Beawulf Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 There have been a few news reports recently about the theory of evolution and the big bang not being taught in schools in some places now, and creationism or intelligent design is being taught as science. I was also just reading a fan review of the voyager episode "threshold" where the reviewer mentioned they didnt believe in evolution, which I found odd for someone who liked sci fi. So I was wondering what do sci fi people think about this? Personally I believe in the theory of evolution and the big bang because there is research supporting it and it doesnt require blind faith. I also support the complete seperation of the church and the state. I dont have problem with churches wanting to teach their theory. But it should not take place at school. To quote the simpsons, Superintendant Chalmers "god has no place inside these walls, just as facts have no place within an organised religion" Theory of evolution/Big bang Creationism (Genesis) Intelligent design Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 I had to vote other, I think evolution is pretty much a given these days, there's too much evidence to realistically argue with, even the god mob frequently point to their boss designing it that way The Big Bang theory on the other hand has a few flaws in it and I think it's still in the "theory" category alternative to Big Bang Theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 1. Carbon dating does NOT work. There is no proof of anythings age. Don't give me any crap that the earth is billions of years old, or it takes millions of years for coral reef to grow, stalagmites/diamonds to form. It's been proven otherwise. Diamonds can be grown in a lab in a matter of hours. 2. The bible is a scattered collection of stories(and a very FUBAR one), not fact. I don't believe in genesis because it doesn't explain how 2 "white/arab" people made all the other races. And none of the authors go by their real names. hm... 3. Men did not evolve from apes. Have you seen any apes evolving recently and getting Ph.Ds?? Didn't happen. Not only that, why didn't ALL the apes evolve into humans, since we ARE the dominant species. I believe something or someones had a hand in creating each different race/species on each corner of the planet and let them adapt. There was no one central starting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 3. Men did not evolve from apes. Have you seen any apes evolving recently and getting Ph.Ds?? Didn't happen. Not only that, why didn't ALL the apes evolve into humans, since we ARE the dominant species. Evolution doesn't propose that we did. It DOES propose that apes, man, and other primates evolved from a common ancestor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 My option wasn't available, so I voted other (or maybe I was supposed to do that). I don't think that there really is enough evidence to support the Evolution theory, of course, there is evidence and a lot actually, but it is all circumstancial (as they say in English I believe). Because of the nature of the problem it is of course as good as impossible to get 'real' evidence, but that does not justify me believing something that is completely built on in-direct evidence. (or maybe I'm just not aware of some of the 'direct' evidence available, it is not really my field of study) Of course I do think that Evolution is a more likely way of things than creationism, since the evidence for that is even worse and the intelligent design solution, wel... I don't even know if there is any evidence for that... Hence my vote for other, not that I know of any evidence for another way of things to have gone either, but hey... so, as for a certainty: my vote is for none of the above as for probability: evolution; creationism/intelligent design (in that order) I also want to note that imo creationism and intelligent design is basically the same thing, if you keep in mind the way things are told/explained in the Bible at least, if you look at it literally, than it isn't of course, but I don't believe we should interpret the Bible in a literal manner. So, in that view, they are generally the same thing. Or at least, creationism is part of intelligent design. It could be argued that intelligent design (in its whole) is not a part of creationism though. But that's just my way of seeing things... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NiteShdw Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 I believe that some people have some fundamental mis-understandings of "The Theory of Evolution". The theory of evolution simply states that as a species reproduces, occasionally offspring will carry some genetic mutation. If that offspring lives long enough to reproduce, then that mutation can be passed on to its own decendents. Hence, there may be several species of bird that have very simliar charactertics except perhaps a different shaped beak and the type of food they eat (due to the ability to gather/eat different types of food). Even within the last one to two hundred years scientists have observed evolution taking place on a small scale. Even still over the past few thousand years, the human race has changed some physical attributes, such as increased height. I also firmly believe that there is something outside of this physical realm that science cannot measure, simply because we are confined by measuring using materials available to us. Who is to say that there isn't another form of matter that is simply undetectable by our physical senses or technology? The universe is far too large and complex a thing (thousands upon thousands of galaxies, each with millions of star systems) to have been created through some 'random' event. I don't believe that evolution and inteligent design are mutually exclusive. As one scripture states, God works by natural means. I do firmly believe that Man (Humankind) did not 'evolve' but was created. (Even still, who is to say that there even was a 'beginning' or