechanics that is an example of how the scientific community's views of science change, although it was at the time accepted, the idea of the classical elements has never been true just as the science of nature of atoms, molecular build up etc. have never changed, ergo, science has not changed despite what the scientists of the day believed.
| indi wrote: |
| Science attempts to define the physical universe, working on the assumption that that's even possible. It might not be. And even if it is, there is no reason to assume that any god - if one exists - would be governed by the laws of the physical universe. |
I never assumed that a God would be governed by the laws of physics however, and I admit that this could quite possibly be wrong, superfluids seem to defy gravity by climbing the walls of a container and finding its own level and in one state of matter, I believe it is Bose-Einstein condensate the nuclei of the atoms become wavelike and seem to be 'aware' of the other atoms and have some degree of conrol over them, such subatomic physics evidently operate on a different system to regular physics and so would a God not too be science even if it defied all conventon? I apologise if I could have been clearer in my original post and fully respect if you still disagree with me but I assure you im no religeous fanatic and im not a Richard Dawkins fan to any degree, the point I was making was simply that the nature of physics, which is essentially where all sciences branch from, will never change despite the changing views of the scientific community. | breebree wrote: |
| indi wrote: | | And... it can't change? Seriously? So... we're still using Aristotelean mechanics? Nothing changed when Newton or Einstein came along? Yeah, right. |
Nothing has changed since Newton and Einstein came along, are you trying to say that there was no gravity before Newton? Or that Bose-Einstein condensation would never occur if Einstein never equated it? As for Aristotelian Mechanics that is an example of how the scientific community's views of science change, although it was at the time accepted, the idea of the classical elements has never been true just as the science of nature of atoms, molecular build up etc. have never changed, ergo, science has not changed despite what the scientists of the day believed. |
... what???
Are you redefining words? What do you think "science" means? Because you seem to be confused between "science" and "nature".
Science is the study of nature, and the body of knowledge that we have acquired by studying nature. Of course it's changed as we learned more about how the universe works... you yourself listed a couple examples of places it's changed right in the paragraph above! Both gravity and Bose-Einstein condensate states were not invented by science or by any scientists - they are part of nature. They would - and did - exist whether or not science had ever heard of either. They were eventually discovered by scientists, and that's when science was changed incorporate the ideas.
i said it before and i'll say it again. You have no idea of what science is. It is not the absolute truth you are trying to characterize it as, it can, does and must change, and it most certainly must be open to questioning and criticism.
You seem completely convinced that you know what you're talking about, and probably won't believe me when i tell you how wrong you are. That's fine, you don't have to. Because instead, i offer you some sources you should read.
The first is called "What is science?" (http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/railsback_1122science1.html). In particular, you might want to check out the section called "What Science Isn't, Part IV: Science isn't Truth and it isn't certainty".
The second is called "Common Misconceptions about Science" (http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/pubscie.html). Common misconception number one is the one you have: the idea that scientific laws are absolute.
Of course, i could offer you hundreds more references, but instead, you should probably practise being a good scientist and seek out those references yourself. Go see for yourself that science does not work the way you think it does. Google is your friend.
| breebree wrote: |
| indi wrote: | | Science attempts to define the physical universe, working on the assumption that that's even possible. It might not be. And even if it is, there is no reason to assume that any god - if one exists - would be governed by the laws of the physical universe. |
I never assumed that a God would be governed by the laws of physics however, and I admit that this could quite possibly be wrong, superfluids seem to defy gravity by climbing the walls of a container and finding its own level and in one state of matter, I believe it is Bose-Einstein condensate the nuclei of the atoms become wavelike and seem to be 'aware' of the other atoms and have some degree of conrol over them, such subatomic physics evidently operate on a different system to regular physics and so would a God not too be science even if it defied all conventon? I apologise if I could have been clearer in my original post and fully respect if you still disagree with me but I assure you im no religeous fanatic and im not a Richard Dawkins fan to any degree, the point I was making was simply that the nature of physics, which is essentially where all sciences branch from, will never change despite the changing views of the scientific community. |
This is mostly gibberish. But again, you seem to be confusing science and nature. Physics has changed time and time again over the ages. The universe has not. The universe is not science and science is not the universe. Science is simply our best attempt at figuring out how the universe works.
