backtop


Print 423 comment(s) - last by skepticallizzi.. on Oct 4 at 2:38 PM


Man encounters uncertainty in his daily life, and typically it's an unpleasant experience. A new scientific study shows that fear of the theory of evolution may largely be due to peoples' negative feelings about unpredictable or random behavior.  (Source: Best of Media Blog)
Personal experiences may drive disbelief in evolution, as much or more so than religious beliefs

Today, most Ph.D instructors in life-science related fields conclude based on the overwhelming body of evidence that evolution was the process of changes that took life on Earth from unicellular life, to multicellular life in all its grandeur -- including man.  Yet, 44 percent of respondents to a recent 2007 Gallop Poll of U.S. citizens stated that they believed that God created man in its current form (pure creationism) and  44 percent stated they believed God guided human evolution (intelligent design).

A new behavioral science study performed at the University of Amsterdam and published in the peer-reviewed 
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology offers fascinating clues as to why some people may disavow evolution.

Intriguingly, while many people believe religious reasons to be the driving factor, for many people it appears that fear of randomness and uncontrolled circumstances is one of the major motivations for people to deny the theory of evolution.

In the study, a set of 140 undergraduate students were broken into two categories.  The first were told nothing before a questionnaire, but the second set were "primed" by asking them to recall a past threatening situation in their lives over which they had no control, and then asking them to give three reasons why the future is uncontrollable.

The students were then asked to pick which theory they felt was most valid among three popular theories of evolution -- traditional evolution, intelligent design (a religious-based theory that a deity guided evolution), and a newer secular theory of non-random evolution:

  1. The standard theory of evolution which "emphasized that natural selection is generally a random process in which unpredictable features of the natural environment determine the outcomes."

  2. An "intelligent design" theory which, "explained how a controlling designer, not random processes, provides the best way to explain the world."

  3. A view of evolution by natural selection which, "described how evolution of life is not random but orderly and predictable; replayed, evolution would inevitably result is a similar world as the present one," described in 2006 by the paleontologist Simon Conway-Morris.

The non-primed volunteers mostly preferred the traditional theory of evolution.  But the primed subjects, who had the topic of uncertainty in their lives fresh in their minds, were 15 percent more likely to pick intelligent design (#2), and 25 percent more likely to support a non-religious theory of ordered evolution (#3).

The study's authors, Professor Bastiaan Rutjens, et. al, conclude:

In sum, although it has been argued that science and religion are fundamentally opposed explanations of life, it seems that they can be deployed interchangeably to restore order. As we have seen in this study, framing Darwin's Theory of Evolution as depicting an orderly and predictable process reduced the need to bolster belief in a supernatural agent. In other words, increases in religious belief under threat are nullified when other (even science-based) options to restore order are present.

So perhaps resistance to evolutionary theory is based less on one's beliefs and more on an inherent human fear of uncertainty.  

That conclusion brings to mind the infamous quote by renowned physicist Albert Einstein, "I, at any rate, am convinced that [God] does not throw dice."

While it's easy to dismiss such research as trivial or inconsequential, it's important to bear in mind that the swing of the evolution debate determines a slew of measures, including public schools curriculum, college research grants, and more.  By determining that part of the mental roadblock to evolution is in the uncertainty, college and public schools instructors may be able to present the theory in a less threatening way, and at last convince the skeptical public of this theory that the majority of professional scientists believe there is conclusive evidence to support.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Proper Scientific Method
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 9/28/2010 12:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
The difference between Evolution and Creationism is that one uses proper scientific method, and the other does not.

The development of Evolution as a science is based on proper scientific method. Observe nature, create a hypothesis, test the hypothesis (by observing nature), adjust the hypothesis for anomalies, retest, adjust, etc., WITH Peer Review, most importantly.

Creationism uses the logical fallacy of Rational Constructionism, which is, embrace a conclusion first, then find evidence that supports your conclusion, and refute evidence that does not. This is why Creationists always accuse Evolutionists as having an atheist agenda - in other words, evolutionists are rational constructionists, too, which makes it okay for creationists to be rational constructionists.

Anyway, having studied philosophy, law and political science, you didn't need to do a study to convince anyone that creationists are reactionaries clinging to a simpler past, as happens in every leap forward in social, political, scientific, etc advancement. Its just taken 150 years for them to start moving ahead, since the movement is losing steam now.

Way to inflate your post numbers, btw.




RE: Proper Scientific Method
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 9/28/2010 12:18:13 PM , Rating: 4
Btw, just to be clear:
quote:
Today, most Ph.D instructors in life-science related fields believe that evolution was the driving force that created life on Earth


No they don't. They don't believe evolution created life. They assert that evolution is a method for life (once created) to adapt to its environment.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By gamerk2 on 9/28/2010 2:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Correct; Abiogenesis is the field that studies the Creation of life.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By PresidentThomasJefferson on 9/28/2010 7:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
Here's irrefutable proof of evolution video by a PhD biologist using DNA evidence, retroviral DNA etc citing work of Brown University biologist Ken Miller

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0
-quick 10 minute video, latest DNA proofs that creationists can't refute


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By morphologia on 9/29/2010 3:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
What do you mean, "creationists can't refute?" Their whole argument is based on ambiguity and wild assumption. They can refute anything they want, no matter how much sense it makes.

Remember, logical thinking is not a legal requirement. It probably should be, but there you are.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Albert J on 10/3/2010 5:02:34 AM , Rating: 1
Please explain how by random mutations necessary for Darwinism to work;

1) it is possible to 'evolve' complex cellular pumps, the parts of which all have to be present at the same time to operate correctly
2) The Cambrian Explosion, proved by the fossil record, in which life forms literally exploded into the biosphere, which is physically impossible if Evolution is the sole driving force of life on earth (no one contends that species can't learn, aka 'evolve', or we are wasting education $$$; what is in question is how life got here and how it diversified)
3) how do you get from a field mouse to a human with only 300 genes, (PS gene modulation infers an 'Author' of a code for modulation signal processing + an arbiter of that code's rules and modifications -'Windows' didn't just randomly appear after millions of random number generators - you loose on that argument alone! :) )
4) Why when fruit flies were bombarded with radiation did only weaker versions of the flies appear? Where is the 'stronger' genes in mutations caused by radiation?
5) How come after millions of years the big brained marine mammals have not invented beer, much less even figured out how to drink one? :)


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By kd9280 on 10/3/2010 10:37:18 AM , Rating: 2
1) The parts of the complex cellular pumps likely served another purpose prior to being part of the pumps. This is just a rehash of the bacterial flagellum argument that Michael Behe is so fond of.

2) Oxygenation in the ocean and the air caused a tremendous increase in the number of creatures. Evolution was not the sole driving force of life on Earth. It's like adding fuel to a fire.

3) I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here.

4) Radioactive mutations are not the same thing as genetic mutations. In fact, we know radiation causes debilitating mutations, that's not anything new. Genetic mutations happen all the time, and the majority are neutral.

5) Your facetiousness aside (I admit I laughed,) humans aren't really all that different from other creatures. You're just looking at us from the perspective of a 'big-brained' primate.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By flatrock on 9/28/2010 1:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The development of Evolution as a science is based on proper scientific method. Observe nature, create a hypothesis, test the hypothesis (by observing nature), adjust the hypothesis for anomalies, retest, adjust, etc., WITH Peer Review, most importantly.


What the scientific method will show you is that the THEORY of evolution cannot be proved or disproved. That is why it is and will remain a theory. You can come up with a lot of supporting evidence, but the theory is sufficiently vague and broad that it cannot be proved. You can come up with things that contradict things that others said supported evoloution, but that doesn't disprove evoloution.

What SCIENCE shows is is that evoloution is a theory that helps us explain the world around us, but when it comes down to it a leap of faith is required to believe in it.

quote:
Creationism uses the logical fallacy of Rational Constructionism, which is, embrace a conclusion first, then find evidence that supports your conclusion, and refute evidence that does not.


You mean they observed something, came up with a theory to explain it, and then go about proving or disproving it? Sounds kind of like the scientific method. The tendency to discount things that don't support your conclusions is a human failing and is not limited to supporters of any one theory. Your ignoring that is plagues strict evoloutionists is an example of it.

Science is a dicipline by which we try to explain the world around us. Evoloution is one scientific theory which is well supported, though since it's extremely broad and basically disprovable, that is kind of inevitible. That's a logical result of the nature of the theory, not actual proof.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By tng on 9/28/2010 2:33:38 PM , Rating: 1
Evolution will become a fact when science can point to a species (large scale, not bacterial or viral) that has changed enough to become an entirely new species.

Even after thousands of years of dogs as our BFF it can't be pointed out that they have evolved into a new species.

Not saying that it doesn't or will not happen, but just the same evolution is still a theory until it happens.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By TeXWiller on 9/28/2010 3:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
Would the recent proposed speciation of the killer whale be sufficient for you? Also, it's very hard to bypass the Darwin's finches.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By tng on 9/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Squigybits on 9/28/2010 3:51:55 PM , Rating: 1
Moving the goal posts!


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Sazar on 9/28/2010 4:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
Gravity is also called THEORY (i.e. Gravitational THEORY).

Evolution is an on-going process and there are plenty of examples where you can look to and see branches including the example of the previous poster. What exactly are you looking for?


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/28/2010 5:10:30 PM , Rating: 2
It's hilarious to see the response of "gravity is just a theory" when someone makes a comment that cannot be countered by any evolutionists. He asked for proof of one animal becoming another, and no-one provided any.

He has a good point. For thousands of years we have been 1 on 1 with dogs. NOT ONCE has a dog produced a non dog. Somehow, changes within the species or kids is enough proof for evolution? I don't think so... Evolution is psudo-science. It cannot be observed in the natural world.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Flail on 9/28/2010 6:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. You don't even know the difference between micro and macro evolution, do you?


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Squigybits on 9/28/2010 6:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
That is because you are using nonscientific language, rhetoric and a straw man argument to ask a question that makes no sense. A dog will always be a dog per our language construction. If it looses it's legs and slithers on the ground we would still call it a dog. Your point is irrelevant.
Look at the fossil record and look at existing creatures that have rudimentary limbs and pelvises where they are not needed, like some whales and glass lizards. That is evolution in process! There is no other explanation.
Now take a small part of what I have written here out of context and post a response that makes it sound like I am saying the opposite of what I really am. Then ignore the rest. You do know that people can read what you are responding to correct?


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/28/2010 7:49:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Look at the fossil record and look at existing creatures that have rudimentary limbs and pelvises where they are not needed, like some whales and glass lizards. That is evolution in process!

Whales have an unnecessary pelvis?! LOL. Nice try, but they wouldn't be able to birth an offspring without those bones. What next, are you going to say that we have a vestigial tail bone and appendix.
quote:
There is no other explanation

*There is no other explanation that I agree with. <--- There, I fixed that for you.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By PresidentThomasJefferson on 9/28/2010 8:34:19 PM , Rating: 5
For those ignorant in biology:
1) PELVISES ARE NOT NEEDED to give birth.. there are several species of Fish & SHARKs that give LIVE birth --and they don't have pelvises.. as a matter of fact, pelvises just get in the way & why humans had a 20% death rate among women giving birth because the pelvis is too small/gets in the way of the head being too big for the pelvis

2) There are fully functional cases of humans born w/ prehensile tails & bones in them (see photos at medical school library here http://www.anatomyatlases.org/AnatomicVariants/Ske...

3) Chickens have dormant teeth DNA (their dormant DNA was activated & they grew teeth) as in these chickens:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=m...

& UCLA researchers also activated those dormant teeth DNA in chickens here:
http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/dino_rebirth.h...

4) Whales/dophins born w/ hindlimbs can be seen in photos here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.h...

More at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.h...
===
Here's irrefutable proof of evolution video by a PhD biologist using DNA evidence, retroviral DNA etc citing work of Brown University biologist Ken Miller --more solid than DNA proof that convicts people in court

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0 -quick 10 minute video, latest DNA proofs that creationists can't refute

2) The 'humans must be recent or else they'll be 50 billion people long ago' is false because it shows creationists are simpletons w/ no understanding of ecology/biology.. what limits population growth/size is FOOD & WATER OF THE LOCAL REGION/ECOLOGY --that's why there's not 1 BILLION desert snakes in the desert.. a population maximum size is limited NOT BY AREA BUT BY HOW MUCH FOOD(PREY ANIMALS & EDIBLE PLANTS) in the region.. as well as local diseases...

Famines killing millions were frequent & common throughout most of human history(Irish potato famine was just a small one) as well as plagues (killed 33% of Europe)..and before the 20th century of modern medicine, 20% of women died in childbirth

Hell, it was predicted decades ago that there would be world food shortages/famines but it was averted because crop yields were increased 20-50x(depending on species) by FDR-trained Nobel Prize winner Norman Borlaug, who's gov research created the "Green Revolution" that multiplied food production.

3) There's been plenty of new species that's arisen (a species is any population that can't or doens't interbreed with another population, usually because DNA has changed too much)'http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Proper Scientific Method
By StevoLincolnite on 9/29/2010 12:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The same site you provide as sources mention that human embryos have tails during the early development stages LOL.


You seriously don't believe the junk you write do you?
Google it, it will give you access to the largest repository of information known to mankind in order to "enlighten" yourself.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Fritzr on 9/28/2010 10:24:55 PM , Rating: 5
Don't bother further with Quadrillity.

All his multiple pages of response boil down to:
My explanation is correct due to my belief.
There is no other explanation that I agree with


Say what you like, but unless you are supporting his beliefs, his response will explain why his beliefs say you are wrong :P

He is very good at explaining that contradictory evidence cannot exist because it wouldn't support the right answer :)


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Fritzr on 9/29/2010 12:50:26 AM , Rating: 4
One of the cornerstones of debate is that you do not invalidate your own assertions.

Such as
"All canids are related and descended from a common canid ancestor" (You state this is true)
"All great apes are related and descended from a common ape ancestor" (You state this is false--reason given is that humans are great apes+humans are not related to apes=the statement equivalent to your canid truth is in fact false)

So which is correct?
Multiple species of similar appearance with minimal genetic difference are related (your statement)
OR
Multiple species of similar appearance with minimal genetic difference are not related (your response to someone else repeating your statement with a different set of animals)

Just wondering...


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Cheesew1z69 on 9/29/2010 7:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you live in La-La land?! I NEVER said humans are great apes. Humans are not animals. Apes are animals. We are not the same KIND as animals.
An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, including humans. Due to its ambiguous nature, the term ape has been deemphasized in favor of Hominoidea as a means of describing taxonomic relationships.

