Discussion Topic: Evolution vs Creation [Archive]

PopCulturePooka

09-08-2005, 04:29 AM

I'm an ecologist. Have a Bachelors Degree with honours in Applied Science (ecology and biodiversity). A huge part of the course is the study of evolutionary theory, both macro and micro evolution. I've actually been interested in the origins of life for a lot longer than just Univeristy.

I feel very happy that I live in a country where Evolution is taught freely in schools in Science classes without any controversy. No weird warnings in textbooks. No protests. No needing to learn it alongside fairytales.

Just straight science.

I ask ya.

Do you, like me, believe in Evolution? The idea that all life on the planet, over millions upon millions of generations have descended from common ancestors, adapting and evolving to suit their surrounds? Should evolution be taught in schools, and if so, should it be taught alongside creation, or alone in science classes?

Do you believe in the Christian creation story about a god creating everything from dust? If so do you believe the Creation story is literal and everything has happened in 6000years (young earth creation) or do you believe that while Creation is true, its followed a far longer time line?

Or do you believe in a different faiths creation belief?

Dr. Hobo is my hero

09-08-2005, 04:47 AM

I believe that life is a grand experiment of sorts. Some higher force/power/being/whatever gave the universe a spark of life and is watching us unfold as some sort of wacky reality tv show. I mean it's pretty hard to not see that evolution is a well supported theory. Even though there are missing links between us and the monkeys other evidence like the evolution of viruses and darwinism/survival of the fittest are plain for the eye to see. Either way I believe in both. Hope that made sense because this Hobo needs some sleep.

Myrsilus

09-08-2005, 04:53 AM

I am like Dr. Hobo in that I am a believer in a mixture of both... I admit, however, I stray from the Catholic view of creationism.

I like to believe the same: that everything, as in every part of the universe, was created by some governing force that controls the distribution of energy to various areas in the universe. I don't believe this governing force is a man with a white beard and a shiny white robe, but I do feel a sort of spiritual quality is present in this theory of mine.

Much evidence in science, thanks to Darwin, shows that evoltion might have been what created human beings. I support his theories completely, even if there are some blank areas still needing explanation.

Creationism and evolution should not be taught together. While evolution is set in writing and generally accepted for what it is, creationism is much too subject to variance due to religion and the conflicting beliefs one might have to another's. Teaching both would just result in unneeded conflict...

Invictus

09-08-2005, 04:58 AM

Jay

09-08-2005, 05:05 AM

I've always been interested in how life came to be on this planet.

For me it's evolution. Water-dwelling amoeba evolved into the first fish evolved into the first land animals evolved into the first mammals evolved into the first jungle-dwelling primates evolved into humans.

...or something along those lines.

One thing that I can't work out though - why did some of the primates STAY primates and some of the primates evolve into humans? I guess conditions were just... right... at the time of evolution.

PopCulturePooka

09-08-2005, 05:08 AM

My scientific credentials aren't as impressive as yours, Pooka, but I do like to have my beliefs grounded in science, so I read up on the subject as much as possible. To put it simply, I don't believe that macroevolution is adequately supported by the facts. Fair enough. So please take whats coming next fairly. I'm not attacking you or anything, just going to ask some stuff/point out some stuff.

lack of significant transitional forms in the fossil record,The argument there is that every fossil is in essence a transitional form, either towards a current extant species (eg early vole like mammals with skull morphology and dentition thats closer to reptilian. Or Archaeopteryx) or towards an extinct species. A good example of transitional forms that are overlooked a lot are proto-mammals. Creatures that had body morphology close to mammals, lifestyles close to mammals, potentially warm blooded and furred. Yet their skulls were very much still reptilian (one can tell by inspecting the number of holes in the back of the skull.

variances in the accuracy of dating methods,Granted dating methods are an inexact science. Which is why I believe a good scientist should use as many dating techniques as possible when determining age. And while chemical based dating techniques are weak, genetic/mathmatical techniques are a bit more sound (eg using genetics, maths and knowledge of species to determine how far back a mutation entered the population.

incredible complexity of even 'simpler' life-forms, etc., for me to believe that random chance is the author of known life.This one is way too complex to go into detail about right now, but complexity of life is something evolutionists argue about. Mainly about the exact hows.

As for my position, I am a young-earth creationist.
This is what I find interesting. You aren't sure about evolution because of what you percieve to e a lack of good evidence or proof, but believe in YEC which is really only 'proven' by a book and evidence that is based on that book.

eyez0nme

09-08-2005, 05:11 AM

Quartermaster

09-08-2005, 05:13 AM

I'm a Whocaresian. Which, if said fast enough doesn't sound right.

I believe in God and that His attributes of doing almost anything allow Him to will a planet or a hundred into being with a twitch of the nose. I believe He can make a boulder, a mountain (placed in such a way that the boulder is at the base), and slide marks on the mountain, in that order. A casual observer (or somebody who hadn't been there to see it) can say the boulder rolled down the mountain, placing it at the base and causing the slide marks.

I see Creationism as more of a philosophy issue, and that it, along with whatever other philosophies/theories there are have place in the philosophy classes, not the science classes.

I believe the proponents of Creationism are simply reacting to something. What that something is, I don't know.

Jay

09-08-2005, 05:14 AM

I never paid attention in biology because it didn't interest me until a few years ago.

PopCulturePooka

09-08-2005, 05:15 AM

One thing that I can't work out though - why did some of the primates STAY primates and some of the primates evolve into humans? I guess conditions were just... right... at the time of evolution.
Theres actually a few different reasons why that would occur.

Population drift is one. Eg one population of early proto-primates drifted north, the other south. The north population started adapting better the conditions of the north, the southern population adapting to the south.

Cataclysm is another. An event seperates two (or more populations) and creates a barrier (geographic usually) between the groups. Thus they follow different paths as needed by the environ they are in.

Theres a few other methods, but they generally boil down to a population of a species being divided and each sub-population heading down a different path.

Which is why you see those branching tree's in Dinosaur books. Two different animals, one common ancestor.

Eventually, after some time, the two (or more) populations may eventually reconnect/meet, but if enough time and genetic difference has passed, they are gentically or physically incompatible for mating reasons. No longer able to interbreed, the two different groups are now entirely seperate.

Its called speciation.

Lions and Tigers are an example. Both share a common ancestor, but went their seperate ways down the evolutionary chain. However, by actions of man, they have reconnected occasionaly while still able to interbreed. However the genetic differences between the two species are great enough to make most offspring not viable for breeding. While similar, they are still quite different.

eyez0nme

09-08-2005, 05:19 AM

Good call pop!

So are we the lion or the tiger?

Quartermaster

09-08-2005, 05:20 AM

Also, I found this interesting:

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Odd%20Pics3/Natasha.html

If this has anything to do with evolution it's possible we're the result of brain-damaged monkeys.

eyez0nme

09-08-2005, 05:21 AM

hahahahahhahaha, my god, this thread is da bomb

We had a fucking virus, a fucking stroke, and slowly evolved into humans.

That's just crazy :)

Jay

09-08-2005, 05:22 AM

Thanks for the explanation, Pooka.

PopCulturePooka

09-08-2005, 05:26 AM

Also, I found this interesting:

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Odd%20Pics3/Natasha.html

If this has anything to do with evolution it's possible we're the result of brain-damaged monkeys.
Haha reminds me of people who recover from comas fluent in a new language or ability.

Jay

09-08-2005, 05:35 AM

Also, I found this interesting:

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Odd%20Pics3/Natasha.html

If this has anything to do with evolution it's possible we're the result of brain-damaged monkeys.

But that macaque got a stomach virus.

...Unless I'm misunderstanding something?

Quartermaster

09-08-2005, 05:42 AM

But that macaque got a stomach virus.

...Unless I'm misunderstanding something?

Got a stomach virus which gave her (I think it was a she) brain damage (Did it cause a stroke or something, I wonder? 2nd paragraph), causing her to walk upright.

Jay

09-08-2005, 06:14 AM

What second paragraph? o.O

*reads that page again*

Ohh, THAT second paragraph.

Invictus

09-08-2005, 06:22 AM

Fair enough. So please take whats coming next fairly. I'm not attacking you or anything, just going to ask some stuff/point out some stuff.

And you did a good job of it as well. I'm glad you didn't go rabid on me like so many other folks have... :P

I hope you will extend to me the same courtesy of taking everything I say in a cold and logical manner.

The argument there is that every fossil is in essence a transitional form, either towards a current extant species (eg early vole like mammals with skull morphology and dentition thats closer to reptilian.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, and certainly logically workable. That said, however, how can you then classify animals as such-and-such kind? At what point does an reptile become an avian?

This is what I find interesting. You aren't sure about evolution because of what you percieve to e a lack of good evidence or proof, but believe in YEC which is really only 'proven' by a book and evidence that is based on that book.

I find it equally interesting that you presuppose me to be affiliated with a given religion or set thereof simply because:

1. I observe that the nature of life and the universe indicates intelligent design. Hence, such must have been created; hence, I am a creationist.

2. My analysis of the physical data leads me to believe that the earth is not, in fact, as old as traditional models suppose. Hence, I believe in a "young" earth.

In fact, you have no idea what, if any, religious faith I hold, nor do you know what--if any--God or gods I believe in, nor do you have the slightest clue that I base my beliefs on any book whatsoever.

That you have displayed such an instantaneous prejudice rather lessens my faith that you plan to debate this subject in an unbiased manner. However, I have not here posted to debate you on this subject. Your intial post indicated that you were interested in discovering the beliefs of other board members on the subject, and I think I have made mine reasonably clear. As such, I see no need to waste your time or mine tossing ideas back and forth until both of us tire of such pointless mental exercise.