Incidentally, your description of what happens in a Bose-Einstein condensate is nonsensical. Particles in an atomic nuclei are always wavelike, regardless of the state of the matter they make up. They are also always "aware" of other atoms in the matter they make up - again regardless of the state of the matter; it is their interactions that determine what state the matter is in. And we already know that small-scale systems are well-described by quantum mechanics while large-scale systems are well-described by relativity - the current major goal in physics is to unify the two into a single "theory of everything". But that's all i'm going to say on the topic here. If you want to learn more about Bose-Einstein condensates and/or quantum mechanics, you should take it to the science forum. | Indi wrote: |
| What do you think "science" means? Because you seem to be confused between "science" and "nature". |
I use science to mean the way in which nature operates and you obviously use it to mean the current knowledge of such. I now realise I have defined it quite wrongly 
| breebree wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | What do you think "science" means? Because you seem to be confused between "science" and "nature". |
I use science to mean the way in which nature operates and you obviously use it to mean the current knowledge of such. I now realise I have defined it quite wrongly |
Thanks all. Science is to be devided into two parts:
1-Arithmetic and Logic part: This part is the main reason that resulted the computers we use today, the house we reside, the cars we drive, the cloths we wear, the medicinces we use, and everything related to the managing our lifestyles and daily routines.
This part of science is logic for three reasons:
1. It's Human understandable, acceptable and experimental. For example, (a) It's acceptable to realize how operating systems talk to the hardware of the computer that you are using. (b) By burning a fuel in the motor compustion room causes the dynamic flight of the airplane, because the gas causes the bush the objec even higher.
2. It's realtime and everyday event. Just the evolving of the solar system, the life cycle of the rain, and much more.
3. Experimental. Just to suttisfy everyone. For example, the carbon copy of human beings (which allows the production of identical people, etc) and the production of modern medicies, wireless communications, etc
2-Theoretical part: A part envolved to the devine properties and creataions which caused more dispute arround the world, this including Darwin's theories and much more related to the creations.
This part is under dispute, for a reasons including.
1. Time: For the shortness of human beings experiences, everyone's knowledge and experience is supposed to be evolving his lifetime and a bunch of stories from the near past. e.g. There is no evidence for the age of the earth we live on. 100 millions? four millions?...
2. Place / Location: A little and poor human being living on earth can't talk about or think about whats behind the sky, whats happening on Planet Venus in the real time...
Therefore I think its to let all the creations alone, since they are only devine attributes.
Best WishesJmlworld, you seem to be misunderstanding things. Science is a process of investigation.
When we perform science, we:
1) make an observation
2) ask a question about the observation (how did it happen, what are it's effects, under what conditions does it happen, etc.)
3) devise an answer to that question, that is testable (in order to be testable, an answer must invoke a repeatable process that is realistic given current levels of understanding and feasible to study given technological limitations).
4) construct an experiment that rigorously tests the answer to the question -- the idea is to disprove the answer
5) conduct the experiment
6) determine whether the answer was disproved, or supported
7) submit the results to an anonymous panel of other experts, who will analyze the research methods, determine if the answer is valid, and whether the experiment met the burden of proof (either disproving or supporting the answer)
pursuant to acceptance by the experts, publish the findings
After many independent research projects have independently supported an answer to a question, that answer enters the scientific canon as a rule or law, or may be integrated into a theory.
If an answer can't be addressed using the scientific method, then it is not treated as science (it is either philosophical or religious, or just bunk). You can rest assured that even if you think something is theoretical, if it is treated in a scientific context then it has been rigorously tested -- even if it's been by methods that you don't understand or are ignorant to.
To use the example of the age of the earth -- many lines of evidence converge upon the fact that the earth is 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of about 0.1. That means scientists are 95% certain that it is between 4.44 and 4.64 billion years, and over 99% certain that it's between 4.24 and 4.84 billion years. There has been lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of research on this subject.
Calculation of the Earth is not a theoretical subject. It is an experimental one. Also keep in mind, even "theoretical" sciences exist in the framework of experimentation. No hypothesis generated by "theoretical" methodologies is considered valid until it has been tested experimentally. There is only one kind of science.