Under the current classification system there are two families of hominoids:

* the family Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 14 species of gibbon, including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known as the lesser apes.
* the family Hominidae consisting of chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans[1][2] collectively known as the great apes.

A few other primates, such as the Barbary Ape, have the word ape in their common names (usually to indicate lack of a tail), but they are not regarded as true apes.

Except for gorillas and humans, all true apes are agile climbers of trees. They are best described as omnivorous, their diet consisting of fruit, including grass seeds, and in most cases other animals, either hunted or scavenged, along with anything else available and easily digested. They are native to Africa and Asia, although humans have spread to all parts of the world.

Most nonhuman ape species are rare or endangered. The chief threat to most of the endangered species is loss of tropical rainforest habitat, though some populations are further imperiled by hunting for bushmeat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Magare on 9/29/2010 7:46:35 PM , Rating: 1
Humans are animals. That is in the literal sense of the word. As far as I know there are three types of living organisms on Earth: animals, plants and fungi. Since humans are neither plants nor fungi, that puts us right in the animal kingdom.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/29/2010 8:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yet we are the only ones that speak/harness electricity/ pilot aircraft... can you not see the differences between Animals and human beings? Yeah we are similar to apes/other animals; this could just as well be proof for a common designer!

Calling yourself an animal gives you rights to act like one. I see this as very dangerous thought processes.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Magare on 9/29/2010 11:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I can see the diference - we are the most inteligent animals. Nevertheless, we are animals. If you do not consider yourself an animal - then what are you, are you an oak, or are you a mushroom?

Define acting as animal, please.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By mcnabney on 9/29/2010 11:22:13 AM , Rating: 3
Just remember, people that think like Quadrillity have been known to fly passenger planes into buildings when they get really upset.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/29/2010 1:40:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Just remember, people that think like Quadrillity have been known to fly passenger planes into buildings when they get really upset.

How can you make an accusation like that? Had I called you all infidels and made death threats; that would give you a perfectly legitimate reason to accuse me of terrorism.

So now being a Christian makes you a terrorist? Unbelievable...


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By eskimospy on 9/29/2010 1:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
Remember guys, telling people they are anti-American is A-OK, but telling a decent, god fearing guy like our good friend Quadrillity that he shares attributes with other religious fundamentalists who became terrorists is unbelievable.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By morphologia on 9/29/2010 3:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
Being Christian only makes you a terrorist if you try to force people to vote the way you want by means of misinformation and threats of violence. This is something that those so-called "grassroots" organizations that are polluting my prime-time TV watching should keep in mind.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/29/2010 3:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Being Christian only makes you a terrorist if you try to force people to vote the way you want by means of misinformation and threats of violence.

Proof or it doesn't happen. And even if you do have a specific event in mind, it does not (in any way) represent the Christian community. Are you using stereotypes again?

quote:
so-called "grassroots" organizations that are polluting my prime-time TV watching should keep in mind.

Do you understand that Christian "grassroots" are what formed this entire country? It makes some people furious to know that the majority of our founding fathers were devout Christians.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By transamdude95 on 9/29/2010 4:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
bible - proof or it doesn't happen. god - proof or it doesn't happen. 'Proof or it doesn't happen' is your favorite phrase, yet you simply ignore it when it comes to your own thoughts. And, please note, I use 'your own' very loosely.

christian grassroots formed the country? Majority of Founding Fathers were christians? What country are you talking about? Certainly not the US. Most of the Founding Fathers were opposed to the bible and the teachings of christianity. They were students of the European enlightenment. Stop trying to rewrite history, monkey.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By jesuslovesyou on 10/2/2010 2:53:27 AM , Rating: 2
well, it becomes obvious that not only the evolutionary sheep posting on here ignorant of science as concerns the subject of this article, but some appear to be ignorant of american history as well. That may well be due to the fact that the same entities that push aesops explanation for the origins of things also push a completely distorted revision of american history. Making statements of the kind you made reflects quite poorly on you and you training/knowledge of american history and the subjects of that history; the founders of this nation.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By kd9280 on 10/3/2010 10:42:41 AM , Rating: 2
Thomas Jefferson - "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

John Adams - "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Adams again - "The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

Thomas Paine - "Among the most detesable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers, and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."

James Madison - "What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

Not all the founding fathers were Christians. Some were Puritan Deists if anything, believing in a Creator not necessarily attached to the Christian beliefs, but compatible with them. Our country was not founded on Christian belief, in fact the Establishment Clause was set out specifically to combat the kind of problems that non-Christians had with a solely Christian empire.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By teddlybar2 on 10/3/2010 4:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
If you're going to quote Jefferson, please make sure your quote is accurate. This particular quote has been known to be false for quite some time. The last portion of it is is legitimate and comes from Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVII. The first portion however seems to be something that has only been around since the late 1990's.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By kd9280 on 10/3/2010 7:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, you're right. I took one example of Jefferson's quotes and it happened to be a fake.

Regardless, Jefferson denied the divinity of Jesus, but he thought the teachings in the Bible were a good source of morality.

Jefferson - "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/29/2010 9:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It makes some people furious to know that the majority of our founding fathers were devout Christians.

No, it makes some people furious to hear idiots keep claiming that because IT ISN'T TRUE.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By acer905 on 9/28/2010 7:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
Not to be nit-picky, but it all comes down to how much genetic difference constitutes a new species. Originally there was one "type" of dog, and it certainly was not a Pomeranian. However, due to selective breeding over the last few hundred (or more) years we have been able to create over 200 different "types" of dog, which can be identified by a DNA test. This is something that has actually been used before in papers on evolution (see scientific american article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a... )

It all depends on what it takes to classify something as a new species, which in itself is something that is defined by scientists...


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Calindar on 9/28/2010 8:55:55 PM , Rating: 5
So, you are agreeing then that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor? We share incredible amounts of features, genetics, mannerisms, not to mention all of the fossil records that show that we do. Chimpanzees and humans are both the same "kinds", as they are both classified as Great Apes.

Cool.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Calindar on 9/28/2010 9:21:19 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You believing that you came from an ape accounts for your behavior here haha.


My behavior here? I think I have been nothing but civil. Disagreeing with what I say does not mean that I am acting out of line.

quote:
An ape and a human are not the same kind.


Well then, what is the definition of a kind?(An exercise in futility, I know). If a dog, wolf, and fox are all the same "kind", how are Chimps and Humans not the same "kind"?

By the way, that statement is actually FACTUALLY false, humans are classified as Great Apes.

Here's a pretty good video to watch. No scientific explanations, but I strongly encourage you to watch it. It's pretty moving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg4AjD1fUaw


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Proper Scientific Method
By acer905 on 9/28/2010 8:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
Grey areas indeed. The simple fact that we as a collective are the ones who have classified everything into their respective Kingdoms, Phylums,Classes, Orders, Families, Genuses and Species, and mostly based upon findings from years past comparing physical differences instead of genetic makeup. However, we are now trying to create a complete genome of all life (an extensive, nigh endless task) which will finally give us the ability to accurately place organisms. Once we can do real time tracking of genetic drift, we will be able to assign real values to the amount of difference needed in order to be a different species, and see firsthand any evolution that occurs.

This article, from 2002:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2833-humanch...

That article states that we share around 93.6% of our genetic structure with chimps, and our classification system breaks apart at the Tribe level (which is a sublevel oft ignored between Family and Genus). Where would two creatures with 99% genetic similarity break apart in our structure, and what would it take to cause a 1% genetic drift?


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/29/2010 8:42:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That article states that we share around 93.6% of our genetic structure with chimps,

It's also interesting to note that the number has dropped over the years from 99% to (i guess current) 93.6%. I'm sorry, but even .01 percent genetic difference is A LOT. Let alone 7 percent differences.

Did you know that cats have a 90% DNA similarity with humans?
quote:
Where would two creatures with 99% genetic similarity break apart in our structure, and what would it take to cause a 1% genetic drift?

I'm not sure if you believe evolution to be true, but if you do: We can't say that DNA similarities have anything to do with likeness. DNA isn't an algebraic math equation where you can solve for X lol. Don't let geneticists lie to your face, they can't even scratch the surface as to how DNA actually works. (yes we have discovered major milestones in our time, but we are still very clueless to the whole mystery of it.)

I would say that DNA shows a common designer more than anything.


By skepticallizzie on 10/4/2010 2:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
Quadrillity-
I really am being genuine and not at all trying to be offensive. For this particular post- lets all pretend for a second that there is a god. My problem with ID is this:
1- to believe in ID, you believe in a conscious plan to make human beings, along with animals, etc.
2- What proof is there that god has consciousness, or any other human characteristic?
3- Again, there would have to be a moment where this god said to himself: ok, theres got to be something better then a chimp... i will make a man (adam and eve). Why havent there been any other developments from this highly conscious entity since that moment? We are far from efficient and far from biologically stable. So why wouldn't god make a better human being then?

Again, I really want to understand why anyone would believe in something that has projected human qualities when we ourselves, as humans, are the ones who made him up to start with. This is a genuine statement. I am not bashing christianity- i just want to understand how people can blindly trust in something without any legitamite proof.

I mean, the bible has great wonderful stories, metaphors, archetypes for life. But it doesn't necessarily mean that it is the truth.

i have so many questions and so little answers.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Fritzr on 9/28/2010 10:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the modern dog is the result of speciation. It was a Wolf or Wild Dog species that gave rise to the modern domestic dog that is distinct from the other canine lineages. So the new species you are sneering at is the proof licking your hand :P


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/29/2010 8:47:04 AM , Rating: 1
What exactly are you trying to prove here? That a wolf, wild dog, and domestic dog are the same kind? They are all the same KIND OF ANIMAL. How stupid do you have to be to not get that?!

I'll make a list for you:

a) Domestic cat
b) Mountain lion
c) tiger
D) elephant

Which one of these is not the same kind? How about lets use some common sense this time.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/29/2010 6:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
So not one of you can reply to this?


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By kd9280 on 9/30/2010 11:32:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What exactly are you trying to prove here? That a wolf, wild dog, and domestic dog are the same kind? They are all the same KIND OF ANIMAL. How stupid do you have to be to not get that?!

I'll make a list for you:

a) Domestic cat
b) Mountain lion
c) tiger
D) elephant

quote:
So not one of you can reply to this?

I'll bite.

a) Domestic Cat : Species = Felis catus : Genus = Felis : Family = Felidae : Order = Carnivora : Class = Mammalia
b) Mountain Lion : Species = Puma concolor : Genus = Puma : Family = Felidae : Order = Carnivora : Class = Mammalia
c) Tiger : Species = Panthera tigris : Genus = Panthera : Family = Felidae : Order = Carnivora : Class = Mammalia
d(a) African Bush Elephant : Species = Loxodonta concolor : Genus = Loxodonta : Family = Elephantidae : Order = Proboscidea : Class = Mammalia
d(b) African Forest Elephant : Species = Loxodonta cyclotis : Genus = Loxodonta : Family = Elephantidae : Order = Proboscidea : Class = Mammalia
d(c) Asian Elephant : Species = Elephas maximus : Genus = Elephas : Family = Elephantidae : Order = Proboscidea : Class = Mammalia

They're all mammals.
By order and family, all of d are Proboscidea Elephantidae and a, b, and c are all Carnivora Felidae.
By genus, a, b, and c are Felis, d(a) and d(b) are Loxodonta, and d(c) is Elephus.
By species, they're all different.

So my answer, which is the different 'kind'?
a, b, c, and d are all different populations of creatures.

(By the way, your failing to separate the 'elephant kind' into its two genuses proves how flimsy the term 'kind' is)

Also, just to be complete.

Gray Wolf : Species = Canis lupis : Genus = Canis : Tribe = Canini : Subfamily = Caninae : Family = Canidae : Order = Carnivora : Class = Mammalia
African Wild Dog : Species = Lycaon pictus : Genus = Lycaon : Family = Canidae : Order = Carnivora : Class = Mammalia
Domestic Dog : Subspecies = Canis lupis familiaris : Species = Canis lupis : Genus = Canis : Tribe = Canini : Subfamily = Caninae : Family = Canidae : Order = Carnivora : Class = Mammalia

So actually you're wrong with them too. Domestic dogs are wolves, but they are not the same species or genus as wild dogs (I went with African Wild Dog because the term 'wild dog' is very ambiguous.)


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Magare on 9/30/2010 1:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
Don't bother explaining this guy. He's not going to get it anyway. Earlier he said that "a trout and a swordfish are the same kind of animal" just because they are both fishes. That's like saying that a cow and a tiger are the same kind of animals because they are both mammals.

Guys like Quadrillity are actually detrimental to Christianity. They turn people away from Christianity with their ridiculous and ignorant statements about the natural world we live in. Guys like him seem to live in an imaginary world full of miracles, giants and so on just because the bible says so. Just for the record: I was born and raised with Christian traditions and I was even baptized. I have never been religious neither have my family. I was considering myself agnostic. After having some long discussions with a colleague of mine (a young earth creationist - born again Christian) I got turned into complete atheist. For what I know about Christianity - it is a personal relation between a person and Jesus Christ. All the rest (specifically the Old Testament) is just mythology. Interesting fictitious stories with some good morals and values, but they are not to be taken literally. The important thing is their message.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By wgbutler on 9/30/2010 1:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

After having some long discussions with a colleague of mine (a young earth creationist - born again Christian) I got turned into complete atheist.


This has to be one of the dumbest reasons to be an atheist that I have ever heard of.

If I were of the same mentality then the sophomoric and asinine remarks from the obnoxious atheists that inhabit this forum would force me to forsake the human race, become a monk and live in solitary confinement eating only bread crumbs and water at the top of Mount Everest.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Magare on 9/30/2010 2:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
Show me a better reason to become an atheist. After hearing statements like "trout and swordfish are the same kind" and "the men have fewer ribs than women" (not from this tread) and "that our Solar System has Sun, planets and many stars" (also not from this tread I can't think of a better reason to become an atheist.

Given your reaction, one can safely assume that you are one of those "religious nuts" and those are the people on this forum that have "sophomoric and asinine remarks". If however, my assumptions are incorrect, then you should be choosing your words better.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By wgbutler on 9/30/2010 2:34:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Show me a better reason to become an atheist.