On that note, I bid you good day. ;)

Mr.Babalo

09-08-2005, 06:39 AM

In the midst of all this evolutionary science, there is in the heart something devine: the theory of how life came to be on earth. In a nutshell: nucleotides, sugars, lipids are swirling in a big-ass ocean that was earth long, long ago (they have done experiments proving that nucleotides, sugars and lipids can be created by raw elements by natural process),what's peculiar is how these nucleotides, sugars and whatnot came together to form RNA/DNA--the simpliest form of life(which could reproduce, repair itself when damage, etc). It is said in the theory that these molecules fused together by a "bolt of lightning"; some jolt of electricity that magically made it so. TO THIS DAY, people have been able to explain nucleotides/sugars spawning from a natural process BUT no one has EVER, EVER created life; they have never been able to give these molecules "life" and they've tried relentlously with all sorts of electricities, forms of heat energy and any combination you can think of that would trigger life but all has failed. All this science that turn people towards aetheism when at the heart of science is the mysteries, that will ever be explained.

Mr.Babalo

09-08-2005, 06:52 AM

And you did a good job of it as well. I'm glad you didn't go rabid on me like so many other folks have... :P

I hope you will extend to me the same courtesy of taking everything I say in a cold and logical manner.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, and certainly logically workable. That said, however, how can you then classify animals as such-and-such kind? At what point does an reptile become an avian?

I find it equally interesting that you presuppose me to be affiliated with a given religion or set thereof simply because:

1. I observe that the nature of life and the universe indicates intelligent design. Hence, such must have been created; hence, I am a creationist.

2. My analysis of the physical data leads me to believe that the earth is not, in fact, as old as traditional models suppose. Hence, I believe in a "young" earth.

In fact, you have no idea what, if any, religious faith I hold, nor do you know what--if any--God or gods I believe in, nor do you have the slightest clue that I base my beliefs on any book whatsoever.

That you have displayed such an instantaneous prejudice rather lessens my faith that you plan to debate this subject in an unbiased manner. However, I have not here posted to debate you on this subject. Your intial post indicated that you were interested in discovering the beliefs of other board members on the subject, and I think I have made mine reasonably clear. As such, I see no need to waste your time or mine tossing ideas back and forth until both of us tire of such pointless mental exercise.

On that note, I bid you good day. ;)

The bible never said anything against the earth's old age: in Genesis God created earth in 6 days. These DAYS cannot be defined in the context of an earth day. Light and dark existed in the first day, BEFORE he created earth, so how can anyone define these 6 God days as 1 morning and 1 evening?

Kustom

09-08-2005, 07:02 AM

I believe in evolution, and I can never buy that intelligent design theory (why would creating humans or the platipus have to be "intelligent"? If you find a watch on the floor and figure out it's made to indicate the time, ok, it has a purpose, but do you really know the purpose of life? 42? Human life can be completely random, as far as I know.).

But one thing I believe is that the theory of evolution is incomplete, because there has been some evidence that change can happen much faster than evolution theory predicts (and happens in waves, too). I believe that there is somehow a way for certain learned behaviors to pass on to the offsprings, not only through the innate genetic channel... For instance, people now are taller than a 100 years ago (a blink of an eye on evolutionary timescales) because they eat better. However, I believe that somehow their children would remain tall too, even if they reverted to the same eating habits their ancestors had... Does it make sense? I have nothing to support that theory, it's just a gut feeling. That would explain why change could sometimes happen faster, but I think change coming from random mutations in the main population is way too slow to explain the major evolutionary breakthroughs seen in the past eras. Cataclysm maybe, but I think there's more to it...

Kaji

09-08-2005, 07:18 AM

Personally, I've never seen the two as mutually exclusive. One day in God's time could be millions of years, so what's to say that the first 5 days were literal 24-hour days like we envision. Therefore, while I don't hold to the young earth theory, I choose to believe in a hybridization of the two.

Honestly, the big bang theory and other theories about how the universe came into being have about as much believability as a supreme being ordering it into existence anyway. One of the most important laws of physics clearly states that you can't create matter from nothing. Therefore, since we have an entire universe's worth of matter of innumberable mass, where did it all come from? It can't have just always existed, after all...

Kustom

09-08-2005, 07:37 AM

It can't have just always existed, after all...

Why not?...

Kaji

09-08-2005, 07:47 AM

It had to have come into being. It's like trying to find the beginning of time. What comes before it?

Nessa

09-08-2005, 07:59 AM

Kustom

09-08-2005, 09:09 AM

It had to have come into being. It's like trying to find the beginning of time. What comes before it?

Why would there be anything before it? :confused:

Nessa

09-08-2005, 10:16 AM

Well, if matter cannot be created or destroyed, how did the matter of the universe come into existance? What was there before the big bang?

Dana

09-08-2005, 11:07 AM

hem hem. I always think debates like this are very counter-productive because, lets face it, we are talking about topics that the human mind simply does not have the capacity to understand.

That said, I believe in one theory as much as the other, being that I don't really believe in either. I am not religious, I have never been to church in my life, I was not baptised, etc etc. I also spent two years of my university life as a geological engineering major, so I studied quite a bit about geological time and such. The reason I think one theory (and they are both just theories) is as valid as the other is that there is no way we can ever KNOW, in my opinion. So saying that one thing is more likely than the other when I can never know much about either doesn't make any sense... does that make sense?

Basically I am saying, anything is possible!

So I think both theories should be taught in school, because whether scientists like it or not there is a large population of the USA and for that matter, the world, that believes in "intelligent design." I don't think that population should just be wantonly ignored just because scientists think they are suffering from some "mass delusion." And whether or not the I.D. believers like it there is a lot of evidence to support the eveloution theory, thus it should be taught as well! School is about learning, so why not learn all the popular theories out there? Knowledge never hurt anyone, only ignorance does that (even if it can be blissful ^_~)

As for the "Big Bang" theory, I think that is just a sorry excuse for humans trying to rationalize something that, once again, we can't wrap our brains around. Time is infinite. IN.FIN.ITE. Infinite means there was no beginning and will be no end, just because we can't grasp that something has always been and always will be, doesn't mean that its not true.

Maian

09-08-2005, 01:02 PM

Like many others here, I choose to believe in both.

My friend said on another messgae board on the topic:

"The evolutionists say: 2 + 2 = 4
The creationists say: God said "Let there be 4"
Why can't we say: God said "Let 2 + 2 = 4"?"

Dude...that's an awesome quote!

More on topic, there are two aspects two evolution that people generally object to:
1) scientific validity
2) believability

Scientists tend to equate the two, but they really are different matters. Evolution has been proven to be scientifically valid. However, some people don't give a shit about the scientific validity and just say it's too hard to believe. Often heard: "Are you telling me I evolved from bacteria?!" It's the "I don't give a damn what scientists say, I don't believe it" factor.

And when they can't get around the believability of it, they'll stick around to whatever's familiar, which is usually their religion.

As for me, I've seen same damn crazy shit that's considered scientific fact, and evolution doesn't even rank up there. If there's one word that can describe why I believe in evolution, it's this: emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence).

koku

09-08-2005, 01:16 PM

If other animals have evolved into different species, why couldn't have humans done the same?

It makes sense to me. Sadly, I'm not interested in the past enough to dive any farther. What I can change and do, I'll worry about; the past is the past--to me atleast.

Carry on gentlemen.

JudoPorkChop

09-08-2005, 01:30 PM

Now, PCP has done a damn fine job of handling the evolution portion of the discussion, and successfully fulfilled my quota of learning something for the day. Now, are there any theologists or... er.. I forget the proper name for faith based archaeology... any of those in the house that can explain creationism and intelligent design past the:

"This, we can explain through science. Anything we can not explain, God did it."

angle? That's my big stumbling block, as I think there's explanations for everything, but we haven't reached the scientific advancement needed to lay it all out. On top of that, there is the chicken/egg thing. Meaning, if God made us, SOMEONE had to make God. Which kinda ruins the "There are no other gods before me." thing. One of the big problems in general with ID and creationism's teachings is that it's the God of Christianity that is the sole contributing source, as a vast portion of the believers of ID and Creationism happen to be Christian. They would be greatly offended if one were to say that Tepoztecal, Zeus, Wakan-Tanka, and Vishnu all had a hand in it as well as God, despite ID and Creationism depend on a supernatural outside source.

Kustom

09-08-2005, 01:31 PM

So I think both theories should be taught in school, because whether scientists like it or not there is a large population of the USA and for that matter, the world, that believes in "intelligent design." I don't think that population should just be wantonly ignored just because scientists think they are suffering from some "mass delusion."

Sure. And we should also teach the kids that the earth is flat or supported by elephants standing on a big turtle, because well, some people believe that too...
As a part of the above-mentionned outside "world", I challenge you to name the countries teaching intelligent design or even countries with a sizeable movement that supports that theory. Saudi Arabia?

And whether or not the I.D. believers like it there is a lot of evidence to support the eveloution theory, thus it should be taught as well! School is about learning, so why not learn all the popular theories out there? Knowledge never hurt anyone, only ignorance does that (even if it can be blissful ^_~)

Knowledge and superstitions are two different things. There is a method to scientific theories, and until you can prove intelligent design using a scientific approach and not the argument of "popular beliefs", it doesn't belong in science classes. Should we learn about telekinesy in physics or changing lead into gold in chemistry classes?

As for the "Big Bang" theory, I think that is just a sorry excuse for humans trying to rationalize something that, once again, we can't wrap our brains around. Time is infinite. IN.FIN.ITE. Infinite means there was no beginning and will be no end, just because we can't grasp that something has always been and always will be, doesn't mean that its not true.

This I agree with. Time may or may not be infinite, this is impossible to prove. I have yet to see the universe without matter or time, or evidence it has ever been this way, so I think it's safe to assume it's always been there; just like I assume that the sun will rise tomorrow because it never failed to do so in the past (thanks Hume). I can never be absolutely sure that the sun will rise, but this is the most parcimonious theory I can come up with... For the rest, I remain a doubting Thomas (by the way, Thomas' skepticism didn't prevent him from becoming a Catholic saint).

I don't think it's wrong to mention the intelligent theory in class as long as you make it very clear that it is a philosophical belief that is not grounded in experience and not a scientific theory. What is happening now in the US is that ID people are trying to present ID theory as an equal alternative to the evolution theory and hide its philosophical and religious origin. This is WRONG. This is deception. What kind of country, I mean regime, messes up with the minds of their kids in class like that?

Trump

09-08-2005, 02:26 PM

I honestly believe that everything, every event, every condition, every reaction, etc can be explained by science. I'm not saying that we have the scientific knowledge to do it, but perhaps one day we will. But there is still something missing from the equations. How, from the billions of possibilities born out of reality can things have turned out like they have? I believe that God is there, behind the scenes pushing and prodding reality in ways so subtle we'll never see it. Maybe it has something to do with 'electron clouds' or whatever they are called. Correct me if I'm wrong but supposedly electrons can exist anywhere in a specific cloud and they don't 'orbit' in conventional terms. They just appear to be somewhere different each time. What is to say that something as simple as the placement of these electrons in their clouds couldn't cause the extinction of the dinosaurs?

The best example I can think of is the crossing of the Red Sea. They have said it is possible for the conditions to be just right to cause something similar to happen (looking through the dramatization and story telling of the bible). So science proved it is possible, but the fact that it happened at the exact moment in history to provide an escape for the Jews is just striking.

renegade

09-08-2005, 04:21 PM

renegade

09-08-2005, 04:44 PM

"creationism is bullshit!" (penn jillette)

how can anyone belive something someone wrote in a 6000 year old story
about 6000 years old people
that did not know what we know today?

for all they knew every thing they could not explan was considerd god like
how else could they explan these things?
they did not know what we know today (-after all the research and all that we do today)
they didnt have all the scientific data that we have today

they could not explan these so they belived in whatever they wanted to belive
and so they would not look like crasy to others they scared them in to beliving in it too

and when the system of scaring other people seemed to work
they went with it
til it lost all proportion

Kragar

09-08-2005, 04:53 PM

Do you, like me, believe in Evolution? The idea that all life on the planet, over millions upon millions of generations have descended from common ancestors, adapting and evolving to suit their surrounds? Should evolution be taught in schools, and if so, should it be taught alongside creation, or alone in science classes?

Have you ever heard of "Darwin's Black Box"? It was a book by Michael Behe that points out an interesting flaw in the typical argument of Darwinism. He talks about how, thanks to modern biochemsitry, we can see that most parts of the life cycle are not composed of simple processes, but a series of events that are interdependent, and don't function without each and every step being performed. One example that I remember (and it may not be accurate, since it's been years since I've read the book) is that seeing takes 13 different chemicals interacting in the eye to transform light into nerve impulses. Without any one of these chemicals, sight does not occur.

Behe argued that there are many of these systems in biology, and that feature an "irreducable complexity" (thank you, Google!!) that makes it statistically unlikely to be the result of chance. Each step of evolution has to be productive (or at least not counterproductive), so the chance of an interlocking series of 13 steps that don't work with anything less occuring without design seems minimal.

setrict

09-08-2005, 04:54 PM

I don't feel that evolution has enough evidence to be considered as an explanation for the origin of life and still remain grounded in science.

I do believe evolution has merit as a scientific theory. Micro-evolution and natural selection are concepts well supported by evidence, and make sense to me. I also believe in the possiblity/likelyhood of intelligent design. Evolution and I.D. are not mutually exclusive if you are willing to consider them objectively.

Which do you find more probable:

1) Random chance creating a complex symbiotic system
2) Random chance creating a entity eventually capable of creating a complex symbiotic system

For me it's #2, based on a combination of intuition, and observation. Maybe it's #1, and I've guessed wrong. There just isn't enough evidence either way to say for sure. It'll probably be #3.

Any discussions of origin are by nature theoretical at this point, the danger in my mind is when speculation is construed as fact by either side. Speculation is to an origin evolutionist as faith is to a religious person. One waves the flag of science, the other typically waves a bible or other religious text. Neither one represents the undisputed truth, though both sides try to lay claim to it.

As for Origins of life in school: I think we'd all be better off with a sentence that simply says, "There are a number of different thoughts on the subject, but we just don't know for sure."

Kragar

09-08-2005, 04:56 PM

As for the "Big Bang" theory, I think that is just a sorry excuse for humans trying to rationalize something that, once again, we can't wrap our brains around. Time is infinite. IN.FIN.ITE. Infinite means there was no beginning and will be no end, just because we can't grasp that something has always been and always will be, doesn't mean that its not true.

Infinite according to who? It's a pretty word, but where's the proof? If something is infinite, how do you measure that infinity? Are you sure "infinity" in this case doesn't just mean "beyond our measuring capabilities"?

ruaidhri

09-08-2005, 06:35 PM

You can argue until you’re blue in the face and you still will not convince someone with faith that they are wrong. It doesn’t make any difference if your faith is in a God or in Science. Both require acceptance. Therefore, this argument can neither be won nor lost.

What do I personally believe? I accept the word of learned scientists that the universe and our planet have existed for many, many millions of years. I accept the word of learned scientists that the earth and its creatures have evolved. I find no basis for believing in the newly created term “Intelligent Design.”

I accept the word of learned scientists because I respect their knowledge and am not personally capable of questioning their findings. I do question the opinions of religions leaders because they choose to ignore scientific principles and form their opinions based on a book written by men that were mostly guided by superstition and exaggeration.

Do I believe in God? Most of my life I’ve considered myself an agnostic. That’s how I raised my two sons, one of whom is himself a scientist studying for his Ph.D. Now, that I’m getting older I’ve reconsidered God. I still dislike religions created by and for men. But, I also would like all not to end with death. So, I decided to declare myself a Theist, which means that I want to believe that there is a supreme being that oversees the universe but doesn’t interfere. Do I have faith? No, only hope.

hapacheese

09-08-2005, 07:00 PM

Interesting debate. While I may have ended up majoring in literature, I started off as a molecular and cell biology major, which I studied for two and a half years before getting sick of it. Not as qualified as our friend PCP, but have studied the subject to some extent.

Now... before getting any further, let's clarify a few things and ask a few questions.

1) Theory: While I haven't seen this to be the case yet in this discussion, I'd like to head this one off at the pass before someone does. A "scientific theory" is not simply an idea or whatnot. It's a hypothesis that has been proven to the highest degree possible using the Scientific Method. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not a theory. It is simply a hypothesis. Therefore non-acceptance of the theory of evolution != Intelligent Design is the correct explanation.

2) The theory of evolution was a conclusion formed based on scientific observations. There was no agenda set forth to prove the theory of evolution when Darwin did. Creationism/Intelligent Design is the exact opposite. There is a set doctrine, and the evidence is selected to prove the belief. This is not scientific.

3) Teaching Intelligent Design in School: As shown in 1) and 2), Intelligent Design does not have enough scientific credence to be taught in sciences classes at school. If it were to be taught in a religious studies and/or philosophy class, that would be completely acceptable. However, one must consider the fact that Christian-based theories surrounding creationism and/or Intelligent Design should not be the only one taught in those classes, if the goal were to "show all sides of the story" (to paraphrase Bush). We should also then teach the Buddhist theory, the Hindu theory, or heck, even the Shinto theory.

4) Why do we feel the need to place such a special importance on what our theory of life is? Hell, we don't even know *what* life is.

Invictus: I doubt you're reading this thread anymore, but to be fair to PCP, his assumptions were well founded. It's generally accepted that Young Earth Creationism is a belief based around Judeo-Christian and Muslim beliefs and texts. Therefore, your backlash at him, while somewhat understandable, is not entirely accurate... and you still didn't answer his question, anyway.

(for reference: Young Earth Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_earth_creationism) )

RDClip

09-08-2005, 08:30 PM

Should Creationism be taught in schools? Public schools, no.

Since prayer is illegal in public schools and is considered discrimination, I'd reckon that teaching any theory based on a single religion would be discrimination as well. I agree with hapa there if they want to teach Creationism, they need an entire course that will teach all the stoies of all religions (that may not even fit into a year)

As for Evolution, I agree it has flaws. However, it's the best idea we have. As such as it is the most credible and most accepted theory out there, it will be taught in our schools. Throughout history people have taught theories in schools that have been proved wrong. I don't see the merit in removing evolution from schools just because it has a few flaws. Until someone comes up with a better idea, we'll be sticking to it.

Soli

09-08-2005, 09:28 PM

My little sister has figured this outl. Her theory goes with both:

God made monkey and all the other animals in the beginning. Everything was going well. So he got bored and decided to make a new animal that was more interesting. Since he was still tired from making all the other animals, he used the rest of his energy to make one animal change. He chose the monkey 'cause it was his favorite. The monkeys evolved into humans. The reason we have some monkeys and some humans is because he still wanted some of the monkeys around. They make him laugh. :D

She's quite smart sometimes. Personaly, I believe in evolution. I don't believe in god. I'm an atheist with christian benefits. :cool:

Animeband

09-08-2005, 10:59 PM

I am a Pastafarian, or the follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, ever since I was touched by his noodly appendage. It is so obvious that the universe and everything in it was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all the evidence of evolution was planted by him.

Want proof?. All of his followers had to wear pirate regalia, and his wrath has increased ever since the number of pirates went down. Global warming is directly caused by the declining number of pirates in the world over the last 200 years.

I also insist that my beliefs be taught with equal time alongside intelligent design as well.

Ramen

Kragar

09-09-2005, 12:38 AM

For some years, some biologists have argued that there was a 7th day of creation, during which God thought about his prototypes and finally made the crowning glory of his creation here on Earth: the giant squid. The basic problem with the idea that we humans are the peak of His creation was
pointed out by none other than Charles Darwin. The problem is explaining the evolution of the vertebrate eye. He gave this as a very serious problem, because this organ doesn't fossilize at all, and it is difficult to explain how all the intermediate forms could have been sufficiently functional for Natural Selection to have selected them.