The reason why one should be an adherent of any belief system should be because the evidence for the belief system in question makes that belief system the most likely to be true. This is especially true if the belief system has the potentially enormous ramifications of an afterlife.

quote:

After hearing statements like "trout and swordfish are the same kind" and "the men have fewer ribs than women" (not from this tread) and "that our Solar System has Sun, planets and many stars" (also not from this tread I can't think of a better reason to become an atheist.


And after reading statements like

quote:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla...

(Charles Darwin)


Really, with logic like this I can't think of a better reason to become a theist.

Given your reaction, one can safely assume that you are one of those "angry atheists" and would fit in very well with the other lemmings on this forum. If however, my assumptions are incorrect, then you should be choosing your words better!


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Magare on 9/30/2010 3:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
Your assumptions are correct. I am an angry atheist. However, to make it clear - I am not angry at all religious people in general. I have absolutely nothing against people being religious and spiritual and having faith in a supreme deity. That's why we have freedom of religion here. What makes me angry and sad at the same time is when some religious people (luckily they are minority) disregard the enormous amount of evidence that the earth is more than 6000 years old and spread around a lot more fairy tale nonsense based on nothing but strictly literal INTERPRETATION of the Old Testament.

What a person of different religion or of no religion at all would think of Christianity if that person encounters a young earth creationist? They would ask themselves whether all Christians are so 13th century? Of course that would be a wrong conclusion just like it is wrong to conclude that all Muslims are terrorists. Just as few Muslim terrorist make a bad name for Islam, few young earth creationists make a bad name for Christianity. Nobody wants to have their religion associated with bunch of loonies.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By wgbutler on 9/30/2010 3:24:33 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough. I appreciate your zeal for the truth and the scientific method.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/30/2010 7:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
I get called a loony because you don't agree with my opinions? You are a great help to our society. I have tried way too many times to make light of the fact that evidence will always be subjective, because it is opinions of the facts.

If you think evidence = fact, then why do scientists use evidence to support ideas? It's like saying "I'm using fact to prove fact". It doesn't work that way. You use subjective opinion to SUPPORT facts. Otherwise, whenever a conclusion turns out to be wrong, wouldn't they be changing facts instead of changing how they viewed the facts?

Are we changing facts, or are we changing evidence? My point, which never gets understood AT ALL, is that evidence can and will ALWAYS support different conclusions. You cant sit on one side of an argument and say, "Nope, I'm right, and you're wrong! Deal with it!". Is that really how you think this world is supposed to work?

Just because you have a pure hatred for my conclusions doesn't give you ANY right to call me a fairly tale believing loon. I could do the same as you and point, laugh, and say, "look at him! he's too stubborn to bow his head to a higher power!" But I don't, I respectfully disagree with you opinion while trying to FIGHT my way out of a corner when other tramp all over my right to express myself. That's a really hateful way to treat people...

You act as if I am plotting terror attacks just because I have (ample) reason to believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Give me a break..


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Magare on 10/1/2010 3:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
You get called loony not just because I don't agree with your opinions, but you don't agree with your own opinion as well. You say that humans and chimps (for one example) are not the same kind, and then you say that trout and swordfish are the same kind. Let me remind you that trout differs physiologically and biologically from swordfish much more than chimp from human.

Talking about facts? Let me give you some facts:
1) Andromeda Galaxy exists.
2) The distance to Andromeda Galaxy is approximately 2,500,000 light-years.
3) Speed of light in vacuum a constant and is equal to approx. 300,000 km/sec (or approx. 186,000 miles/sec.
4) Interstellar space is very close to vacuum.
5) We can see (observe) the Andromeda Galaxy (refer to (1)).
6) In order for (5) to be true (fact), which it is, light MUST have traveled for at least 2,500,000 years to reach Earth.
7) Andromeda galaxy and all its stars are a lot more than 10,000 years old.

How do these FACTS fit with the 6 day creation myth, which supposedly had happened some 6,000 years ago?


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/30/2010 1:52:27 PM , Rating: 2
You cannot be serious... Have you not read a single word of the discussion about kinds, species, and classification systems?!! I DID NOT ASK FOR A BREAKDOWN BY CLASSIFICATION.

A Kindergartner could have answered the question that I posed. An ELEPHANT is NOT the same KIND of animal as a cat (be it a large cat, or a domestic). Are they all mammals? Duh, are you really trying to call me that stupid? You act as if I am don't already know how to classify life. I guess this is the situation where your big ol' scientific brain is too smart to answer simple questions.

I DID not ask for classification breakdown; and as I said earlier, Not one single system has ever been proven sufficient and universal for all life on this planet.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By kd9280 on 9/30/2010 5:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
Are you saying observation is enough to declare a 'kind'?

Are slow-worms, snakes, and eels the same 'kind' of creature? They all look the same, after all.

Did you know that hyenas are actually of the suborder Feliforma? A Kindergarten student would see this and think it's a dog, not a cat.
Did you know that bears, seals, and walruses are of the suborder Caniforma? Try telling a Kindergarten student that a bear is a dog. Even funnier, tell them that a walrus is a dog.
Did you know that civets and otters aren't in the same suborder (the former is Feliforma, the latter Caniforma)? Show these two animals to a Kindergarten student, and they'll swear up and down they're the same kind of creature.

That's only a few examples from one order (Carnivora.) I've looked through most of the different orders in the Mammalian class of animals, and some of the things are very interesting to see. I didn't even get to other classes, but I imagine they're just as crazy.

The word 'kind' means jack. Creationists twist and manipulate what they consider similar 'kinds' just because they need to do it. A class is a class. Classification is there for a reason, so a scientist cannot say 'all cats are the same.'


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Fritzr on 9/28/2010 9:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it is called a Theory because the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of it being correct.

Other theories include the one postulating that there is a high likelihood that life will be found on the third planet of the star Sol. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of finding life on that planet, but under the rules of science it remains a Theory. Like Gravity the evidence is sufficient to raise it to the level of the theories called Laws, but even at that level errors are found and modifications are made.

Science asks questions and questions the answers. Religion answers questions and shoots those who doubt. Totally different approach to understanding the world and putting that understanding to use in designing new conveniences for the ?intelligence? inhabiting Sol 3.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By kd9280 on 9/28/2010 3:41:33 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Evolution will become a fact when science can point to a species (large scale, not bacterial or viral) that has changed enough to become an entirely new species.


Why do you discount bacteria and viruses? These are species, correct? Why is their evolution not 'acceptable'?


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/28/2010 5:13:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why do you discount bacteria and viruses? These are species, correct? Why is their evolution not 'acceptable'?

because it is the same kind of living organism. A bacteria has never produced a tree.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Calindar on 9/28/2010 6:38:15 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
because it is the same kind of living organism. A bacteria has never produced a tree.

Yet another perfect example of how your arguments against evolution only prove that you have absolutely no understanding of evolution.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/28/2010 7:31:24 PM , Rating: 1
So bacteria only transforms into different kinds of animals when you add millions/billions of magical years the the equation?


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Calindar on 9/28/2010 8:47:26 PM , Rating: 5
The fact that you actually think that evolutionary theory says a bacteria can directly turn into a tree is so fundamentally stupid, that I am at a loss for words. I have trouble believing that anyone could have thoroughly studied the material and legitimately come to that conclusion. You saying things like that leaves two possibilities, you either haven't studied the material, and are bearing false witness against evolution with willful ignorance and baseless attacks, or you actually did study the material but couldn't grasp an understanding of it. Either way, you continually show that you do not understand what the theory actually implies, and what it's mechanisms are actually capable of.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 9/29/2010 7:49:38 AM , Rating: 3
Oh, I forgot you guys also believe the world is only 4,000 years old.

See, here is the insidiousness of the creation argument: If evolution falls, then they have to attack chemistry, geology and physics, since they make no sense in a creationist worldview. Those are harder targets, though. It would be almost impossible for a rational constructionist to attack those successfully.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/29/2010 9:08:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If evolution falls, then they have to attack chemistry, geology and physics, since they make no sense in a creationist worldview.

Ever think that's it's your opinion and not a fact?

Which type of evolution are you talking about?

Cosmic, Chemical, Stellar, Organic, Macro, or micro (which is the only observable and testable)?


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By adhan24 on 9/28/2010 8:21:49 PM , Rating: 3
I completely agree w/ you. Viral mutation proves evolution. In fact mutations are one of the driving forces of evolution. Sickle-cell anemia is one example of a mutation that was "beneficial." Although this genetic mutation can lead to an early death (life expectancy is just under 50 yrs), the presence of the two sickle-cell anemia alleles renders a carrier who is resistant to malaria. Is it any wonder that maps of sickle-cell anemia and malaria prevalence in Africa coincide? Additionally, this mutation allows the carrier to reach an age where he/she can propagate which would be less likely if they were not resistant to malaria (thus it is deemed "beneficial").


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Squigybits on 9/28/2010 7:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
You do so love that straw man. Show me one scientist that says that A bacteria will produce a tree?
Despite your obviously uninformed and leading question there is fossil evidence of early bacterial evolution. Rather than a soup of free floating bacteria they started to become organized and create more complex structures. They are called Stromatolites. Though they are not trees they are a more complex form of bacteria.
Now your response, if you respond, will to be to move the goal posts.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Fritzr on 9/28/2010 10:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
Modern forms of highly evolved single cell life acting as a multicellular organism include slime molds and some paramecia.

The next step for them is to organize into a cooperative and live beyond the fruiting stage.

Hmm those would be Sponges and similar life forms

If a sponge type had some cells work as muscle cells you can add tentacles and waving flaps to move around ... the proto-jellyfish and sponges that wander around are even simpler.

You can find examples of intermediate evolutionary lifeforms all over the world. It only requires you to start analyzing what you learn.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 9/29/2010 7:52:14 AM , Rating: 2
That is the problem with rational constructionism: They will poo-poo the fossil record when you can show how the theory was built on it, but quote the fossil record, or gaps in it, when it benefits their position.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By flatrock on 9/28/2010 4:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
That wouldn't prove or disprove evolution. It might prove the theory that natural selection can produce such large changes within our observable record as opposed to such splits into different species happening farther back into the primordial ooze.

Just change the scope of when the evolution occurred and all arguments disappear.

Evolution cannot be proved or disproved. Nor is there much practical, scientific use in arguing between random evolution and an Intelligent Design which we don't really understand. It doesn't really matter scientifically wether there is a designer that set everything in motion or it's just randomness loosely constrained by Natural Selection.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/28/2010 5:21:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It doesn't really matter scientifically wether there is a designer that set everything in motion or it's just randomness loosely constrained by Natural Selection.

It may not matter scientifically, but it matters to me. I like to see proof for a God that puts his money where his mouth is. If he says that he destroyed the earth with a flood, then I want to see proof for it (which I do see proof). If he says that he created everything in the universe in 6 days, then I expect to see evidence of this (which I do)

Just look at population growth, for example. If it were true that humans have been around for millions of years, then we would be at, what like 50 or more billion people at least by now.

What about magnetism? The earth is gradually losing its magnetic field. IF it were billions of years old, wouldn't the magnetism be so strong that life would be impossible?

Not that I am saying my opinion on the matter or any more valid then anyone else, but there comes a point where you either believe in God or you don't. And if you believe in him, why not believe his word (literally word for word). Wouldn't anything else be undermining him?


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Calindar on 9/28/2010 6:37:17 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It may not matter scientifically, but it matters to me. I like to see proof for a God that puts his money where his mouth is. If he says that he destroyed the earth with a flood, then I want to see proof for it (which I do see proof). If he says that he created everything in the universe in 6 days, then I expect to see evidence of this (which I do)

"He" didn't say any of that. People, Men, Humans said that and wrote it down. Do you think "God" just wrote a novel and left it lying around somewhere for someone to find, read it, and find it so darn good he just had to share it?

quote:
Just look at population growth, for example. If it were true that humans have been around for millions of years, then we would be at, what like 50 or more billion people at least by now.


That makes absolutely no sense at all in any way.

quote:
What about magnetism? The earth is gradually losing its magnetic field. IF it were billions of years old, wouldn't the magnetism be so strong that life would be impossible?


Did you just finish reading "answers in genesis" or something? Does a certain rate of magnetic reduction or gain at this time imply that it was constantly that rate at all times? Do you know anything about the earth's magnetism at all?


By PresidentThomasJefferson on 9/28/2010 7:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
Here's irrefutable proof of evolution video by a PhD biologist using DNA evidence, retroviral DNA etc citing work of Brown University biologist Ken Miller --more solid than DNA proof that convicts people in court

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0
-quick 10 minute video, latest DNA proofs that creationists can't refute

2) The 'humans must be recent or else they'll be 50 billion people long ago' is false because it shows creationists are simpletons w/ no understanding of ecology/biology.. what limits population growth/size is FOOD & WATER OF THE LOCAL REGION/ECOLOGY --that's why there's not 1 BILLION desert snakes in the desert.. a population maximum size is limited NOT BY AREA BUT BY HOW MUCH FOOD(PREY ANIMALS & EDIBLE PLANTS) in the region.. as well as local diseases...

Famines killing millions were frequent & common throughout most of human history(Irish potato famine was just a small one) as well as plagues (killed 33% of Europe)..and before the 20th century of modern medicine, 20% of women died in childbirth

Hell, it was predicted decades ago that there would be world food shortages/famines but it was averted because crop yields were increased 20-50x(depending on species) by FDR-trained Nobel Prize winner Norman Borlaug, who's gov research created the "Green Revolution" that multiplied food production.

3) There's been plenty of new species that's arisen (a species is any population that can't or doens't interbreed with another population, usually because DNA has changed too much)'http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm...


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By StevoLincolnite on 9/29/2010 12:55:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If he says that he destroyed the earth with a flood, then I want to see proof for it (which I do see proof).


Got some Photographs of that? I want to see the proof.

Plus... A flood destroying earth? What are we standing on now if the earth was "destroyed"? i.e. - Turned into rubble.

quote:
If he says that he created everything in the universe in 6 days, then I expect to see evidence of this (which I do)


What proof? A silly book that man wrote? Seriously? That is not proof.
You need solid proof, none of this faith or belief stuff. (Your logic, not mine.)

quote:
Just look at population growth, for example. If it were true that humans have been around for millions of years, then we would be at, what like 50 or more billion people at least by now.


And things have occured over time that may have stagnated growth.
Throughout time humans didn't reach 80+ years old, the average age was more like 25-30 years old.

Then you have things like the Dark ages, World Wars, Plagues, Natural disasters which probably wiped out Billions over the years.

quote:
Not that I am saying my opinion on the matter or any more valid then anyone else, but there comes a point where you either believe in God or you don't.


You seem to think your opinion is more valid than anyone elses.

I believe there is no God, it is your God not mine.

quote:
And if you believe in him, why not believe his word (literally word for word). Wouldn't anything else be undermining him?


Because last I checked he hasn't sat down and did an interview with anyone and written a book... We only have some old fart wearing a dress and a goofy hat to go by.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/29/2010 9:14:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Got some Photographs of that? I want to see the proof.

quote:
If there was a worldwide flood (as depicted in the Bible), then there would be: 1. Several layers of geologic strata around the world. 2. Fault lines from where the (biblical) "fountains of the deep" broke forth. 3. Billions of dead and fossilized plants and animals. 4. Oil pockets from where masses of organic material were compressed and heated.


quote:
We only have some old fart wearing a dress and a goofy hat to go by.

The pope? How did he get in this discussion? It seems like all you want to do is hate and show your blatant scoffing, so I'm not going to waste my time.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Cheesew1z69 on 9/29/2010 11:02:40 AM , Rating: 2
You are the one wasting people's time....


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By MozeeToby on 9/28/2010 2:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
What the scientific method will show you is that the THEORY of gravity cannot be proved or disproved. That is why it is and will remain a theory. You can come up with a lot of supporting evidence, but the theory is sufficiently vague and broad that it cannot be proved. You can come up with things that contradict things that others said supported gravity , but that doesn't disprove gravity .

What SCIENCE shows is is that gravity is a theory that helps us explain the world around us, but when it comes down to it a leap of faith is required to believe in it.

You see, in science the word 'theory' has a meaning rather different from the meaning that the word is given in every day speech. Indeed, the theory of universal gravitation, that is, the theory that explains why you fall to the ground, why the planets orbit the sun, why the hydrogen atoms of the sun fuse into helium, and countless, countless other effects, is "just a theory".

Now, it is in fact true that universal gravitation, as expressed by Newton, is not 100% correct. Relativity makes tiny adjustments to it and it has been shown that those adjustments are closer to reality than the original theory was. It's entirely possible that evolution isn't the complete theory, but it is no more wrong than the theory of universal gravitation is wrong. And you can go ahead and try to convince me that the theory of gravity is just as wrong as the theories that it replaced, I will quietly laugh and leave the forum in disgust.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By tng on 9/28/2010 3:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
Oh God (pun intended) not gravity...

While gravity makes for a good argument along these lines, I think that really gravity at it's most basic level (gravitational force as one of the four fundamental forces) is probably the least understood.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By MozeeToby on 9/28/2010 3:10:15 PM , Rating: 5
That's the point, we know more about evolution than we do about gravity, but no one sits around arguing about whether or not Newton's theory of universal gravitation is true or not. No one goes into a panic that we still teach it to students (even though we know it to be inadequate to describe the universe).

The only reason that universal gravitation is accepted and evolution isn't is because it is an emotionally charged topic, if it wasn't for emotion every educated person in the world would accept evolution as fact the same way that every educated person in the world accepts universal gravitation as fact.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By tng on 9/28/2010 3:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only reason that universal gravitation is accepted and evolution isn't is because it is an emotionally charged topic


Ever see a bunch of physicists argue? Scientists do get emotional about their personal fields of interest. No different than normal people.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Squigybits on 9/28/2010 3:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
Non Sequitur!


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By flatrock on 9/28/2010 6:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now, it is in fact true that universal gravitation, as expressed by Newton, is not 100% correct. Relativity makes tiny adjustments to it and it has been shown that those adjustments are closer to reality than the original theory was. It's entirely possible that evolution isn't the complete theory, but it is no more wrong than the theory of universal gravitation is wrong. And you can go ahead and try to convince me that the theory of gravity is just as wrong as the theories that it replaced, I will quietly laugh and leave the forum in disgust.


The theory of gravatation isn't wrong so much as that it is an accurate enough approximation of reality for most all purposes.

Evolution matches reality well enough as best we can tell, and while we might find some things that fruther refine our knowledge, I don't expect it will be found to be untrue in a broad sense.

Intelligent Design doesn't really contradict evolution, nor does evolution contradict intelligent design. However, I can see people's arguments that while Evolution does not only describe a way of looking at the world it provides a useful framework for further scientific study. Intelligent design doesn't really address the details of the design, because the design is beyond our comprehension. What it addresses that evolution does not is the origin of life.

I really haven't seen a convincing competing explaination for where all this matter and energy came from, or when and how did time begin. Or maybe I just didn't understand such competing theories.

What irritates me is that people will claim that Evolution proves there is not a God or other intelligent designer. It has become a faith for the faithless. However, I'm falling into the trap I accused others of. I'm arguing against something I feel people are making Evolution into, not what it really is. I'm a little slow today. I blame it on lack of sleep.

My grey matter got a little exercise today. Almost always a good thing.

You are right, I was wrong. Thanks for having the patience to point it out in a nice way so I eventually throught things through better.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Calindar on 9/28/2010 6:53:27 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
What the scientific method will show you is that the THEORY of evolution cannot be proved or disproved. That is why it is and will remain a theory.


Do you know what a scientific THEORY actually is? Creationist seem to think that a "Theory" is any ridiculous story you can dream up. It's not.

"A theory is a unifying principle that explains a body of experimental observations and the laws that are based on them."

Here is a video, which I know you most likely won't watch, that addresses this argument exactly, and completely refutes this over-used, and falsely based argument..

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/search/0/eGmL...


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Quadrillity on 9/28/2010 8:04:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Creationist seem to think that a "Theory" is any ridiculous story you can dream up. It's not.

Straw man.

quote:
Here is a video,...

It's funny how we need a scientist to "explain everything" to us, when the average person can use just plain old common sense to understand the Bible.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Calindar on 9/28/2010 9:13:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Straw man.

Nope. I don't think you understand that phrase. The straw man is the "It's just a THEORY" argument. Saying "It's just a theory" is deliberately misrepresenting what a scientific theory actually is, and by definition a straw man argument. My statement was simply pointing this out.

quote:
It's funny how we need a scientist to "explain everything" to us, when the average person can use just plain old common sense to understand the Bible.

It is funny, and also very sad. The reason your statement is true is because current scientific fields of study are incredibly advanced and complicated, and the average human doesn't have the mental capacity to thoroughly understand these theories, or is unwilling to put the effort in to understand.

On the other hand, the Bible is intellectually bankrupt. It is filled with outdated superstitions, fairy tales, factually false information, and extremely disturbing trains of thought.

Your statement is analogous to saying it's "funny" that children can't understand a biology book but can easily understand Santa Clause. It doesn't do anything to prove that the Biology book is false, or that Santa Clause is true.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Fritzr on 9/29/2010 1:00:30 AM , Rating: 2
The Bible has got it all wrong you need to read the Vedea.

Sorry the Vedea also have it all wrong you need to read the Holy Books of the Pharoahs.

Sorry they have it all wrong as well you will need to read the Holy Books of Zoroaster.

Oops they have it wrong as well where do we turn to next???

Ah well when we stand before Osiris we can ask him about this while he is weighing our soul in his balance :)


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Skywalker123 on 9/29/2010 2:26:23 AM , Rating: 3
How can the average person understand the Bible when there is so much disagreement over what it says? Its mostly gobbledegook.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By foolsgambit11 on 9/28/2010 7:13:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What the scientific method will show you is that the THEORY of evolution cannot be proved or disproved.

Wrong. The scientific method will show you that the theory of evolution cannot be proven. However, it certainly can be disproven by evidence of a species or even an organ that could not have come into being by evolution. This 'out' was offered by Darwin in The Origin of Species, where he gave possible evolutionary paths for some of the difficult cases that others had challenged him with (though he acknowledged a dearth of hard evidence, which has partially been filled in in the intervening years). For 150 years, people have tried to present a valid counterexample, and have consistently come up short.

I do definitely agree that evolution is a theory that helps us explain the world around us, but that remaining unconvinced of its validity in and of itself is not necessarily a fault. But being convinced of its invalidity is another matter.

While it may require some faith (mostly good faith in the scientific endeavors of other people) to accept that evolution is our best approximation of the historic truth of our planet's biological history, that type of faith is of a fundamentally different character than the kind required of creationism, intelligent design, or 'predestined evolution' as mentioned in the article. Evolution only requires that you start from simple, observed causes (not all organisms are equally fit to survive) and effects (surviving organisms pass on their genes, but their offspring are not identical), and assume that those same causes have existed and produced similar effects for extended periods of time. In other words, evolution makes the same assumption as all sciences, that the universe was/is the same unless demonstrated to be otherwise.

On the other hand, the faith required by religious explanations of the origin of species is of a different nature, requiring that we begin with an unobserved and unexplained cause. The OP said (paraphrasing) that Creationism and its ilk begin with the existence of a Prime Mover, rather than deducing his existence from observation, and that really strikes at the heart of the issue.

Here are a few well-accepted facts about the diversity of life on Earth.

1. There aren't really species, per se - you can't categorize all organisms by a simple rule like 'able to produce viable offspring'.

2. Many 'species' are closely aligned to other 'species' (I'm dropping the use of quote marks now).

3. The geological distribution of those species generally puts those most closely aligned in relative proximity.

4. There are fossil remains of organisms which have never been observed alive.

All four of these points make perfect sense as logical results of the Theory of Evolution - it's what you'd expect to see. But there is no particular reason why a sentient Creator would have done any of these things in populating the Earth with species. In other words, Creationism isn't a valid scientific theory - not just because it isn't disprovable, but also because it doesn't even explain the facts.

Sorry for the essay, btw.


By skepticallizzie on 9/28/2010 8:19:45 PM , Rating: 3
1- i liked the essay, don't apologize for it.

2- "While it may require some faith (mostly good faith in the scientific endeavors of other people) to accept that evolution is our best approximation of the historic truth of our planet's biological history, that type of faith is of a fundamentally different character than the kind required of creationism, intelligent design, or 'predestined evolution' as mentioned in the article. Evolution only requires that you start from simple, observed causes (not all organisms are equally fit to survive) and effects (surviving organisms pass on their genes, but their offspring are not identical), and assume that those same causes have existed and produced similar effects for extended periods of time. In other words, evolution makes the same assumption as all sciences, that the universe was/is the same unless demonstrated to be otherwise."
Agreed!!
3- thank you for the facts!
nice response...


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 9/29/2010 7:43:08 AM , Rating: 3
Oh dear, I see you have embraced your conclusion so firmly that nothing anyone says will dissuade you. I am troubled that you can't see the difference between scientific method and a logical fallacy. It reminds me of the line "Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?" "I am Arthur, king of the Britains!"

Evolution is a fact, like gravity, btw. The theory part is, what exactly is the mechanism. You guys have to stop leaning on that "it's a theory " thing.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Lerianis on 9/29/2010 2:47:38 AM , Rating: 3
The biggest reason that people don't like evolution is because, if it is true, it points to humanity not being created by their imaginary 'god' and instead simply being a product of pure chance.

They don't like that because it (rightly) demeans their value and makes it less proper for them to say "YOU DO THIS BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO!" as the Muslims and other religious people wish to do.

Sure, they veil it with the idea that 'god' wants them to, but since he doesn't exist in any way, shape or form? It's really about them wanting to force their personal likes and dislikes on everyone else.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By kd9280 on 9/30/2010 11:48:37 AM , Rating: 2
Just want to explain something here:

quote:
The biggest reason that people don't like evolution is because, if it is true, it points to humanity not being created by their imaginary 'god' and instead simply being a product of pure chance.


The problem with this statement is that those people aren't complaining about evolution at all! Evolution, in no way, explains our origins. It does, however, explain how we came to be what we are now. While randomness does provide some of the mechanics of evolution, more than anything it has to do with selection (natural or sexual) or certain selective pressures.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By jesuslovesyou on 10/2/2010 2:40:14 AM , Rating: 2
The difference between evolution and creationism is the difference between forced fantasy and truth. There is no evolution that results in a increase of functional genetic information, and, never has been! It is a sham, a fairy tale, being forced on the masses by a cadre of primarily ardent atheists whose goal (beside economic motivators) is all out war against Biblical Christianity. The fact that so many on here are members of the unknowing and uninformed that the "gods' you worship lead, shows that given enough time, the weight of the state, and the suspension of true science and reason, anything is possible; even believing that we all came from a rock, which itself came from nothing!


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By jesuslovesyou on 10/2/2010 2:46:02 AM , Rating: 2
BTW Mr Mick, many of us believe in Creation by Design rather than evolution because overwhelmingly the preponderance of the scientific evidence supports Creation, not evolution. In fact, I would take this a step further and state that there is no scientifically undisputed evidence that supports any of the various theories of evolution as scientific postulations for origins. But hey, they do have a fable, and when you control all facets of what gets examined and what gets reported, you can say anything and those who simply don't know any better and don't have access to the scientific evidence that proves proves otherwise will believe it; either by choice, or when necessary, by force.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By kd9280 on 10/2/2010 12:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The difference between evolution and creationism is the difference between forced fantasy and truth. There is no evolution that results in a increase of functional genetic information, and, never has been!


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

quote:
It is a sham, a fairy tale, being forced on the masses by a cadre of primarily ardent atheists whose goal (beside economic motivators) is all out war against Biblical Christianity.


Besides research grants, there's no real economic advantage I can think of. Also, your statement fails to consider the non-atheists who agree that the Theory of Evolution is true (Ken Miller, for example.) The Theory of Evolution is scientific and logical.

quote:
The fact that so many on here are members of the unknowing and uninformed that the "gods' you worship lead, shows that given enough time, the weight of the state, and the suspension of true science and reason, anything is possible; even believing that we all came from a rock, which itself came from nothing!


I'm not exactly sure what you're saying in that first part... but as per the second, abiogenesis and cosmology are not evolution. Where life came from and how our universe was created is not considered when talking about how the diversity of life happened. If there was evidence that some being created the universe, it would not, at all, deny the facts of evolutionary theory.

quote:
BTW Mr Mick, many of us believe in Creation by Design rather than evolution because overwhelmingly the preponderance of the scientific evidence supports Creation, not evolution.


If by 'supports' you mean 'there is absolutely no evidence for' then yes, you're right. Otherwise, show the evidence please?

quote:
In fact, I would take this a step further and state that there is no scientifically undisputed evidence that supports any of the various theories of evolution as scientific postulations for origins.


Once more, evolution is not abiogenesis. Darwin's book was "On the Origin of Species " not "On the Origin of Life ".

quote:
But hey, they do have a fable, and when you control all facets of what gets examined and what gets reported, you can say anything and those who simply don't know any better and don't have access to the scientific evidence that proves proves otherwise will believe it; either by choice, or when necessary, by force.