In recent years, Creationists have vociferously challenged the entire evolutionary paradigm, and some biologists have given serious thought to their criticisms, as well as Darwin's issue of the eye. Some have suggested the thought experiment: Suppose that the Creationists are right, and the world was built by some sort of Cosmic Engineer (which we may call "God" for short). What can we learn by studying the artifacts of the creation process?

One thing that we learn when we study the vertebrate eye is that it has a rather strange structure. The blood vessels and the nerves pass through the surface in a bundle (the "blind spot"), and spread out on the inside of the retina. This is a very bizarre way to lay out the "wiring". Why would any sensible engineer do it this way, rather than the much more sensible way of running the wiring along the back surface?

We might hypothesize that there is some obscure benefit to doing it this way, and we just aren't clever enough to figure it out. But this is shot down by a simple fact. The "camera" type of eye seems to have evolved (or been created, if you prefer) more than once. The cephalopods (a family of animals that include octopi, squid, and nautilus) have eyes that are superficially similar, but on close examination, we find that all the details are different. In particular, they have the "wiring" on the back of the retina, as you'd expect.

So, if there is a Creator, He seems to have done the job twice, once poorly (with vertebrates), and once well (with the cephalopods).

This is very suspicious. It is especially suspicious when you consider that, while we humans claim that the planet was built for us, it is roughly 3/4 salt water. If you measure the areas that we humans actually inhabit in any significant numbers, we are talking about maybe 5% of the globe, whereas the giant squid is at the top of the food chain over roughly 70%. When you consider the actual volume of the inhabited space, the giant squid has a home range many thousands of times greater than ours.

If this isn't convincing enough, consider also that humans have quite a good record of wiping out all the large predators, on both land and at sea. We have devastated the cetacea and are busy wiping out the large sharks, tunas, and other major marine predators. There is one exception: Humans show little interest in interacting with the giant squid. Sure, we catch the little ones and eat them, but as for the biggest species, we almost totally ignore it, although it is a major predator in all the oceans. And if you are like most humans, you are probably thinking that this is silly.

Who cares about a bunch of big squid?

This is very, very suspicious. We have a glaring blind spot here. Most large predators drive us crazy. We are terrified of wolves, bears, and sharks. Although very few humans have ever been injured by any of them, we hunt them down and kill them on sight, because they terrify us. But a several-ton squid that eats large sharks? That is a creature that we can't see, and we don't take it seriously. Other large sea creatures get tangled in our nets and die; by some mysterious process, those nets don't catch giant squid. Nothing we do seems to affect this one major predator. Very suspicious.

Invoking Occams's razor together with our Creation hypothesis leaves us with only one reasonable explanation. The world was created as a habitat for the giant squid. Humans were put here to control the large predators that would otherwise bother the giant squid. We are programmed to ignore the giant squid, and to not take actions that would harm them.

Dana

09-09-2005, 03:13 AM

See this is exactly why I dont like to get into things like this. It is my belief that there are some things that we as humans just can not understand, so i find it pointless and quite amusing when someone says "Where is the PROOF?!?!" I don't know how to properly explain myself other than just saying I think there is proof but we will never have it.

As for teaching the theories at school, I am not saying that creationism should necessarily be taught in a science class, but just taught in general, perhaps in history. The USA is not the only country with people who believe a God (or Gods) created the Earth. The USA might have the most vocal population of said people, but I still don't think it hurts anyone to know all the theories out there. Scientists are so SURE about their eveloution theory that they become extremely condescending to anyone else with different beliefs.

I personally do not believe in creationism, but I also think there is a lot missing from the eveloution theory, though it is more plausable than intelligent design. But in all honesty, I just don't even think about it that much XD

Maian

09-09-2005, 03:15 AM

Have you ever heard of "Darwin's Black Box"? It was a book by Michael Behe that points out an interesting flaw in the typical argument of Darwinism. He talks about how, thanks to modern biochemsitry, we can see that most parts of the life cycle are not composed of simple processes, but a series of events that are interdependent, and don't function without each and every step being performed. One example that I remember (and it may not be accurate, since it's been years since I've read the book) is that seeing takes 13 different chemicals interacting in the eye to transform light into nerve impulses. Without any one of these chemicals, sight does not occur.

Behe argued that there are many of these systems in biology, and that feature an "irreducable complexity" (thank you, Google!!) that makes it statistically unlikely to be the result of chance. Each step of evolution has to be productive (or at least not counterproductive), so the chance of an interlocking series of 13 steps that don't work with anything less occuring without design seems minimal.

I've heard about this book. He brings up a very valid concern, but it doesn't really affect the validity of evolution itself. Basically, this is a "we don't know how this evolved and we should investigate it" type thing, not "we don't know how this evolved so evolution is wrong". It's the nature of science to self-criticize - that and the Scientific Method is what makes it so successful.

Kustom

09-09-2005, 05:36 AM

i find it pointless and quite amusing when someone says "Where is the PROOF?!?!" I don't know how to properly explain myself other than just saying I think there is proof but we will never have it.

I find it pointless and quite amusing when people ask a simple questions and they get replies like "there is proof but we will never have it". So how come you know there is proof if you never had it? What is stupider if you don't have any knowledge, asking a question or answering it?

Dana

09-09-2005, 05:47 AM

Kustom

09-09-2005, 06:53 AM

I am not saying I know there is proof, I am saying I cant know either way, so why bother?? Its only my opinion, and I think there are more productive ways for me to spend my time than trying to find the answer to what I BELIEVE (yes its my belief) to be an unanswerable question. And now I am going to bow out of this thread because I can see the personal attacks on the horizon.

Sorry I didn't mean to flame you. But don't you think there is a difference between people who try to use a scientific approach, i.e. using existing facts to build theories that can best explain how the world evolves and people who use solely beliefs as their base? I know you may think science is just another belief, but science comes from observation and is not a dogma (or wasn't at the time Darwin came up with his theory). Most people tend to agree that beliefs supported by evidence are more believable (not "equally") than beliefs supported by nothing.

Now, I'm focusing on evolution here. As far as the origin of time or the universe is concerned, I completely agree we may never know because we cannot be out of the universe or time to observe it scientifically.

Quartermaster

09-09-2005, 07:23 AM

if God made us, SOMEONE had to make God. Which kinda ruins the "There are no other gods before me." thing.

Not necessarily. I've come up with a sorta-explanation for why God doesn't need a creator.

Imagine on top of your moniter is an invisible box with imaginary things in it. This box has no weight, no mass and as soon as you stop thinking about it, it disappears. At the very beginning of time (at T = 0), there was nothing but that box. You were inside that box, I was inside that box, everything and everybody was. Presumably, God was also inside that box. However, if you're willing to accept that God is indeed all-powerful, it's not so big a leap to say He could simply step outside the box. If He couldn't step outside the box, than He wouldn't be God, God would be a figment of imagination, so He would be inside the box and would step out. If it's true that God has existed forever, than we can say that at the same time time (as we-Humanity as a whole-might perceive it) began, God also "began". The reason I say "began" is because if T = 0, than there was nothing before anything so time might not have counted.

hapacheese

09-09-2005, 07:29 AM

Nessa

09-09-2005, 08:01 AM

RDClip

09-09-2005, 10:27 AM

Religion is based on blind faith backed up with no proof. Most Athiests don't believe in God because they don't have the ability to blindly believe something.

Sure the bible is entertaining sometimes (and disturbing others) and it has a bunch of nice stories. But that's all it is stories with the same credibility as Greek or Roman mythology.

Me, I don't think people should be teaching children that a story that has the same credibility as a fairtail is a viable explination for the origins of life.

Kustom

09-09-2005, 10:36 AM

The faithful will be faithful, and even though I don't follow the same path I still respect their views. However, I think even a good Christian can agree that there are things called scientific theories based on evidence, that do not necessarily contradict anyone's beliefs and that should be taught in school, and that education does not have to be dominated by a particular religion. You cannot force faith down people's throat. It just doesn't work.

Kragar

09-09-2005, 02:08 PM

See this is exactly why I dont like to get into things like this. It is my belief that there are some things that we as humans just can not understand, so i find it pointless and quite amusing when someone says "Where is the PROOF?!?!" I don't know how to properly explain myself other than just saying I think there is proof but we will never have it.

The problem is, I wasn't asking for you to prove God. I was asking you to prove that time was infinite. You said, "Time is infinite. IN.FIN.ITE. Infinite means there was no beginning and will be no end, just because we can't grasp that something has always been and always will be, doesn't mean that its not true," making the infinity of time the foundation for your comment about the shallowness of the human mind. If time isn't infinite, the whole comment is moot.

So you can laugh if you want to, but it just means that you can't defend your argument.

if God made us, SOMEONE had to make God. Which kinda ruins the "There are no other gods before me." thing.

Of course, this assumes that God is something exactly like us, and couldn't possibly be a different category altogether. That's like saying that, since men write books, then men are simply characters in some other book. That's poetry, man. Spurious logic.

ruaidhri

09-09-2005, 02:50 PM

What interests me is that so many people question evolution as if they have some special knowledge. Now, I am not a scientist. I have not personally devoted my life to understanding evolution. Just as I am incapable of performing brain surgery on a patient, I am just as ignorant when it comes to discussing the merits or failures of the Theory of Evolution. So, as I previously wrote

“I accept the word of learned scientists that the universe and our planet have existed for many, many millions of years. I accept the word of learned scientists that the earth and its creatures have evolved. I find no basis for believing in the newly created term “Intelligent Design".