Conspiracy theories are for crackpots. When people like Ray Comfort, Answers in Genesis, Kent "Jailbird" Hovind, Ken Ham, and countless others are able to publish books and write Internet articles about Creationism it kind of breaks apart your thoughts that the scientists control all facets of what gets reported.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By Albert J on 10/3/2010 7:53:58 AM , Rating: 2
"Creationism uses the logical fallacy of Rational Construction-ism, which is, embrace a conclusion first, then find evidence that supports your conclusion, and refute evidence that does not."

You mean like 'inventing' Accidental-ism, where by the Universe just accidentally happens, and then for some unknown reason life just accidentally happens, then then some how evolution happens, with rules that accidentally happen and some accidental arbiter that maintains and amends the rules of Evolution? When there is zero scientific evidence that Accidental-ism has happened, or ever will happen? Where is the evidence in a lab of things happening accidentally and randomly on their own? Where is the scientific evidence life just springs up accidentally from nothing? Corn comes from corn, not alligators silly. And species are altered by genetic engineering, a higher intelligence, not accidentally, silly.

You mean like that, yes? :) Darwinism-Accidental-ism is from the very beginning faith based, LOL! From there on, you all are continually ignoring facts (Like the fossil record, hello!) and trying to fit a round peg into a triangular hole.

The real questions is, why against all analytic logic and current scientific evidence do you and your kind want so much for your lives to be pointless and meaning less , do you think, Hmmmm?


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By teddlybar2 on 10/3/2010 5:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
Part of the problem here is that your assertion is based on a false premise, that evolution is based on proper scientific method and creationism is not.

The principal weakness in your argument lies in step three of the scientific method – Design an experiment to test the hypothesis. First of all, there is obvious difficulty in designing this experiment since evolutionary theory requires the passage of more time than you have available to run the experiment in order to determine its validity. That leaves you purely with observation and conjecture based on inductive reasoning. In classical logic, inductive reasoning doesn’t lead you to absolute truths. One of the better known examples is that of testing the hypothesis that ALL SWANS ARE WHITE. Observation of only white swans doesn’t prove that all swans are white, but the discovery of a black swan will disprove the conjecture. This is why Einstein is famously quoted as saying “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Thus, proper scientific method that is based purely on observation, should be designed to find a counter example. In other words, if you’re a good scientist, you try to DISPROVE your conjecture (hypothesis). Only after rigorous testing trying to break your hypothesis can you put it out there as something you believe to be valid.

Much that passes as teaching of evolutionary theory specifically prohibits pointing out challenges or potential holes in Darwinian Theory, a direct violation of your contention that you should adjust the hypothesis for anomalies, retest, adjust . . . For example, experiments with bacteria, HIV viruses & malaria have shown that even with relatively large populations of organisms, there is not a sufficient rate of helpful mutations, even allowing for the passage of billions of years, to account for macroevolution. This is an even bigger problem with higher developed organisms (such as mammals) since they have a much lower population, and hence fewer organisms available in which mutations can occur. The statistics just don’t bear out the conjecture.

This is NOT good science. It is dogmatic faith on a similar level with religion.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By kd9280 on 10/3/2010 7:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
There are plenty of falsifiers of evolution, and a great portion of Creationist arguments revolve around the thought that evolution has been falsified. Creationists can't get into agreement whether evolution can't be or has been falsified.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By teddlybar2 on 10/3/2010 8:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think that what's confusing you is that there are two schools of thought in the Creationist and Intellegent Design communities. Those who contend that evolution can't be falsified because neither creationism or darwinian evolution is an experimental science (because they are not repeatable events) and therefore the veracity of their claims do not lend themselves to experimental testing. Another school such as Behe believe that evolution has been falsified because there are specific issues they can point to where the evolutionary model either violates established science, or doesn't hold up under statistical or biochemical scrutiny.

These two positions are not necessarily in conflict, rather they illustrate differing points of view on the same conundrum.


RE: Proper Scientific Method
By kd9280 on 10/3/2010 8:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
Michael "Irreducible Complexity" Behe?

The one who admitted he didn't read all the literature that described the formation of things like bacterial flagellum and blood clotting pathways and the immune system?

I realize it's from Talk Origins, but this is the same as the court testimony from the Dover trial - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html - about midway through.


Evolution disbelief is fueled by stupidity
By amanojaku on 9/28/2010 10:10:21 AM , Rating: 4
There is plenty of evidence to support evolution.

And evolution does not deny or confirm the existence of god: if god exists (I say he/she/it/they do(es) because of the laws of conservation of mass and energy) then god is responsible for evolution.




RE: Evolution disbelief is fueled by stupidity
By MozeeToby on 9/28/2010 10:45:17 AM , Rating: 4
If current cosmological theory is correct then the universe has zero net energy, no violation of energy conservation needed. If correct it means that the universe could have arisen from nothing, with only gravity as the causative agent. And indeed you can take the numbers that we know about the universe and calculate the positive and negative energy and you will come out with a number very close to zero (actually including zero when you take the confidence of the measurements into account).

A God of the Gaps is an easy trap to fall into, but history says that no matter how far beyond our current understanding you put the gaps we will eventually catch up and start to fill them in. If you're going to believe in God believe for purely theistic reasons, otherwise science will eventually get around to addressing whatever gap you've assigned Him to and we've all seen what happens after that.


By LRonaldHubbs on 9/28/2010 2:43:58 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
even Einstein believed in God.

Allow me to quote Einstein's own words:

quote:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

quote:
"[...] The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These [...] interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

quote:
"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."


Interpret the above as you will, but understand that he did not believe in the Abrahamic 'God' or any other personal god.


RE: Evolution disbelief is fueled by stupidity
By geddarkstorm on 9/28/2010 4:05:05 PM , Rating: 3
There is no such thing as "negative" energy, so that idea is immediately false. Just like there is no "negative" mass. Though, if such exotic matter with negative mass existed, it would be trivial to make FTL drives. That just goes to show how much a violation of reality such a thing would be.

Also, there's another problem. Don't forget the second law of thermal dynamics. All spontaneous reactions decrease the order of the universe. No reaction can ever increase net order. That is, the universe is like a clock winding down, and time is simply our perception of entropy in motion. From whence did the highest level of order come from to produce the Big Bang and the resulting decay into chaos that we call reality?


RE: Evolution disbelief is fueled by stupidity
By Laitainion on 9/28/2010 5:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
Why is there no such thing as negative energy? So many other things have opposites (electrical charges for instance), why not energy? I am not saying that this is proof that negative energy exists, but simply that because you (and I'll be honest, me) can't understand something that it cannot exist.

As for the whole entropy argument, I remember reading a very interesting book that talked about that in quite some detail (alas I can't remember the title). If I remember the details correctly, the universe as it was just after the big bang was (it can be imagined) very tightly packed, very hot matter (of some form, it doesn't actually matter specifically what) and was uniformly distributed. Due to the compressed nature of the universe this was the maximum entropy the system (i.e. the universe) could possess at that time.
As the universe expanded and cooled, the matter stread out too. As the universe expanded the maximum entropy the system was capable of increased, I believe, exponentially. At the same time the distribution of matter became less uniform (I think due to some weird quantum field effect, I forget exactly) but by some method of measuring entropy on an absolute scale, the entropy of the universe was still increasing although because the maximum entropy of the universe was increasing quicker, we get us.

I admit there's quite a few holes in this theory, I only read the book once and that was somewhere in the region of 3-5 years ago. All that am trying to suggest is the universe could well be a great deal more complicated and strange than any of us know and that a new theory or idea shouldn't just be discarded. I certainly don't necessarily believe the theory I've just described, I certainly don't think it could be proved to my satisfaction. Nevertheless I think it is a very interesting way of thinking about and trying to understand differing aspects of the universe.


By tng on 9/28/2010 6:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
There is a theory that there is negative energy, but it is tied into new understanding of black holes and would not exist in this universe.


RE: Evolution disbelief is fueled by stupidity
By FaaR on 9/28/2010 6:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
"Order" versus "disorder", or "chaos" if you like are human/philosophical constructs. They cannot be expressed mathematically in a formula such as the second law of thermodynamics.

The early universe was not "ordered" as we percieve it, better to call it uniform or some such, in that matter was essentially consisting of hydrogen only. I believe in there lies your answer. :)


RE: Evolution disbelief is fueled by stupidity
By geddarkstorm on 9/29/2010 1:44:28 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, "order/disorder/chaos" can be expressed mathematically just fine, and have been in MULTIPLE ways. Look up the Boltzmann constant (W) and associated equations.

Once the universe reaches maximal entropy, no new reactions that are not completely reversible can occur (0 entropy change). That is, all life, flow of energy (stars, matter, electromagnetic/temperature gradients, etc) will no longer exist and all will just be a level soup -- everything will have the SAME amount of energy at any point in the universe (even black holes die to entropy eventually, and even protons have a half life as entropy breaks them down at the subatomic level).

Since any reaction, or motion of energy, only increases universal entropy, and brings us towards that end, well...


By geddarkstorm on 9/29/2010 1:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
Err, sorry, look up Boltzmann's equation, which uses W, not his constant, which is k.


RE: Evolution disbelief is fueled by stupidity
By wgbutler on 9/30/2010 7:34:59 AM , Rating: 2
Hawking's hypothesis has a number of problems. William Lane Craig responds on his website (reasonable faith). I'll copy some of his remarks below:

(part 1)
quote:

Hawking's hypothesis is unsatisfying to say the least. William Lane Craig responds on his website:

quote:

...Not only is there nothing of scientific substance new in this book, nothing that Hawking had not already stated in his earlier best-seller A Brief History of Time, but Hawking and Mlodinow also fail to take any cognizance of criticisms in the literature of Hawking’s earlier proposals. If you have digested my treatment of the origin and fine-tuning of the universe in Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed., then you are already equipped to respond to the claims of this new book.

Hawking and Mlodinow seek to answer three questions in this book:

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

2. Why do we exist?

3. Why this particular set of laws and not some other?

Curiously, their answer to each of these questions turns out to be very brief. In fact, (2) gets folded into (1) and so doesn’t even receive a separate answer.

Hawking and Mlodinow’s answer to questions (1) and (2) is an appeal to the “no boundary” model of the origin of the universe, popularized by Hawking in A Brief History of Time. Our authors simply expound the model without adducing any evidence for it or mentioning any of the alternative models to it. Nor do they respond to the criticism that the so-called “imaginary time” featured in the model is physically unintelligible and therefore merely a mathematical “trick” useful for avoiding the cosmological singularity which appears in classical theories at the beginning of the universe.

Still, their exposition is not without interest with regard to whether the universe had a temporal beginning. They write,

The realization that time can behave like another direction of space means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world. Suppose the beginning of the universe was like the South Pole of the earth, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. The universe would start as a point at the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole. In this picture space-time has no boundary—the same laws of nature hold at the South Pole as in other places (pp. 134-5).

This passage is fascinating because it represents a rather different interpretation of imaginary time than what we had in A Brief History of Time. Here the analogy of the South Pole is interpreted to imply a beginning point to both time and the universe. Despite the fact that imaginary time behaves like another spatial dimension, Hawking allows the circles of latitude to play the role of time, which has a beginning point at the South Pole. When Hawking speaks of “the problem of time having a beginning,” what he means is “the age-old objection to the universe having a beginning” (p. 135), an objection which his model removes. That age-old objection is the question, “What happened before the beginning of the universe?” Hawking is right that this question is meaningless on his model; but what he fails to mention is that the question is equally meaningless on the standard big bang model, since there is nothing prior to the initial cosmological singularity. On either model the universe has an absolute temporal beginning—just as the second premiss of the kalam cosmological argument states.

So the question is, why did the universe begin to exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? Hawking and Mlodinow advocate what they call a “top down” approach to this question. The idea here is to begin with our presently observed universe characterized by the standard model of particle physics and then calculate, given the no boundary condition, the probability of the various histories allowed by quantum physics to reach our present state. The most probable history represents the history of our observable universe. Hawking and Mlodinow claim that “in this view, the universe appeared spontaneously from nothing” (p. 136). By “spontaneously” they seem to mean without a cause.

But how does that follow from the model? The top down approach calculates the probability of our observable universe given the no boundary condition. The top down approach doesn’t calculate the probability that the no boundary condition should hold but takes it for granted. Such a condition is not metaphysically or physically necessary. If the universe came into being uncaused from nothing, it could have had any sort of conceivable spatiotemporal configuration. For nothingness, or non-being, has no properties or constraints and is governed by no physical laws. Physics only begins at the “South Pole” in the no boundary model. There isn’t anything in the model that implies that that point came to be without a cause. Indeed, the idea that being could arise without a cause from non-being seems metaphysically absurd.

Hawking and Mlodinow seem to realize that they have not yet answered the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?,” for they return to this question in their concluding chapter and give a quite different answer. There they explain that there is a constant vacuum energy contained in empty space, and if the universe’s positive energy associated with matter is evenly balanced by the negative energy associated with gravitation, then the universe can spontaneously come into being as a fluctuation of the energy in the vacuum (which, by a clever sleight of hand, they say “we may as well call . . . zero”). This seems to be a very different account of the universe’s origin, for it presupposes the reality of space and the energy in it. So it’s puzzling when Mlodinow and Hawking conclude, “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6” (p. 180). Here it is said that the nothingness spoken of in Chapter 6 is not really nothingness after all but is space filled with vacuum energy! That goes to reinforce the conviction that the no boundary approach only describes the evolution of our universe from its origin at its “South Pole” to its present state but is silent as to why the universe came to exist in the first place....

(to be continued)


By wgbutler on 9/30/2010 7:37:47 AM , Rating: 2
part 2

quote:

What this implies is that Hawking and Mlodinow have not even begun to address the philosophical question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” For “nothing” in their vocabulary does not have the traditional meaning “non-being” but rather means “the quantum vacuum.” They aren’t even answering the same question. Like the philosophy student who, put the question, “What is Time?” on his final exam, answered, “a weekly news magazine,” so Hawking and Mlodinow have avoided the tough question by equivocation.

If they have thus failed to answer questions (1) and (2), what about (3): Why is there this particular set of laws rather than some other? The issue here is explaining the apparently miraculous fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. Hawking and Mlodinow express this idea by observing that “in recent years physicists began asking themselves what the universe would have been like if the laws of nature were different” (p. 159).

Unfortunately, this statement is very misleading. Scientists grappling with fine-tuning are not asking what the universe would have been like if it were governed by different laws of nature. Rather they’re asking what the universe would have been like if it were governed by same laws of nature but with different values for the physical constants appearing in them and with different quantities for the initial conditions on which the laws operate. Nobody knows what a universe governed by different laws would be like! But because we’re talking about universes governed by the same laws, but with different numbers plugged in for the constants and quantities, we can calculate what kind of universe the laws would predict (just as Hawking and Mlodinow illustrate on pp. 159-62). So question (3) is malformed as stated. The real question is: why this particular set of constants and quantities rather than some other?

Now there are three possible answers to that question: physical necessity, chance, or design. Hawking and Mlodinow reject the hypothesis of physical necessity: “It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle” (p. 143). Since Mlodinow and Hawking want nothing to do with a Cosmic Designer, they opt for the hypothesis of chance. Since the odds of our universe’s being fine-tuned for intelligent life are so incomprehensibly remote, Hawking and Mlodinow appeal to the Many Worlds Hypothesis to augment one’s probabilistic resources to the extent that it becomes inevitable that a finely tuned universe will appear by chance somewhere in the World Ensemble or multiverse. If there are an infinite number of randomly ordered universes in the Ensemble, then a finely tuned universe will appear somewhere in the Ensemble by chance alone.

Now if the Many Worlds Hypothesis is to be serious science rather than metaphysical speculation, some sort of mechanism needs to be provided to generate the World Ensemble. The mechanism to which Hawking and Mlodinow appeal is Richard Feynman’s “sum-over-histories” approach to quantum theory. This is the approach which Hawking uses in the no boundary model to calculate the most probable history of the universe, given the no boundary condition, to our present observed state. Hawking and Mlodinow take these alternative histories which the universe might have pursued to be actual, parallel universes which are just as real as our universe.

Unfortunately, this is not science but a gratuitous piece of metaphysics. Feynman’s sum-over-histories method is just a mathematical tool for calculating the probability of a subatomic particle’s arriving at one point from another. One imagines all the possible paths the particle could have taken and then on that basis calculates the probability of its reaching the observed destination. There’s no basis for interpreting this mathematical “trick” to imply the ontological reality of concrete, spatio-temporal universes.

Hawking and Mlodinow also appeal to M-Theory or superstring theory to generate the World Ensemble of universes exhibiting various values for the constants of nature. Such a speculation is problematic in a number of ways which they do not discuss. First, the “cosmic landscape” of 10500 different possible universes consistent with nature’s laws which M-Theory allows are just that: possibilities. They are not real worlds, anymore than are Feynman’s histories. Second, it’s not clear that 10500 possibilities are sufficient to guarantee the existence of finely tuned universes in the landscape. What if the probability of fine tuning is less than 1:10500? This may be especially problematic concerning the arbitrary initial conditions. Finally, does the multiverse itself described by M-Theory exhibit fine-tuning? If it does, then the problem has only been pushed back a notch. It seems that it does, for as Hawking and Mlodinow note, M-Theory requires precisely eleven dimensions if it is to be viable, and yet the theory cannot account for why just that number of dimensions should exist.

Moreover, Mlodinow and Hawking do not even mention, much less respond to, Roger Penrose’s trenchant criticism of the Many Worlds Hypothesis for explaining fine-tuning in his The Road to Reality, namely, that if we were just a random member of a World Ensemble, then it is incomprehensibly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than what we do, which strongly disconfirms the Many Worlds Hypothesis. There’s no excuse for Hawking’s failure to respond to his erstwhile collaborator’s criticisms of Hawking’s view.

In summary, despite Hawking and Mlodinow’s vaunted assertions and constant sniping at religious belief throughout this book, there is actually genuine profit in it for religious believers, especially for those interested in natural theology. With respect to the kalam cosmological argument, the authors’ preferred theory affirms the fact of an absolute beginning of time and the universe, which is the key premiss of the argument. With respect to the teleological argument based on fine-tuning, the authors affirm the fact of the apparently miraculous fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life. Moreover, they agree that the fine-tuning cannot be plausibly explained as due to physical necessity or by chance in the absence of a World Ensemble. Given the desperation and/or irrelevancy of their proffered ways to escape these arguments, their book turns out to be quite supportive of the existence of a transcendent Creator and Designer of the cosmos.


By Flunk on 9/28/2010 11:20:17 AM , Rating: 2
There are some lines of reasoning where evolution precludes the need for a god. Read Richard Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth" for one of the better presented ones.

It's an interesting idea and one I can't really begin to explain here but it centers around evolution being the process towards increasing complexity and the need for a "god" to be the most complex imaginable thing.


Acceptance
By Woobagong on 9/28/2010 10:54:46 AM , Rating: 2
The evidence for the evolutionary theory is overwhelming. But why is a theory or a product not accepted. I think this is always a valid question in science. For me acceptance has much to do with understanding. Science is sometimes difficult to tell in terms that the majority understands.

The term randomness in the evolution theory can be misleading. Are we a product of randomness? Yes and No. The genetic code is what stays relatively constant during the random bombardment of the external influences. I think the genetic code built by certain rules can be seen as constant and reliable. There's no need to be anxious, it works already for a very long time... like a charm. We haven't seen the whole rabbit hole by a long way. We know nothing, but it's a start.




RE: Acceptance
By Motoman on 9/28/2010 11:06:32 AM , Rating: 5
The majority doesn't want to understand. Saying "God did it" is easy and neat, and requires no thought...and it also absolves you of any personal responsibility for anything that happens - since everything happens according to "God's plan."

The funny thing is that no one pleads that way in a murder case...that they had no choice but to kill that guy, because apparently it was God's plan - and since God is omnipotent, I can't refuse his will.


RE: Acceptance
By Quadrillity on 9/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Acceptance
By Squigybits on 9/28/2010 4:09:27 PM , Rating: 1
This is a Straw Man!


RE: Acceptance
By Quadrillity on 9/28/2010 5:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
Please explain how? He made a claim that cannot be backed up. I simply said that he can never know what the population thinks and why they think it. Where is the straw man in that?


RE: Acceptance
By Squigybits on 9/28/2010 7:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct.
My post that it was a straw man was wrong.
Maybe more of a red herring. Considering that the majority of the population are believers and also dispute evolution I am inclined to conclude that he is talking about the population in general but to say that he is not just speaking about the uneducated portion of the population would be wrong of me. Either way, you divert rather than confront.
Thanks for correcting me!


RE: Acceptance
By Fritzr on 9/28/2010 10:51:55 PM , Rating: 2
He is using the same red herring in reverse. Since it cannot be certain that the population will believe in a certain thing, it is thereby proven that that population disbelieves that thing.

Using the same argument Christianity has just been falsified, as verity would require the population to believe in it.

There has to be an error in this. If God left a watermark this obvious, it would prove the nonexistence of "God who is hidden" :P


RE: Acceptance
By Quadrillity on 9/28/2010 11:23:22 PM , Rating: 2
Your circular logic is amazing.


RE: Acceptance
By Fritzr on 9/29/2010 1:11:37 AM , Rating: 4
Not as good as yours though.

I love your reasoning.
God made the Universe
The Universe Exists
Therefore
Because the Universe cannot exist without being created
The existence of the Universe is proof that God exists

Then you lose a few points by stating that
The Bible is infallible documentary proof of the above
The Bible is a document written by fallible humans and is full of errors
Faith is all that is needed to reconcile these beliefs

Or you can convert to Hinduism and worship an aspect of Vishnu, Creator of the Universe.

If you don't like that one, then there are many other Faiths that have a validity equal to that of Christianity. i.e. It is revealed Truth, the preacher said so :)


RE: Acceptance
By Quadrillity on 9/29/2010 9:21:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Bible is a document written by fallible humans and is full of errors

Show me an error... go ahead, dare you. there has never been one single error proven AT ALL.


RE: Acceptance
By transamdude95 on 9/29/2010 11:00:36 AM , Rating: 2
Shut up, monkey.


RE: Acceptance
By Cheesew1z69 on 9/29/2010 2:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
Were you around when it was written originally by a HUMAN? No? Thought so....


RE: Acceptance
By skepticallizzie on 10/4/2010 2:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
1- Mary was a virgin, gave a virgin birth. (really Mary?)
2- Jesus died, oh wait he didn't, oh wait hes dead.
3- An arc full of animals together for a few weeks. (i mean, back then there was no evolution anyway, so there couldn't be that many....)
4- i have a dead fish to eat. oh wait they reproduced and made more of themselves while yet completely dead.
5- bread reproduced itself (i mean, does bread have consciousness too? can we project our human characteristics on bread?)
6- Gods original people were Jewish. then he sent a guy named christ- oh, wait where did all the Jews go?


RE: Acceptance
By Flail on 9/28/2010 7:00:32 PM , Rating: 1
You criticize him for making a generalization, yet you make one yourself by basically saying "everyone who makes generalizations is a scumbag"... Nice one... Scumbag.


RE: Acceptance
By Quadrillity on 9/28/2010 8:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
Your irony detector is broken...


RE: Acceptance
By Woobagong on 9/28/2010 11:22:16 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not into religion, but that is a bold statement. I don't think that religious ppl blame god for their own errors or deny any responsibility. Religions have rules or codes, these rules are meant for YOUR wrong doings. (Jules says: And if you ever heard it, that meant your ass)


Comfort
By tastyratz on 9/28/2010 10:19:42 AM , Rating: 5
People need to feel comfortable in death and explanation of creation. Religion fills a very big void there and originally came about in ways to control the public in a rudimentary form of government. Whether or not you believe in God Buddha or Ronald Mcdonald it doesn't matter. Religion in anarchy enforces a moral code among men to establish order and chain of command while playing off unexplainable fears. The primary basis of strength through religion is its inability to be 100% proven wrong. Nobody can TRULY come back and tell you.

Before someone who believes in X steps out think of 2 things:
1. If you believe in whatever religion then you also believe everyone elses is wrong.
2. Think of this statement applying to everyone else if it offends you.




RE: Comfort
By Quadrillity on 9/28/2010 10:52:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. If you believe in whatever religion then you also believe everyone elses is wrong. 2. Think of this statement applying to everyone else if it offends you.

Ok so you blankly accuse people of bigotry.. then ask us to not assume things can apply to the entire population.
You say all that right after:
quote:
The primary basis of strength through religion is its inability to be 100% proven wrong.

Wow... you make false and stereotypical assumptions about a group of people then ask us to not do the same thing. Bravo.


RE: Comfort
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/28/2010 3:22:02 PM , Rating: 4
Wrong on all counts. He didn't accuse anyone of bigotry, nor did he make any requests. As usual you've misread and/or misunderstood. Let's take a look at what he actually said:

quote:
Before someone who believes in X steps out think of 2 things: 1. If you believe in whatever religion then you also believe everyone elses is wrong. 2. Think of this statement applying to everyone else if it offends you.

1. If you believe in a religion, and you believe that your religion is the true word (which all major religions do claim to be), then by definition you believe that all other religions are not the true word and are therefore wrong. There is nothing to refute here, this is logically true.
2. Every other religion also asserts that they are right, therefore they assert that your religion is wrong. This is also logically true.

quote:
The primary basis of strength through religion is its inability to be 100% proven wrong. Nobody can TRULY come back and tell you.

Which part of this are you disagreeing with? Religions cannot be completely proven true or false, nor can anyone who has died come back to verify any particular religion. That much is absolutely true. Or do you disagree that unverifiability is religion's greatest strength? What then, would you argue, is its greatest strength? Actually, if that is what you wish to argue, then I would agree, because IMO unverifiability is a critical weakness of any theory, not a strength. But I do the point the OP was trying to make, that unverifiability is seen by some people as a strength, independent of whether or not it really is one.


RE: Comfort
By JakLee on 9/28/2010 5:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
nor can anyone who has died come back to verify any particular religion


So are you saying if someone did come back, and they told you what was on the "other side" you would believe them?


RE: Comfort
By Fritzr on 9/28/2010 10:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
Not necessarily their story of what they did "On the other side", but if a sufficient length of time had passed to be sure that all "life" was gone from the physical body, then it would definitely support a Theory of Life After Death :P


RE: Comfort
By Squigybits on 9/28/2010 4:04:31 PM , Rating: 2
Straw man!


RE: Comfort
By straycat74 on 9/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Comfort
By Fritzr on 9/28/2010 11:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
The Siddhartha Bhudda who was a Prince in India was such a man. He did not believe in God the Creator whether by the name Yahweh or Vishnu.

The religion based on his beliefs does not have Gods of the kind envisioned by Christians. The closest analog Christianity has to the highest level in the old form of Bhuddism would be the Saints.

Bhudda himself insisted that he was only a mortal man who was teaching others how to achieve spiritual peace.

I guess you classify The Bhudda as one of the world's Great Fools :P


RE: Comfort
By Albert J on 10/3/2010 5:09:53 AM , Rating: 2
Really??? Huh? Who are Buddhists praying to with all those prayer flags and prayer wheels, silly, if not God or aspects of God in the Buddhist pantheon of Deities? Go back to school and stop listening to people who don't know what they are talking about. Better yet, why don't you just ask Lord Buddha himself.

:)


evolution and spirituality
By skepticallizzie on 9/28/2010 12:49:19 PM , Rating: 3
I have been reading all of your posts, and I like having intellectual disucssions about this topic, so i signed up.

I to am agnostic, but yet, my "spirituality" comes from my connectivity to the earth (science). If you want to prove evolution- look at the stages of fetal development, it cannot be any clearer. We start out as cell, then two cells, then an ameoba, then so on to a fish-esque form, to frog-like, to monkey like, and then a helpless human baby. I mean look at all the in-betweens as well. We ALL go through the stages of evolution from conception to birth.
We only understand the world around us because of the paradigm that is given to us: a mother and a father. So we apply this structure to everything we cannot comprehend in order to make sense of it- like evolution.

How can we, then, understand or comprehend concepts that exist outside of that paradigm? That is where scientific studies and therories come in.
Religion, I agree is a made up story that was used to appease the people of the time and gain control over others. What better excuse is there then, "a powerful energy more powerful then you or I exists and makes laws... so you have to be careful..." I mean, really? Are people that shallow and gulliable to believe in something they cannot see, hear, taste, touch or feel?

In argument to my own statment: God, the word God, I think is used to in the attempt to efficiently describe a collective kinetic energy that we all feel from the constant movement and the constant rhythm of the earth and universe. So if we take the 'human-ness' out of the word God and use it to collectively describe that feeling, then yes, god does exist. Not 'a' singular god- but an ideal collective word that sums it up.