I accept the word of learned scientists because I respect their knowledge and am not personally capable of questioning their findings. I do question the opinions of religions leaders because they choose to ignore scientific principles and form their opinions based on a book written by men that were mostly guided by superstition and exaggeration.”

I accept science because it has procedures and measurements and because it is always seeking to expand knowledge. Religion asks that we accept based on faith, not facts or reason. It’s unwilling to change and purports to have all the answers, the most perplexing of which is, “it’s a mystery.”

The Bible is not an authority. It is a story, mostly fiction. I do not believe it has any place in a publicly funded school outside of a college. I certainly have no problem with anyone “believing” whatever they want. I just don’t approve of forcing one’s beliefs onto another.

This whole discussion is again, as I previously wrote, a waste of time because

“You can argue until you’re blue in the face and you still will not convince someone with faith that they are wrong. It doesn’t make any difference if your faith is in a God or in Science. Both require acceptance. Therefore, this argument can neither be won nor lost.”

Because I am not personally capable of performing brain surgery or questioning evolution, I choose to accept what has been established through scientific study rather than superstition.

Maian

09-09-2005, 03:01 PM

Not necessarily. I've come up with a sorta-explanation for why God doesn't need a creator.

Imagine on top of your moniter is an invisible box with imaginary things in it. This box has no weight, no mass and as soon as you stop thinking about it, it disappears. At the very beginning of time (at T = 0), there was nothing but that box. You were inside that box, I was inside that box, everything and everybody was. Presumably, God was also inside that box. However, if you're willing to accept that God is indeed all-powerful, it's not so big a leap to say He could simply step outside the box. If He couldn't step outside the box, than He wouldn't be God, God would be a figment of imagination, so He would be inside the box and would step out. If it's true that God has existed forever, than we can say that at the same time time (as we-Humanity as a whole-might perceive it) began, God also "began". The reason I say "began" is because if T = 0, than there was nothing before anything so time might not have counted.

This is offtopic (existence of God is another topic), but I should point out that a similar argument can be used for the non-existence of God.

If time is a concept that belongs to the universe, then "before" the universe came about, there was no concept of time. In fact, it's meaningless to even say "before the universe came about" since a "before" requires time. Since it's meaningless to discuss "what happened before the universe came about", we simply accept what is. That is, the Big Bang happened, period.

Another approach: logic itself can be a concept that belongs to the universe - that's a mindtwister.

Point is, existence or nonexistence of God can't be proved by these "what/who created God" or "what happened before the Big Bang" questions.

haraleah

09-09-2005, 03:14 PM

Not necessarily. I've come up with a sorta-explanation for why God doesn't need a creator.

Imagine on top of your moniter is an invisible box with imaginary things in it. This box has no weight, no mass and as soon as you stop thinking about it, it disappears. At the very beginning of time (at T = 0), there was nothing but that box. You were inside that box, I was inside that box, everything and everybody was. Presumably, God was also inside that box. However, if you're willing to accept that God is indeed all-powerful, it's not so big a leap to say He could simply step outside the box. If He couldn't step outside the box, than He wouldn't be God, God would be a figment of imagination, so He would be inside the box and would step out. If it's true that God has existed forever, than we can say that at the same time time (as we-Humanity as a whole-might perceive it) began, God also "began". The reason I say "began" is because if T = 0, than there was nothing before anything so time might not have counted.

And I can apply exactly the same argument to the Universe without requiring a God. In fact, applying Occam's Razor, it's a "better" solution to not have a God as a God complicates the system.

I can also trivially define an infinite but unbounded universe (spatially or temporally - cf. Escher and Hawking for different approaches to it).

JudoPorkChop

09-09-2005, 03:39 PM

Of course, this assumes that God is something exactly like us, and couldn't possibly be a different category altogether. That's like saying that, since men write books, then men are simply characters in some other book. That's poetry, man. Spurious logic.

No, it's like saying that everything comes from SOMETHING ELSE. Remember, matter is neither created or destroyed. The state and chemical composition changes, nothing more. Nothing wills itself into existence, nothing gets willed into existing, other wise I'd have drowned the world in a million Chelsums just for a giggle. And maybe a Sobe or two, 'cause that whole creatin'? Takes a lot out of a deity. And if your God exists, then so does Tepoztecal, Zeus, Wakan-Tanka, Vishnu, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because at this time, there is just as much proof of God's existance as any other deity.

haraleah

09-09-2005, 04:09 PM

No, it's like saying that everything comes from SOMETHING ELSE. Remember, matter is neither created or destroyed. The

Quantum fluctuations* - entirely (theoretically) possible that the universe itself is a huge quantum fluctuation and could suddenly cease to exist just like...

*Apply Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to delta(Energy) * delta(Time) <= Plank's Constant (approx formula - there may be a 2 * pi in there) and if delta(Energy) is very, very, very small (ie. mass of universe is almost exactly balanced by gravitational attraction), then delta(Time) can be long enough to let the 10+ billion year old universe that we inhabit exist.

Kragar

09-09-2005, 06:18 PM

No, it's like saying that everything comes from SOMETHING ELSE. Remember, matter is neither created or destroyed. The state and chemical composition changes, nothing more. Nothing wills itself into existence, nothing gets willed into existing, other wise I'd have drowned the world in a million Chelsums just for a giggle.

TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE. See, like some other people in this thread, you're taking a position of claiming more knowledge than we actually have. To the best of our knowledge, matter is not created or destroyed. To the best of our knowledge, matter is the only medium of existence. To the best of our knowledge, what we know is worth a damn.

Are you sure you know the nature of the universe? Or are you just a believer in another religion, one without gods? What proofs have you seen with your own eyes, touched with your own hand? Which proofs have you accepted because the person who said them "sounds right?"

You claim that because your personal will is not strong enough to change the world with a thought, then there is no will that could ever possibly be that strong. Is that logic or vanity?

And maybe a Sobe or two, 'cause that whole creatin'? Takes a lot out of a deity. And if your God exists, then so does Tepoztecal, Zeus, Wakan-Tanka, Vishnu, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because at this time, there is just as much proof of God's existance as any other deity.

Whose God? To the best of your knowledge, I'm a Christian, then. I don't see anything in my sig. I don't have a name-tag. I've never made any claims of any kind. Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. Goes to show how far your knowledge goes.

firaz

09-09-2005, 07:21 PM

i am gonna let u guys in on a secret. i knew wat happened.

some aliens from some really high tech world came to earth b4, on a dare, some of em mated with the apes.

i think u can figure out the rest bout evolution and blah blah blah ...

Roxie

09-09-2005, 07:45 PM

I'm sure this had been said before, but I'm not going to read the previous pages atm...but I've never understood why these too are always versus!

I don't believe they're mutually exclusive at all.

hapacheese

09-09-2005, 07:48 PM

ruaidhri

09-09-2005, 07:50 PM

Mr.Babalo

09-09-2005, 08:49 PM

As a part of the above-mentionned outside "world", I challenge you to name the countries teaching intelligent design or even countries with a sizeable movement that supports that theory. Saudi Arabia?

EVERYCOUNTRY who's official religion is: Muslim, christian, jewish (and probably more, basically any country who's god was abraham's god). Which is practically everycountry that doesn't believe in reincarnation philosophy(ex: india, japan, china, etC). So you're looking at well over half the world population.

Knowledge and superstitions are two different things. There is a method to scientific theories, and until you can prove intelligent design using a scientific approach and not the argument of "popular beliefs", it doesn't belong in science classes. Should we learn about telekinesy in physics or changing lead into gold in chemistry classes?

First of all, not everything can be proved by science; there are questions that will plague mankind forever. But just because no one has proved it, does that mean it's untrue?

As for telekinesis, my grade 12 physics teacher did, in fact, teach the class or at least talked about it in detail. Apparently there is a theory surrounding the cerebellum of the brain, that if it were to mutate and double in size, and have the capability to perform at 100% then telekinesis is possible. And if that human were to have kids, they would acquire the 'telekinesis gene' and pass on the genes and their genes would be passed down and so on. What's funny is that with time, a good portion of the population possess telekinesis and based on the history of mankind, 2 different groups of people will ultimately come at war. And who knows? they might even overthrow us. Will this ever happen? very, very unlikely, but nevertheless something to consider.

Now the lead turning into gold is not impossible. Ever heard of a nuclear fissure or fusion reaction? the nucleus of an atom splits or fusses(with another atom) to form a new element. It is possible that one day people will discover a method to fuse or split smaller or larger atoms to form gold. It's all a matter of time, i believe.

What is happening now in the US is that ID people are trying to present ID theory as an equal alternative to the evolution theory and hide its philosophical and religious origin. This is WRONG. This is deception. What kind of country, I mean regime, messes up with the minds of their kids in class like that?

whoa, whoa; calm down the bullshit train--no offence. But how can anyone present the ID theory, while hiding it's religious origin? That's like presenting a cheese burger and hiding it's cheese origin. No one is decieving no one. If anything they teach evolution in public schools very in-depth and just say the alternative(creation) in ONE sentence. That's all you learn about creation in public school: 1 sentence. So if anyone is triing to cover shit up it's the people teaching evolution.

And just because if something is philosophical doesn't mean it's untrue. Do you know where the origin of all sciences come from? as soon as definite knowledge(concerning any subject) is established this subject ceases to be called philosophy and becomes a sparate science. The whole study of the heavens (now belongs to astronomy) was once included in philosophy; Newton's "The mathematical principles of natural philosophy". Also the study of the human mind(once part of philosophy) is now the science of psychology. Question capable of definite anwser are placed in the sciences, while those with no definite anwsers make up the stuff we call philosophy. But who knows? maybe oneday (i believe) Jesus will come, then will question like "is there a God" be in philosophy? Religion (i mean the true teachings of god) will become a science in heaven

kiev33

09-09-2005, 10:18 PM

How, from the billions of possibilities born out of reality can things have turned out like they have?