If we use the word God in the attempt to describe a higher and more powerful 'being' (who has human emotion and a rational mind) who makes laws and decisions about where a 'spirit' will go in the 'afterlife' and creates and destroyes like a human being- then those people are fooling themselves and closing their eyes to the greatness that is around us and deny the actual experience every minute and every breath of this life.

There is no after life. There is only this life, and this experience- enjoy it, and see the beauty in it and the mystery as well. But don't cover that beauty up and chalk it up to a human-like entity that does not exist.

I think god and satan, eternal life, heaven, hell, and the idea of a spirit has been used because we fear death. Non-existance is scary, so lets all make up some fairy tale to appease our fears as well then, eh?

i feel like i can continue on.. but i want to hear what others thoughts are on this subject.




RE: evolution and spirituality
By Quadrillity on 9/28/2010 2:08:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
then so on to a fish-esque form

LMAO! What part of the fetal development is "fish" form? This is the most absurd evidence for evolution that I have ever heard.

quote:
There is no after life. There is only this life, and this experience-

How could anyone alive today possibly know this? You claim to KNOW that there isn't an afterlife; So does this mean you are omnipotent?


RE: evolution and spirituality
By skepticallizzie on 9/28/2010 3:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
first off: that was written from a tongue in cheek point of view. I thought that was evident from the word "fish-esque" lol. I was writing in a way to be funny yet prove a point. But in reality, if a person looks at each stage of fetal development, it will be noted that the fetus goes through each "stage" of evolution.

I have been an RN for many years, and worked with extremely premature infants for a very long time. An experience like that has formed and cemented my ideas about evolution. Without going on too long, I have not only helped extremely premature infants grow from less then a pound to a regular birth weight, I have held fetusus in my hand at all stages of the pregnancy. And I can tell you with certainty (but not omnipotentcy, lol) that i have seen with my own eyes that there is some evidence of evolution in the development of the human fetus. Not absurd at all. I will attach some literature for you to check out.

Regarding the after life: my argument- how can i not know this? There is no proof to an after life (that resembles the archetypal heaven or hell) whatsoever. It is not scientifically possible. I am now a nurse who works for pediatric hospice, and i can tell you when a person or child dies that an energy is extinguished and it is noticeable. But this does not prove after life. I would love if someone could show me or PROVE to me that there is indeed an afterlife- because I would feel less angst about my own existence. Until that day I will go on with the understanding that I am ONLY a collection of cells with cellular energy that will one day no longer exist. My energy will be transferred to some other form- such as fuel for fire if I am cremated, or compost for the earth and food for worms if I am buried. Now if you want to say that our bodies are recycled and composed- then I will say that in itself is some sort of afterlife. After life is not a place in the sky- but maybe just energy. In the words of Einstein: Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

It makes me sad from a compassionate point of view that people go on believing things that are probably not true as opposed to what is right in front of them. I like to take things for face value by what i can see and what makes actual sense then to imagine what I would like my existance and non-existance to be.

Is there a place for spirituality? Of course. It is a part of being human. If a person wants to believe in God and all of that, that is great, but do not discount the value and worth of science using that belief system. Do not refute scientific worth by using God. In the same way that scientists and evolutionists should not belittle or make light of something that is reality for one person or a group of people. We can all go on believing god, and also questioning science at the same time. It is the cunundrom of the ego, eh?

When i was in college a long long time ago, I had a biology professor say to us: "many scientists go into biology and research trying to disprove god, in the end they can neither prove nor disprove god."

We can, despite our differences, have science and spirituality co-exist without having them be combined into some nonsense like Intellectual design. Spirituality goes on faith, which is immesurable. Science goes on research which is measurable. This is not to say one is right and another is wrong. It is saying perhaps there is more then one way to look at a situation. (and probably millions of other ways as well).

And, lastly, I always say and standby this: Religion is the political application of spirituality.
Hey thanks for reading and responding.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book...

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyP...


RE: evolution and spirituality
By Skywalker123 on 9/28/2010 5:51:49 PM , Rating: 3
When i was in college a long long time ago, I had a biology professor say to us: "many scientists go into biology and research trying to disprove god, in the end they can neither prove nor disprove god."

It would take a real idiot to think he could ever prove or disprove God through science or any other method. People like Gullibility will believe in imaginary beings no matter what the science said.


RE: evolution and spirituality
By tng on 9/28/2010 6:49:23 PM , Rating: 2
well said...


RE: evolution and spirituality
By Squigybits on 9/28/2010 4:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
Argument from ignorance!


By skepticallizzie on 9/28/2010 8:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for saying that.
On a lighter note (i am being facetious/hypothetical here for those who feel already offended...so hang tight)
If there is a god or a higher power with human like qualities- such as consciousness, understanding, reason, justice, reason, compassion, and love- who can employ decision making, creation, and destruction-

wouldn't that god also want to be questioned like we all do?
Wouldn't that god also want to check in and see how he's doing?
wouldn't that god also make mistakes?(oh wait, he did....)
wouldn't that omnipotent being either take away our ability to question?
wouldn't that god with human like qualities also know hate, greed, jealousy, envy, need for power, etc.

you cant just choose the human like qualities that are admirable and desirable and apply them to an omnipotent make- believe energy source and then say- here's who's in charge...
its like god becomes a scapegoat for which we cannot understand or don't use our "god-given" abilities to try to reason....(lol)

I mean what species does god identify as?
If god is love, then where the heck is all the love?

There are more holes in the theory of god then there are in darwin's theory of evolution (omg- an evolutionist who actually admits to this...!)

I respect the spiritual beliefs of most people. I believe that we all have the right to express and practice our spirituality as we need to. But do it with an open mind; embrace that you can have both spirituality and still question that spirituality.

The way I see it- if there is no god (which is more probable) then i die like usual and become some compost.

If there is a god- well then- nice to meet you... thanks for letting me have the mind i had while i was alive. by the way- what did you think about all those things? do you have any answers for me? my body will still be compost.

If god is a personal expression- then either way i am good. i have peace with 'god' as being a skeptic.
good night!


Troll for site traffic much?
By nct on 9/28/2010 10:15:57 AM , Rating: 3
Some suggestions for your next article:
All Muslims are Terrorists
All Americans are Lazy and Fat
Study Reveals Disagreeing with Obama is Racist




RE: Troll for site traffic much?
By bhieb on 9/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Troll for site traffic much?
By MPE on 9/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Troll for site traffic much?
By MaulBall789 on 9/28/2010 11:19:35 AM , Rating: 5
And yet, here you are.


RE: Troll for site traffic much?
By MPE on 9/29/2010 9:49:49 AM , Rating: 2
Is every article written by Mick?

Are you really going to argue that Mick and some do not troll its own readers?


RE: Troll for site traffic much?
By inaphasia on 9/28/2010 12:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
But you get to learn a bunch of stuff in the comments section!

For example: Lemmings don't commit suicide... it's Disney that kills 'em!


Theory of human evolution
By Fracture on 9/28/2010 1:09:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
44 percent of respondents to a recent 2007 Gallop Poll of U.S. citizens stated that they believed that God created man in its current form (pure creationism)


I have a theory that there are alreaday 2 species of humans that continue to interbreed, but have dramatically different traits. This comes as a response to the nature vs nurture debate - that both may be consequences of being a different type of person.

If a person with an IQ of 66 is functionally retarded compared to a person with an IQ of 100, then what is the person with an IQ of 100 to a person with an IQ of 150? I'm afraid they're just called "creationists".

Now, this isn't to say that a creationist can't be intelligent - plenty of other intelligent people are weak willed too and become addicts to a variety of things. I just think it may be unfair to them to indoctrinate children from birth and not give them a chance to decide.




RE: Theory of human evolution
By flatrock on 9/28/2010 2:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
Please explain to me under what conditions the Theory of Evolution could be either proved or disproved? Please explain to me how this rather long standing theory might become a scientific law?

Evolution hasn't remained unproven because a bunch of religious fanatics oppose it, it has remained unproven since it is essentially unprovable. It is also essentially impossible to disprove.

Have you ever heard the saying that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?

Maybe you should understand the inherrent limitations in what you believe in before calling others idiots.

At least most creationists and those who believe in intelligent design realize that are making a leap of faith beyond what can be proved, which is apparently more than can be said for a lot of so called "scientists" who insist Evolution is fact rather than theory.


RE: Theory of human evolution
By MozeeToby on 9/28/2010 3:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please explain to me under what conditions the Theory of Evolution could be either proved or disproved?
Discovering human (or any other undeniably modern animal's) remains inside a dinosaur skeleton. There you go, you just disproved evolution. You also just disproved geology, radiometry, all the research done into human prehistory, and paleontology, but I digress.
quote:
Please explain to me how this rather long standing theory might become a scientific law?
Please, I'm begging you, go read the definition of a scientific law versus a scientific theory. A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. Evolution posits a mechanism and an explanation, therefore it will never be a scientific law. Not because of any failings in the theory, but because a scientific law and a scientific theory are two very different things. In fact, a law is not necessarily more accurate than a theory. The law of universal gravitation is less accurate that the theory of relativity.


RE: Theory of human evolution
By Fracture on 9/28/2010 3:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
I believe in the theory of evolution the same way I believe in the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity.

These ideas and equations are approximations to help describe the way we perceive things to work and are far more useful than just throwing our hands up and saying "because".

I don't feel that the burden to prove evolution is on me just because proof exists - that's akin to asking someone to put a jigsaw puzzle together without all the pieces. I think that you instead are averting the attention from the fact that creationism has no proof at all.

It doesn't take faith to believe in gravity, or that tectonic plate collisions form mountains. Like evolution, they exist whether or not you choose to believe in it.


What a load of crap
By flatrock on 9/28/2010 1:13:03 PM , Rating: 1
It should surprise no one that you can effect the results of a survey by how the questions are worded. In this case the questions were specifically worded to take advantage of a fear of the unpredictible to shift votes away from strict evoloution.

Not surprisingly priming people to be afraid of unpredictibility had the expected results, but all that tells you is that the particular wording of the question and preparation of the subjects produced those results.

It can't tell you why the other people chose to answer the survey as they did, and it definitely cannot tell you that fear of the unpredictible is the largest factor in their choice. The data they collected does not logically support that conclusion.

If they tweaked the questions a bit and then conditioned the test subjects to fear that their lives might be being influenced by a supernatural force beyond their control and some chose to seek solice in the idea that such events are random, would that mean that the main reason people choose strict evoloution is such fear?

If this is the kind of crap that gets published in a peer reviewed Psychology journal I have little faith in the discipline.




RE: What a load of crap
By tng on 9/28/2010 2:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If this is the kind of crap that gets published in a peer reviewed Psychology journal I have little faith in the discipline.
It is a Psychology journal after all, no better way to learn about response than to load the questions.


RE: What a load of crap
By skepticallizzie on 9/28/2010 3:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
lol. I get what you are saying- i agree that statistics are only a reflection of the hypothosis the researchers are trying to prove/disprove. (i am a born skeptic... I continuously question the validity and manner of research and the study) To be proven, another hypothosis must be presented, and then that is challenged to be proven or disproven, and it goes on.
That is what I love about science and reasearch. the constant questions and the relentless answers.
Regarding psychology: awesome! Yes of course the question is formed (by human nature) to be leading. Can I dare state that this is yet another proof of intellectual evolution?
That is precisely what psychology is: the study of the human brain, the human response.... human behavior. we are an odd species for sure.


RE: What a load of crap
By skepticallizzie on 9/28/2010 3:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
lol. I get what you are saying- i agree that statistics are only a reflection of the hypothosis the researchers are trying to prove/disprove. (i am a born skeptic... I continuously question the validity and manner of research and the study) To be proven, another hypothosis must be presented, and then that is challenged to be proven or disproven, and it goes on.
That is what I love about science and reasearch. the constant questions and the relentless answers.
Regarding psychology: awesome! Yes of course the question is formed (by human nature) to be leading. Can I dare state that this is yet another proof of intellectual evolution?
That is precisely what psychology is: the study of the human brain, the human response.... human behavior. we are an odd species for sure.


The Big Flood???
By Magare on 9/29/2010 4:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
1.How come all the dinosaurs died out? Didn’t Noah take them all on the Ark?

2.What happened to all ocean living dinosaurs? The flood shouldn’t have killed them. Where are they gone now?

3.Where did all the water go after the flood receded? There is not enough water frozen in ice today on Earth to completely submerge all mountains. Some “creationists” state that god flattened out Earth so he can be flooded and after that he raised the mountains again. If that is so, how did kangaroos (and all marsupials for that matter) get to Australia? Did they swim to there? How come there are no marsupials anywhere else (besides islands in the close vicinity to Australia)? I suspect evolution.

The list can go on and on...




RE: The Big Flood???
By Quadrillity on 9/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: The Big Flood???
By Magare on 9/29/2010 6:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
Noah should have taken at least one pair of all the different kinds of dinosaurs on the ark, right? Or maybe you consider all dinosaurs as one kind? How do we still see ravens and doves today and we don't see any dinosaurs?

All land vegetation and fungi (mushrooms, for one) cannot survive completely submerged under water (hence we do not see living underwater trees and mushrooms) for a period of 7 months or a year. Do you suggest that seaweeds "evolved" into trees after the flood?

quote:
There have also been discoveries of animals mysteriously populating lifeless and remote islands. No-one knows how that even happens, unless those creatures all swam the distance


Has it appeared to you that they really swam the distance as ocean dwelling creatures and later evolved into land animals and lived in isolation for millions of years? Oh, wait, you do not have millions of years - you only have 6000 or so years at your disposal.

If Noah had taken at least a pair of all land animals on the ark, I seriously doubt he could have fit them all in that ark given the large variety of animals we have living today.


RE: The Big Flood???
By Quadrillity on 9/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: The Big Flood???
By Magare on 9/29/2010 11:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2) They we collected 2 by 2 after their kind . micro evolution happens; it is testable and observable. Noah didn't have to bring the wolf, dog, fox, etc. because they are the same kind of animal. You get the very large number of variations today because we can directly observe that micro evolution does occur.


Reading this answer of yours, as well as some of your other posts, shows how you contradict yourself on at least two ocasions.

Fisrt, you say that wolf, dog and fox are the same kind of animals, and on the other hand you say that humans, gorilas and chimps are not the same kind of animals.

Second, you agree that micro evolution occur, in just a very short timespan (a lifetime), and on the other hand you fail to understand that a chain of micro evolutions lead to macro evolution over long periods of time. Just like micrometers added in a chain make meters and kilometers and so on.


RE: The Big Flood???
By Cheesew1z69 on 9/30/2010 10:11:52 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Just some things to think about. Sure, at some point you are going to have to trust that God actually does what he says that he does.
No, we aren't.


Any one else raised Catholic
By RugMuch on 9/28/2010 11:02:04 AM , Rating: 5
I was raised Catholic but, I am not now. The most interesting thing about being "confirmed" is all the hypocrisy you see. One moment someone will talk about fatalism in the context of their believes and then the next they would talk about how the religion doesn't believe in fate.

BUT!, the most interesting part is the previous Pope wrote a document which basically stated that the Catholic Church believes in "traditional evolution", not intell design. Because they had to start somewhere. Yet, if you ask most Catholics about evolution they say it is wrong.

Why is it that the people who listen to other theories tend to know more about "their" religion and tend to no longer follow their given religion. Or maybe as the old idea goes Patton Oswalt paraphrase (I am no longer Catholic because I was Catholic)

/writing this sort of fast so dismiss the idea disconnect between pharagraphs




Creation
By ss2010 on 9/30/2010 10:54:04 AM , Rating: 2
so beautiful works ,arts , living machines on earth cannot be come as a coincidence or by randomness




RE: Creation
By kd9280 on 9/30/2010 12:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure if you're arguing for or against evolution, so forgive me if I'm being uselessly argumentative.

The difference between the creation of a beautiful work of art or a machine and the supposed creation of the universe is that the former we have evidence of the creator and the creation (in modern cases.) There is no evidence of a universal creator.

(Also, some works of art do come by randomness, though they're usually abstract.)


The Power Behind Life
By DailyDavid on 10/1/2010 10:32:56 AM , Rating: 2
While there is no doubt in my mind that the majority of people that post comments on this website are highly educated, it strikes me as curious how you can so easily overlook some of the major logical problems with Evolution. That being that intelligence doesn't come from non-intelligence, beauty does not come from non-beauty, order does not come from non-order. Evolution would seek to reverse all of these things. Besides, what is Evolution? Where is the source of it's power to shape and mold life as we know it. It's just word. It's a concept. It's nothing.

Romans 1:18-23

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.




By Albert J on 10/3/2010 4:45:49 AM , Rating: 2
Consensus is not science.

Even Richard Dawkins admits that 1)the fossil record does not back up Darwinism & 2) life on earth is much too complex to have happened accidentally. He claims perhaps aliens seeded life (but then where did the aliens come from and why?)

To believe in Darwinism, first you have to have 'Faith' in random accidental-ism, for which there is zero laboratory scientific proof for. Thus, the very foundation of Darwinism is faith based, and everything else after this initial Faith foundation then is founded on Faith, not science. No one can produce proof life accidentally happened, nor can they produce life from inanimate. Zapping organic compounds produces tar, not Life (which of course brings into question the whole Dinosaur theory of hydrocarbons, but that's a different mythology perpetuated by 'scientists').

While there is more than 90% proof via the current grid Model of Physics that Albert Einstein was correct and Nils Bohr, et al were/are wrong (Nils Bohr argued for faith based accidental-ism, Einstein against as per his famous sound bite quoted above), 'scientists' maintain the consensus of random accidental-ism as 'fact', when there is zero % scientific proof that it's even possible, much less that it actually happened that way.

That my friends is 100% faith based Darwinism. :)




By Albert J on 10/3/2010 5:43:39 AM , Rating: 2
"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know HIS thoughts, the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein

The current Grid Model of Physics supports Albert vs Accidental-ism by 90% concrete scientific proof. Waiting on the LHC for the other 10%. So far, there is 0% scientific concrete proof of Accidental-ism, ERGO Accidental-ism is 100% faith based. Whoops! :)




Spud or Ass
By Dingmatt on 9/28/2010 11:45:38 AM , Rating: 1
Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution either has the IQ of a spud (potato) or the stubbornness of an ass (donkey).




Wow, what a thorough survey.
By a11b11cd on 9/29/2010 12:06:47 AM , Rating: 1
Since when did 140 undergrads form a basis for a statistic? You may have better luck asking them what the difference is between beers! sheesh.
Your sample set was split twice as well... and the difference is only a few percentage....

I think i should stroll down my college and find a bunch of kids hanging out and ask them to fill out a survey. I am pretty certain 25% would think that women evolved from "pussy" cats.




Tech?
By Homerboy on 9/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Tech?
By amanojaku on 9/28/2010 10:12:52 AM , Rating: 2
DailyTech is a science and technology site. This falls in line with articles discussing genetic findings, drug treatments, etc...

It's just that it's a study about people's beliefs and should probably be in the blogs section. It may be accurate, but there are no scientific breakthroughs.


RE: Tech?
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/28/2010 10:13:32 AM , Rating: 3
You must be new here...

http://www.dailytech.com/Faq.aspx
quote:
# What is DailyTech?
DailyTech is the leading source of news, research and discussion for current and upcoming issues concerning science and technology.


DailyTech's Science Section
http://www.dailytech.com/section.aspx?cat=8


RE: Tech?
By Dr of crap on 9/28/2010 10:50:42 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, but anytime creation or evolution come up, it 500 comments from both sides fighting in trying to change the other side. It's a loosing battle, and it tiresome, and it's old.

Can we move on please and agree to disagree?


RE: Tech?
By Quadrillity on 9/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Tech?
By Quadrillity on 9/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Tech?
By zippyzoo on 9/28/2010 12:41:19 PM , Rating: 4
Nope you're still dumb


RE: Tech?
By eskimospy on 9/28/2010 1:11:20 PM , Rating: 3
Absolutely not, and this post explains perfectly why you always get downrated.

All opinions are NOT created equal. Some have evidence to support them, some do not. Opinions that have evidence to support them are superior to those that have lesser evidence, or in the case of creationism, none at all. You have already been told this at least once before, I'm not sure why it is so difficult to understand.

This is not even basic science, this is basic logic and rational argument.


RE: Tech?
By Quadrillity on 9/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Tech?
By tng on 9/28/2010 2:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
I admire your stubbornness, but when do you just give up?

This is the same as me admitting that I saw a UFO that could in no way be a trick of light, airplane, swamp gas, etc... and then being called crazy.

None of the people that you argue with here will change for anything other than absolute proof and even then they will not believe it. There is nothing beyond themselves and the small world that they restrict themselves to.


RE: Tech?
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/28/2010 3:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
None of the people that you argue with here will change for anything other than absolute proof and even then they will not believe it. There is nothing beyond themselves and the small world that they restrict themselves to.

It's interesting how you presume to know the thoughts of strangers. Care to share the nature of that ability? Or was that just rectal extraction?

Obviously I can't speak for anyone else here, but I personally am an atheist because I value evidence and reason. That is, I do not believe an idea until I see proof that it is true. If there were proof that God (whatever that word entails) existed, I'd believe it. You can claim all you want that I am insincere in this statement, but the fact is that you are not in any position to make such a claim.

Furthermore, I have no idea what you mean about restricting myself to a 'small world'. I filter out ideas that have no factual merit. If that is what you mean by restricting myself, then I must point out that clinging to ideas with no basis in reality is actually far more restrictive because it eliminates space which should be occupied by sound and useful ideas.


RE: Tech?
By Quadrillity on 9/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: Tech?
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/29/2010 10:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please, for the love of God, say that you have never done the same exact thing here on DT. If you say you haven't then you are blatantly lying to everyone.

I know exactly what instance you are referencing -- the discussion about 'college = liberal indoctrination' in which I called you out for having zero credibility. And I still stand by that claim.

I have never claimed to know the thoughts of strangers. I have however made logical predictions about the opinions and motivations of users based upon information from their own posts. BIG difference. What tng claimed above was about the thoughts of strangers, some he could never possibly know, and a gross generalization to top it off.

quote:
So what would provide proof for you? Nothing is the answer, because you already have your mind set. Just like evolutionists and creationist; they already have their minds made up.

Yet another example. You presume to know my thoughts without sufficient information. My calling you out was based upon your repeated failure (further evidenced by your posts in this thread) to compose logical arguments or comprehend facts. Your statement here is a fallacious claim of knowing my thoughts.

You really, truly do not understand what evidence and logic are, do you? Sad. Truly sad.


RE: Tech?
By Cheesew1z69 on 9/30/2010 10:32:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nothing is the answer, because you already have your mind set. Just like evolutionists and creationist; they already have their minds made up.
As if YOU don't? Wow....just WOW. You make yourself look more like a dolt each time you post, but of course, you don't care.

"I have proof", you have absolutely ZERO proof of anything you claim to state. You have been so brainwashed with your ways that's pretty pathetic and sad.


RE: Tech?
By tng on 9/28/2010 6:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I filter out ideas that have no factual merit.
You don't see the irony here?

By your own admission if you lived in the year 1900, there can be no such thing as a flying machine, because there is no data that such a thing will work......

In other words if you can't believe in something until it is proven true, it is obviously not you that has the imagination that comes up with the ideas to test. After all there is no point if it is not already proven.

Just saying while my views differ from yours and Quad's, if you can't have an open mind on something that has no basis in fact yet or is unproven with only anecdotal evidence, I think that your world is restricted.

By the way, love the name LRon.


RE: Tech?
By Fritzr on 9/29/2010 1:41:32 AM , Rating: 2
You picked a bad year.

Leonardo da Vinci included flying machines among his ideas

Otto Lilienthal was killed while testing his hang glider

While the Wrights are credited with the first successful powered flight. Gliders and experimental powered flying machines were being built and tested prior to 1900

No someone using science does not need to prove something to believe. Rather they believe novel ideas because they are able to test them to see if they work.

Faith requires that things not be tested lest they be disproven. Copernicus was prosecuted and convicted of disagreeing with the Revealed Truth. It was the middle of the 20th century when the Catholic Church finally issued a statement saying that Copernicus was probably correct.

So for centuries astronomers used heliocentric theories of planetary motion to simplify the math, while the Church maintained the Truth of the Terracentric Universe by Faith in Revealed Truth and meditation on the Bible.

Only a few decades ago has the official view shifted so that the Revealed Truth more closely aligns with the observed truth.

When crossing a bridge I would prefer not to know that the designers were Faith Engineers trained in the Revealed Truth. Bridges designed by Structural Engineers trained in the observed truth tend to be safer.


RE: Tech?
By tng on 9/29/2010 7:53:55 AM , Rating: 2
Yeh, maybe I did pick a bad year, but the point still stands.

You spoke of Faith, but LRon was clear that he only believed in something that had factual evidence and that would mean anything that had not been tested and proved, not just faith.

So for your bridge analogy, he could look at the plans, see the calcs for structural loads and stress, look at the bill of materials that would be used in construction, but still not believe that it was possible until it was built and people were crossing it.

Has nothing to do with Faith or God.


RE: Tech?
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/29/2010 10:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't see the irony here?

In other words if you can't believe in something until it is proven true, it is obviously not you that has the imagination that comes up with the ideas to test. After all there is no point if it is not already proven.

There is no irony in what I said, and here is why: unproven ideas do not necessarily lack factual merit. Background knowledge in a particular subject allows one to draw inferences. That is how new ideas arise to be tested. As an electrical engineer I do this every day.

If you came to me with an idea for a circuit, and your justification for why it will work is based upon such ideas as overunity, or the flow of caloric through the aether, or the alignment of the planets during operation of the circuit, I would laugh you out of my office. But if you instead used the justification that you derived it from a similar circuit which worked in a some other application, and that you can model the behavior of the circuit mathematically, then I would be inclined to listen to this new and likely patentable idea. Further investigation such as SPICE simulation and hardware fabrication would ultimately prove or disprove the idea. But in the first case there is absolutely no reason to go that far.

I hope you can see the difference here.

quote:
Just saying while my views differ from yours and Quad's, if you can't have an open mind on something that has no basis in fact yet or is unproven with only anecdotal evidence, I think that your world is restricted.

This statement presumes that I have no experience with religion. That couldn't be further from the truth. Actually for the first 20 or so years of my life I was religious to varying degrees. But after looking at the facts, learning about what it was that I supposedly believed, and understanding that there was no evidence to support any of those beliefs, I changed my mind. Being open-minded has absolutely NOTHING to do with accepting a particular view. All it means is that you give that view consideration. Religion already received my consideration, and no religion has offered anything new in the time since I did so. Ceasing consideration on that basis does not make me closed-minded. If evidence arises which substantiates any particular religion, I will reopen consideration on the basis of that evidence.


RE: Tech?
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/28/2010 3:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My God explains that everyone is created equal in his eyes.

All people are equal, but people =/= opinions. An opinion formed based upon erroneous information is itself erroneous. There is such a thing as a wrong opinion. This is why so many of your posts are rated down, and it is precisely why your above post about 'all opinions are created equal' is fundamentally incorrect. Opinions that lack factual backing or logical consistency are inferior to opinions which do possess those attributes. You have the freedom to feel however you want about that fact, but it is still a fact nonetheless. Logic plays no subjective favorites.


RE: Tech?
By eggman on 9/28/2010 4:33:14 PM , Rating: 2
There we go with God having a sex again. No wonder he raises such a ruckus for time to time, can't find a mate!


RE: Tech?
By eskimospy on 9/28/2010 4:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much the entire world thinks the way I do. It's the only thing that's allowed us to progress so far. You are basically arguing that it is impossible to know anything.

By all means take your hilarious umbrage at being called an idiot over to a chemist. Tell him that you're deeply offended that his opinion of what is going on in a chemical reaction is more valid than yours because it would be so terribly low of him to think his thoughts on the subject were more valuable.

Report back and tell us how that goes, you ridiculous fool.

It's not elitism (although recognizing elites when they exist is no flaw), it's anti-stupidity and ignorance. I, quite probably unlike you, fought for this country. So you can can your pathetic attempt at labeling me anti-American too.

Jesus. If pointing out that someone's a moron is anti-American, we're in more trouble than I thought.


RE: Tech?
By Skywalker123 on 9/28/2010 5:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
Blatant idiocy, is what its called any your the prime example.


RE: Tech?
By Fritzr on 9/29/2010 1:21:15 AM , Rating: 2
Is an American Hindu anti-American for not worshipping your God.

Claiming that followers of your God are superior due to their belief in the One True God is blatant elite-ism and you are a prime example of this. You must also be anti-American