Maybe they have turned out like the infinite realm of possibilities and we just happen to be living in this one asking that question.

Maybe we just can't see the other realities.

Kevin

hapacheese

09-09-2005, 10:21 PM

Or hell... how are we so certain that "this reality" is so special?

If things had turned out differently, and for whatever unknown reason, rocks had gained sentience, those rocks would probably be asking that same question.

You need to approach the topic with the understanding that our own assumptions that we are somehow special simply stems from our own arrogance. You are looking at the end result and trying to justify the process. You need to look at the process and realize that this just *happened* to be the end result.

Uh_oh

09-09-2005, 11:39 PM

Maybe rocks are sentient, posses a higher intelligence than us, and we just have no way of realizing. It's just an assumption based on "facts" that really, we just made up.

Really... someone prove that rocks are not sentient - please.

And as for evolution vs. creation - I belive in the FSM (http://www.venganza.org/index.htm) - it makes just as much sense as intelligent design.

setrict

09-09-2005, 11:46 PM

Really... someone prove that rocks are not sentient - please

Being reincarnated as a sentient, and highly intelligent rock. That would totally suck.

ImEllPro

09-10-2005, 12:21 AM

In chaos we were born, and in chaos we will die. Creationists and evolutionists are simply trying to understand where we came from and what the meaning of life is. What nobody understands is that there ISN'T a meaning to life. Creationists are putting life into red boxes. Evolutionists are putting life into blue boxes. Different colors, but still boxes. Life, tho, is gonna' chew its way out of those boxes and do what it damn well pleases. How did life begin? Who cares. We'll never really know. Have all the blind faith you your beliefs that you want, but in the end it really won't matter. Chaos will always reign supreme.

Roxie

09-10-2005, 01:02 AM

Roxie - It's not a matter of being mutually exclusive. The driving force, for all we know, *could* be the hand of a higher being.

However, simply because it's possible, doesn't make it automatically equal. =\
why can't it be?

If both are possible, why can't they both be equal?

I mean sense niether "side" knows everything about what happend...

hapacheese

09-10-2005, 01:16 AM

As I stated earlier, one is a conclusion, arrived at by observing evidence.

The other is simply assigning an exisiting assumption tacked onto a scientific theory, despite lack of evidence supporting the claim (there is no evidence against the claim, but in science, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim).

The difference is that evolution is high probable, and all evidence points to it being true. Intelligent Design is *possible*, but there is no evidence to support that claim, making it highly unprobable.

See the difference?

Also, by saying evolution and Intelligent Design is equal, you also have to concede that any other potential creation belief is equal.

Kustom

09-10-2005, 05:17 AM

I'll answer that in order, and try to keep it short.

EVERYCOUNTRY who's official religion is: Muslim, christian, jewish (and probably more, basically any country who's god was abraham's god). Which is practically everycountry that doesn't believe in reincarnation philosophy(ex: india, japan, china, etC). So you're looking at well over half the world population.

Funny. I come from a country where catholicism is the main religion, and I've never heard of the ID theory except in articles on America. Or maybe you mean countries where the OFFICIAL religion influences politics and education, a theocracy then? That makes sense, but it's certainly not over half the population of the world and I wouldn't use Iran as a role-model. And just so you get your figures straight, India, China, and the rest of Asia are already half of the world population.

First of all, not everything can be proved by science; there are questions that will plague mankind forever. But just because no one has proved it, does that mean it's untrue?

No. It means it doesn't belong in science classes on equal footing with an established scientific theory.

As for telekinesis, my grade 12 physics teacher did, in fact, teach the class or at least talked about it in detail. Apparently there is a theory surrounding the cerebellum of the brain, that if it were to mutate and double in size, and have the capability to perform at 100% then telekinesis is possible. And if that human were to have kids, they would acquire the 'telekinesis gene' and pass on the genes and their genes would be passed down and so on. What's funny is that with time, a good portion of the population possess telekinesis and based on the history of mankind, 2 different groups of people will ultimately come at war. And who knows? they might even overthrow us. Will this ever happen? very, very unlikely, but nevertheless something to consider.

Learning more about your science teachers kind of explains something about your current stance, but frankly did you think you were doing the best of your time in grade 12 listening to that? I had a history teacher who was nuts and could only talk about medieval torture, yet I don't believe medieval torture should be teached in junior high history classes. Although medieval torture is a much better established fact than telekinesy.

Now the lead turning into gold is not impossible. Ever heard of a nuclear fissure or fusion reaction? the nucleus of an atom splits or fusses(with another atom) to form a new element. It is possible that one day people will discover a method to fuse or split smaller or larger atoms to form gold. It's all a matter of time, i believe.

Sure, it's possible to imagine it just like teleportation or travelling at the speed of light is thinkable, but you don't teach it in science class until somebody actually demonstrate it can be done.

whoa, whoa; calm down the bullshit train--no offence. But how can anyone present the ID theory, while hiding it's religious origin? That's like presenting a cheese burger and hiding it's cheese origin.

Well they do. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why they stopped calling themselves "creationists", and why "intelligent design" is used instead of "God's design".

No one is decieving no one. If anything they teach evolution in public schools very in-depth and just say the alternative(creation) in ONE sentence. That's all you learn about creation in public school: 1 sentence. So if anyone is triing to cover shit up it's the people teaching evolution.

This is a matter of perception perhaps, but I strongly feel this is only the beginning. If this one sentence is allowed in, sooner than later it will become a whole paragraph and then they'll be asking that Darwin's theory be removed altogether. Why would they do that? Because the religious right-wing is not pro-ID per se, it is after all a new concept that people didn't give much thought about even a few years back: they are anti-Darwinism and want the evolutionary theory to be gone, and this has been going on for much longer.

And just because if something is philosophical doesn't mean it's untrue.

Nor does it mean it's true.

Do you know where the origin of all sciences come from? as soon as definite knowledge(concerning any subject) is established this subject ceases to be called philosophy and becomes a sparate science. The whole study of the heavens (now belongs to astronomy) was once included in philosophy; Newton's "The mathematical principles of natural philosophy".

Can you remind me exactly how helpful was the Church to Galileo and other scientists when their findings contradicted the litterary reading of the bible? Like hapa said, Darwin didn't wake up one morning and thought: "I'm gonna prove creationism wrong". He didn't have an agenda. Science require working hypothesis, but more often than not those hypothesis are proven to be completely wrong, and then scientists give them up. For some reason, religion doesn't work that way.

Question capable of definite anwser are placed in the sciences, while those with no definite anwsers make up the stuff we call philosophy. But who knows? maybe oneday (i believe) Jesus will come, then will question like "is there a God" be in philosophy? Religion (i mean the true teachings of god) will become a science in heaven

Or maybe the FSM will. Until then, this belongs to the sunday morning mass.

CNagy

09-10-2005, 05:30 AM

Sure, it's possible to imagine it just like teleportation or travelling at the speed of light is thinkable, but you don't teach it in science class until somebody actually demonstrate it can be done.

The issue hasn't been converting one element or another into gold. We can do it, we have done it (momentarily on an acceleration track,) the problem is that it is like spending 100 million dollars to turn a leaf into a dollar bill. Not exactly cost-effective.

Kustom

09-10-2005, 05:40 AM

Ok, then you should definitely teach that in science class. It doesn't mean that the Alchemists were right, though, as I'm pretty sure they had no acceleration tracks or nuclear fission available...

Kragar

09-10-2005, 06:57 AM

Krager, you have established that an intelligent person can argue any point simply by turning their opponents words back at themselves with a little editing and a twist of meaning. Of course, the best argument is always emotion because it is all too often far more powerful than reason.

*snip*

Words can inform and just as easily confuse. When you don’t have an argument for something, question its opposite. Confuse the reader and they won’t know what they believe. You suggest that the term “to the best of our knowledge” implies that we simply don’t know. I disagree. It actually recognizes that there are many variables that current scientific knowledge can not always accurately predict. It’s what I used to call CYCA or “cover your corporate ass.” The rule was to never, ever make an absolute statement because it was sure to come back and bite you.

Then you missed the point of what I said to both posters. Both Dana and Judo Pork Chop presented their cases as if humanity knew everything about the structure, material and outline of the universe. Their arguments were founded on the firmness of our understanding of it.*

I was trying to point out that their universal truths, the foundations of their arguments, are just as depenent and relative as many of the arguments that they are mocking. We don't know that time is infinite. We've never observed the end of it, but that's not the same thing as time being infinite. We don't know of anything exists except matter (and anti-matter), but that doesn't mean that it can't or doesn't exist. We only know what we know, and can only make conjectures based on that knowledge. To assume that we can comprehend _everything_ in the universe is a bit shallow and naive. It reminds me of Americans who think that they know how to fix the problems in some Third World country when they have never been there and don't understand the local conditions. They project their sense of reality onto the situation, and it is not always accurate or appropriate.

"To the best of our knowledge" implies that there are things that we don't know, and that we have to respect the limits of our knowledge. That is all.

Science, especially in the past century, has grown by making sure the questions being asked are the right ones. In each of these two cases, I think that the problem has been their presmises, the things that they think are unchangeable. They are making arguments based on guesses and conjectures and acting like they're facts, and the best way to attack an argument of that sort is to point out the poor quality and uncertainty of the facts.

JPC's idea of God needing a creator is espcecially grating because that's been a topic of religious philosphy for centuries, and he's acting like he's playing a trump card. Christianity holds, and has held for centuries, the idea that God is the Prime Mover, the uncreated creator. It's part of what makes him God.

If I did any twisting of words, that's a result of my writing style, of actually listening to the person I'm talking to and echoing their words, and not the argument itself.

*(Dana, "Time is infinite. IN.FIN.ITE. Infinite means there was no beginning and will be no end, just because we can't grasp that something has always been and always will be, doesn't mean that its not true." Judo Pork Chop, "No, it's like saying that everything comes from SOMETHING ELSE. Remember, matter is neither created or destroyed. The state and chemical composition changes, nothing more. Nothing wills itself into existence, nothing gets willed into existing, other wise I'd have drowned the world in a million Chelsums just for a giggle.")

JudoPorkChop

09-10-2005, 08:42 AM

TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE. See, like some other people in this thread, you're taking a position of claiming more knowledge than we actually have.

Very well then. Prove the existence of a god. Difficulty: You must use scientific process to do so. Failing that, create a valid, testable theory that would prove or disprove the existance of God. Failing that, prove God had a hand in evolution. Difficulty: Can't use any religious texts or sources, can't simply say "God did it." Cannot use faith as science. Scientific method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html#Heading7) only. You can not infer that anything we are currently technologically inable to observe, test, or repeat is capable only by divine means.

Done?

Now take all that, and compare it to the theories on evolution that have proof, and stand up to scientific scrutiny.

The theory of evolution has always been in a state of flux; it is not currently correct, nor is it complete. It will always remain an incomplete approximation. Each new major fossil discovery has the potential of showing that some part of the theory is wrong. When this happens, scientists revise their theories slightly to accommodate the new finding. We can thus expect that timings and minor details of the theory will change in the future. Conversely, there is only one general Creationism theory. "God did it." and if you disagree or produce evidence to disprove, you are either ignored or shouted down. Creationism is on par with stating that the earth is flat, and the sun revolved around us.

Frayed

09-10-2005, 10:05 AM

Which do you find more probable:

1) Random chance creating a complex symbiotic system
2) Random chance creating a entity eventually capable of creating a complex symbiotic system

There is a term for this error of reasoning known as a conjunction fallacy. Probability theory actually states that 1) is more probable than 2).

Even if the probability of the entity being created is 99% and the probability that the symbiotic system is created is 99% the probability that the entity and the system cooccuring is 99% multiplied by 99% which equals = 98.01%. Which is a lower probability than either event occuring on its own. (i.e just God or just humans at 99%)

They can only have the same probability of occuring (if the chance of either the entity or the system is 100%) but 2) will never in fact have a probability that is better than 1).

This is simply the conclusion drawn from that example according to probability theory.

I myself am glad I live in Australia, because the idea of teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design as it is now called, has not been a serious discussion. I think if you want to teach Creationism, do it in an optional class, called Religion (or Scripture) as they do here. But don't try and pass it off as science.

ImEllPro

09-10-2005, 12:00 PM

The chicken came before the egg. Probability always comes before possiblity. The chicken is probably allready a chicken, even if we kill it and eat it. The egg only has a possibility of becoming a chicken, because it could be infertile, we could eat it or it could become a rooster. Therefore, the chicken came before the egg.

Who made the chicken? I don't give a shit, as long as KFC keeps running that Free Chocolate Cake with a Family Bucket deal.

Chocolate cake. Yum. :)

setrict

09-10-2005, 07:01 PM

There is a term for this error of reasoning known as a conjunction fallacy. Probability theory actually states that 1) is more probable than 2).

You would be correct, assuming that the event in 1) is the same as in 2), which it is not.

What I said:

1) Event A happens
2) Event B happens, event C happens

That is not a conjunction fallacy.

1) Event A happens
2) Event B happens, event A happens

That would be conjuctive fallacy.

Frayed

09-11-2005, 12:36 AM

My mistake. I'd assumed you were contending that God had still used the process of chance to create humans (i.e trying to combine both Intelligent Design and Evolution as some people on this board have done)
Rereading it I see this is not the case.

On a different note: Evolution is not actually about chance occurence. To say evolution is the process of chance is in fact incorrect. We didn't just evolve by chance, we evolved for the environment. Sure there was some chance involved in that certain conditions on Earth occured at a certain time and those conditions allowed for us to evolve in certain ways, but to suggest that there was absolutely no driving force to our evolution is a misnomer. It's not that we have the perfect environment for the kind of species we are, its that we are the perfect species for the kind of environment.

Note: I use the term perfect here not to denote that there is no better species, just that we have been an effective species so far. Probably not the most effective so far, considering our relatively short time on the Earth

Monkey

09-11-2005, 01:18 AM

I've discussed the topic of Evoution vs Creation many many many times. It always seems to boil down to a matter of faith (as does the existence of god). Scientists can prove 80-90% of evolutionary theory, sure there may be a couple of gaps (in the fossil record for example) but we can prove most of it.

We can prove the existence of genes.
We can prove the inhertiance of genes from the parents to the child.

The creationist can prove nothing. Eventually the only argument that they can ever fall back on is that they have faith that god exists. Faith. I'm beginning to think that faith may be mankinds greatest curse.

Faith (The Monkey Definition): The ability to irrationally believe in something despite all rational evidence to the contrary.

Rusty

09-11-2005, 03:09 AM

There is no evolution vs. creationism because evolution does not rule out creationism, and vice versa (unless you're a fundamentalist).

ruaidhri

09-11-2005, 03:19 AM

No! Humanity does not know everything about the structure, material and outline of the universe. I don’t believe anyone suggested that. Of course, our knowledge is limited. That’s why the wise person qualifies their statements with phrases such as “to the best of our knowledge.” It’s covering their ass in the event they’re wrong. It’s religion, not science that suggests that they can never be wrong

The point is creationists have nothing supporting their contention that a God created heaven and earth and all in between. The creationists rely on faith and the twisting of words to suggest that because you can’t prove there is no God and that God didn’t create the universe then God must exist and did create all.

Infinity. That one word is probably the single biggest reason I began questioning my faith back in my Freshman year in High School. I went to a Lutheran school from 4th through 10th grades. In religion class we learned that God always was and always will be. That simply didn’t make sense. It started my questioning everything about my faith. But, that’s my problem, not yours.

Today, I’d like to have faith. It wouldn’t make God any more real. It would, however, make it easier for me to continue to grow older. We all know that we’ll die some day. When your in your 20’s it’s so far off in the future that you don’t waste much time thinking about your mortality. But, when you’re my age the inevitability becomes far more real. Faith would provide me with a comfort I don’t have. Yet, I can’t accept God’s existence solely on faith based on stories written by men.

Could there be a God? Is the God of Abraham the one true God? Is Jesus his only son? Because no one can prove otherwise does not make it so. Would I like it if there were a God? Yes, absolutely. But desire does not establish fact.

The existence of God is really such a silly argument. No one can win or lose. The other argument that should be debated and does have both a winner and loser is: Should our schools teach Intelligent Design along with Evolution? I say No; they shouldn’t.

Kragar

09-11-2005, 03:30 AM

Very well then. Prove the existence of a god. Difficulty: You must use scientific process to do so. Failing that, create a valid, testable theory that would prove or disprove the existance of God. Failing that, prove God had a hand in evolution. Difficulty: Can't use any religious texts or sources, can't simply say "God did it." Cannot use faith as science. Scientific method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html#Heading7) only. You can not infer that anything we are currently technologically inable to observe, test, or repeat is capable only by divine means.

First, why should I have to prove God? I don't recall ever saying that there was a God or that he was responsible for Creation.

Second, if I wanted to prove God, why should I have to play by your rules? God by definition would exist outside our framework of knowledge. That might mean that he can exist outside the framework of scientific method. It also discards the ideas of faith and intuition, which are the real cornerstones of religion.

At the same time, use scientific method to prove you're not dreaming and see how far you get.

Part of the problem is that Evolution is as much an emotional issue for you as Creationism is for the born again sect. Right or wrong, you're using a fierce attitude to railroad people into acknowledging your perspective on the question. Those are poor tactics in a discussion.

Kragar

09-11-2005, 03:57 AM

Mr.Babalo

09-11-2005, 09:19 AM

I'll answer that in order, and try to keep it short.

Funny. I come from a country where catholicism is the main religion, and I've never heard of the ID theory except in articles on America. Or maybe you mean countries where the OFFICIAL religion influences politics and education, a theocracy then? That makes sense, but it's certainly not over half the population of the world and I wouldn't use Iran as a role-model. And just so you get your figures straight, India, China, and the rest of Asia are already half of the world population.

I guess you're right on the figures, but still my point that there are MANY people believe in ID.

No. It means it doesn't belong in science classes on equal footing with an established scientific theory.

This is a paradox. Something that is not proven doesn't deserve EQUAL FOOTING with a scientific THEEEEORY(which ultimately means: NOT PROVEN).

Learning more about your science teachers kind of explains something about your current stance, but frankly did you think you were doing the best of your time in grade 12 listening to that?

What's wrong with learning something out of the curriculum? If you just want what is given to you, then i feel sorry. Because knowledge then becomes black OR white. You will never think outside the box. What the government wants you to know, you will know and that's it.

Sure, it's possible to imagine it just like teleportation or travelling at the speed of light is thinkable, but you don't teach it in science class until somebody actually demonstrate it can be done.

Physics has proven travelling at the speed of light is impossible. They even have an equation for it. As for Teleportation, it's what futurist believe we will be able to travel to distant galaxies. Well not really teleportation; it's more of bending space.

Well they do. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why they stopped calling themselves "creationists", and why "intelligent design" is used instead of "God's design".

People say it with the assumption other people will know the derivatives.

Creation-ists: key word CREATION. God created the heavens and earth. Same thing for intelligent design: the fact that biology--wel more so how nature, and the universe seems to function perfectly and very complex. Intelligent. As if it were all a plan. The only conclusion is that there must be a higher being.

This is a matter of perception perhaps, but I strongly feel this is only the beginning. If this one sentence is allowed in, sooner than later it will become a whole paragraph and then they'll be asking that Darwin's theory be removed altogether.

Why would they do that? Because the religious right-wing...

whoa whoa... don't get ahead of yourself. Darwins theory was introduced to the public around 1850s. Before then schools were teaching religion, even public schools not too long ago still had prayers in the morning. But as time progressed, religion is being shrugged off more n more(from public schools) and the Darwin theory being impliment to greater extents. Highschool students know more about evolution than they ever did before. Darwin's theory isn't going ANYWHERE. Infact, it may even get into the catholic schools one day.

Can you remind me exactly how helpful was the Church to Galileo and other scientists when their findings contradicted the litterary reading of the bible?

That's garbage. If Galileo was the guy who proved the earth was round or suggested it(correct me if im wrong), it never contradicted the bible. There's nothing in the bible that says the earth is flat. The church and science were ALWAYS on par, right up until Darwin came in the picture.

Like hapa said, Darwin didn't wake up one morning and thought: "I'm gonna prove creationism wrong". He didn't have an agenda. Science require working hypothesis, but more often than not those hypothesis are proven to be completely wrong, and then scientists give them up. For some reason, religion doesn't work that way.

no one has ever provided hard enough evidence that the bible was wrong. But this is another topic which can be argued all night.

Or maybe the FSM will. Until then, this belongs to the sunday morning mass.

I go to church on the seventh holy day that is the sabbath, which was proclaimed in the book of genesis, not sunday. Sunday is the first day of the week.

Kustom

09-11-2005, 11:42 AM

You have to understand the scientific method before making over the top statements. A scientific theory is not anything that is "not proven". If it was, ID and the Flying Spaghetti Monsters Design would be scientific theories too, but still you wouldn't have grounds to claim one should be taught and not the other. In fact, you would have to teach every other hypothesis anyone cares to make up along with them, if it was that simple. Fortunately for my kids-to-come' curriculum, it isn't.

Here's what wikipedia has to say about the scientific method:

Main article: Scientific method

The terms "model", "hypothesis", "theory" and "law" have different meanings in science than in colloquial speech. Scientists use the term model to mean a description of something, specifically one which can be used to make predictions which can be tested by experiment or observation. A hypothesis is a contention that has not (yet) been either well supported nor ruled out by experiment. A physical law or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations.

Are Darwinism and ID working scientific hypothesis? Certainly. You can always make the hypothesis that God or whoever made the world and its inhabitants and planted some misleading evidence of evolution. Why not.

The word theory is misunderstood particularly often by laymen. The common usage of the word "theory" refers to ideas that have no firm proof or support; in contrast, scientists usually use this word to refer to bodies of ideas that make specific predictions. To say "the apple fell" is to state a fact, whereas Newton's theory of universal gravitation is a body of ideas that allows a scientist to explain why the apple fell and make predictions about other falling objects.

Can we make accurate predictions using the evolution theory? Yes, pretty accurate and supported by numerous experiments. In contrast, unless you have a way to know what God is really thinking, you can't make any viable prediction about what will happen if you let mice have sex using the ID hypothesis, only that whatever happens will be God's will, and we have only your word to support that claim.

An especially fruitful theory that has withstood the test of time and has an overwhelming quantity of evidence supporting it is considered to be "proven" in the scientific sense. Some universally accepted models such as heliocentric theory and atomic theory are so well-established that it is impossible to imagine them ever being falsified. Others, such as relativity, electromagnetism and biological evolution have survived rigorous empirical testing without being contradicted, but it is nevertheless conceivable that they will some day be supplanted. Younger theories such as string theory may provide promising ideas, but have yet to receive the same level of scrutiny.

Mind you, a scientific theory can never be 100% proven, so nobody asks of ID to be proven 100% to be accepted as a scientific theory. However, please note for now that even ONE experiment that contradicts a given theory is enought to invalidate it as it is forever. Now do the evolution theory and ID have "an overwhelming quantity of evidence supporting it"? Evolution: check. ID: not even one experiment supports this. But this is unfair, you say! How could we design an experiment to validate or invalidate the existence of God? Precisely. ID is not a scientific theory and will never be, because it doesn't allow for proving or disproving itself through experimentation. Therefore, it has no more science in it than my claim that I created the universe out my ass last friday. You can't design experiments to prove or unprove it, it is a philosophical dilemma, but pointless mentionning in science class.

Scientists never claim absolute knowledge. Unlike a mathematical proof, a "proven" scientific theory is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them.

Re-read this part, it is equally fundamental. Can evolutionists accept evidence contradicting their theory? Of course, and many believe a more complete theory can be put together one day. Now can someone accept evidence if it contradicts the ID hypothesis? Certainly not if their belief stems from faith, because faith requires that you accept certain things to be true no matter what happens.

Newton's law of gravitation is a famous example of a law which was found not to hold in experiments involving motion at speeds close to the speed of light or in close proximity to strong gravitational fields. Outside those conditions, Newton's Laws remain an excellent model of motion and gravity. Because general relativity accounts for all of the phenomena that Newton's Laws do and more, general relativity is now regarded as a better theory.

Hence, ID doesn't belong in science classes. If tomorrow religious people start saying that all art is not in fact created by men, but inspired directly by God, would you feel compelled to mention in English 101 that Shakespeare may have written Hamlet, but it might as well be a superior being? Would it improve the class?

kiev33

09-12-2005, 07:17 PM

The theory of evolution has always been in a state of flux; it is not currently correct, nor is it complete. It will always remain an incomplete approximation. Each new major fossil discovery has the potential of showing that some part of the theory is wrong. When this happens, scientists revise their theories slightly to accommodate the new finding.

Bull puckey.

The Theory of Evolution is not dependent on each fossil find. It is a single theory that explains the way animals may develop over time. The branching evolution trees that have been created over time do need to be updated when new fossils are discovered, but the discoveries only fill in the blanks even more, they do not "change" Evolution.

Kevin

kiev33

09-12-2005, 07:58 PM

That's garbage. If Galileo was the guy who proved the earth was round or suggested it(correct me if im wrong), it never contradicted the bible. There's nothing in the bible that says the earth is flat. The church and science were ALWAYS on par, right up until Darwin came in the picture.

Again. Bull puckey.

Galileo was persecuted by Church leaders for suggesting the Earth rotated around the sun. In fact, he was under house arrest for years because he would not "confess" to having the whole thing made up. The "religious" theory that prompted this was that God made the Earth with all the people on it and it must be the most important thing in the Heavens so everything must revolve around us. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. And Galileo suffered because he dared to contradict them.

kiev33

09-12-2005, 08:10 PM

And Galileo suffered because he dared to contradict them.

Got's to be speakin' out for my man, Galileo!!! :)

Kevin

DarkFire168

09-12-2005, 08:34 PM

Well, if matter cannot be created or destroyed, how did the matter of the universe come into existance? What was there before the big bang?

A bunch of scientists have been finding out that matter spun in a centrifugal force fast enough reaches a certain period of time it begins to deplete, and become Anti-matter. Anti-matter is the absence of matter, thus before the universe was created anti-matter was the only thing around. So if anti-matter is the absence of matter, matter must be the absence of anti-matter. Thus if something were to cause a centrifugal force that reached a certain speed and period of time it's theorized that it would create matter, and that the existence of matter would trigger the "Big Bang" and thus create a matter filled universe. At least, that's what this one scientist's theory is that I was just reading about. Who knows we might all be created by aliens who were commisioned by mice to allow them to discover the meaning of life.

DarkFire168

09-12-2005, 08:38 PM

Besides, this topic is moot. Creationism is automatically wrong because it is based off the belief in god, and we all know god isn't real; the dinosaurs dissapprove him.

Woko

09-12-2005, 09:10 PM

As somebody already said, evolution and ID "theory" are two different things. Evolution theory is science; it more or less explains the facts we have, is fairly accurate when predicting future (adaption of species to new envorinment, mutations,etc.) and can be falsified if there is enough evidence that cannot be explained by the evolution theory.
On the other hand, Creation / ID "theory" is just religion masked as science; it cannot be falsified (one of the main traits of a scientific theory), cannot be used to predict future, it just IS.
That's why I find such disputes silly - mixing science and beliefs that cannot be explained.

kiev33

09-12-2005, 10:14 PM

[QUOTE=DarkFire168]Anti-matter is the absence of matter, thus before the universe was created anti-matter was the only thing around. So if anti-matter is the absence of matter, matter must be the absence of anti-matter. QUOTE]

Hmm. I thought anti-matter was just a negatibve of matter and not really an "absence" of anything.

kiev33

09-12-2005, 10:16 PM

Besides, this topic is moot. Creationism is automatically wrong because it is based off the belief in god, and we all know god isn't real; the dinosaurs dissapprove him.

How is this? As I have stated before, I believe that there is a God,, God made Man, and (props to Devo) he used a monkey to do it.

How do you figure that the dinosaurs "disprove" God? My thinking: he made them too. We are just now beginning to understand the smallest parts of his grand design.

Kevin

Monkey

09-13-2005, 12:04 AM

A bunch of scientists have been finding out that matter spun in a centrifugal force fast enough reaches a certain period of time it begins to deplete, and become Anti-matter. Anti-matter is the absence of matter, thus before the universe was created anti-matter was the only thing around. So if anti-matter is the absence of matter, matter must be the absence of anti-matter. Thus if something were to cause a centrifugal force that reached a certain speed and period of time it's theorized that it would create matter, and that the existence of matter would trigger the "Big Bang" and thus create a matter filled universe. At least, that's what this one scientist's theory is that I was just reading about. Who knows we might all be created by aliens who were commisioned by mice to allow them to discover the meaning of life.

Uh, that's a very wacky idea... Anti-matter is not the absence of matter it is just a different arrangement of quarks/anti quarks.

The people who've been stating the simple rule of "matter can neither be created nor destroyed" need to take into account that matter can be converted into energy and energy can be converted into matter. That's the basic principle behind nuclear fusion/fission. Ever heard of E=mc^2 ?

In fact when you get down to it all matter is just energy. Sure some of you will have heard of string theory, where all matter is just vibrating strings of energy, doesn’t this give you a few hints?