an 'end' to the universe? Math states that there exists the idea of infinity, perhaps that applys here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philly Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 IF you want to follow an old, stuff, book then the bible is for you. THen Consider that there is more evidence for evolution then creationism. I don't believe in god, or any other religion that supports a power greater than man. Why should I, if you believe that there is one awesome supreme power that created everything in 7 days and all that other bull then go ahead. Im just sick of ppl that believe in the creationism theory, that press it on everyone else. Does anyone know how we got here....NO, but im not going to stick to one thing just because some one said so. I dont see how creationism and intelligent design, has any corrolation to science. creationism is based on religon, pretty much same as intelligent design. Its a sad day when the science community/schools allow this to happen.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 the human race has changed some physical attributes' date=' such as increased height.[/quote'] It's been attributed to the sickening growth hormones that are added to US milk supplies. Since Asians have actually not grown in height, until Japanese started drinking milk. Living in China, I found FEW who were as tall as I was. They drink a kind of "fake" milk product, kind of like candy. It's not refrigerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Does anyone know how we got here....NO' date=' but im not going to stick to one thing just because some one said so.[/quote'] But you will believe scientists who claim the universe is billions of years old, and they have no idea how to prove it or even know where to begin to calculate. They trip over their own theories and explanations and rely on scientific methods that have been proven unreliable, yet shovel it to anyone who will listen and hasn't heard the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S0V13T Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Guys, you all have it so wrong. This is the true path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philly Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Does anyone know how we got here....NO' date=' but im not going to stick to one thing just because some one said so.[/quote'] But you will believe scientists who claim the universe is billions of years old, and they have no idea how to prove it or even know where to begin to calculate. They trip over their own theories and explanations and rely on scientific methods that have been proven unreliable, yet shovel it to anyone who will listen and hasn't heard the truth. Who said i believed in "scientists who claim the universe is billions of blah blah blah." The truth is i dont believe in anything cause there all a crock of s***. But there is more evidence supporting evolution, then there is supporting any thing else. Everyones lives are short and if you want to live debating theories on how we got here then goahead and waste your time, cause we will never know.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted November 13, 2005 Author Share Posted November 13, 2005 Not sure if I should start another poll, but I am thinking I should have also asked, for those who subscribe to creationism or intelligent design: I would be very interested to know if you also believe there would be life on other planets in the universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Intelligent design for a human being doesn't call for a vestigal tail or a redundant appendix, does it Im sure I could design a better organism than us, if we' are the best the designer could manage he has pretty lousy standards and quality control Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juhan Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 I chose ID since this is a star trek forum and according to that universe, we, or at least humanoids, were in fact ID products! Remember that TNG episode (super cool one too) where the big races (humans klingons romulans i think) chased around the quadrant finishing up this DNA database that saw a connection between the DNA samples, that they thought couldve resulted in a WMD? Then it ended up as a message from their creators saying something about they are proud of the humanoids for combining their effort to find this lost message bla bla. But personally, evolution rocks my boat, with the same arguements as Nite's first few paragraphs. I'm not saying no to the concept of a God behind it, coz our view of God could just be a higher evolved alien being like Q. Plus it was humans who made up these stories without the benefit of scientifical method to back it up fully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quosego Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 1. Carbon dating does NOT work. There is no proof of anythings age. Don't give me any crap that the earth is billions of years old, or it takes millions of years for coral reef to grow, stalagmites/diamonds to form. It's been proven otherwise. Diamonds can be grown in a lab in a matter of hours. I will have to disgagree, carbon dating works flawlessy. It's just a fact, half life's don't change over the years are therefore perfectly suited for discovering an approximate age of something. I don't know if you know what carbon dating is, but if you do I would happy to know why it doesn't work according to you. Btw. Diamonds have nothing to do with carbon dating, except that diamonds are made of carbon and you can carbon date it, just like almost anything that contains carbon. You could even carbon date an recently made diamond and find out that it's not thousands of years old, but maybe just a few years. I would also suggest researching the theory of evolution, this will tell you that your third point doesn't make much sense. I voted for the theory of evolution, because this has been proven to be correct. The big bang however has not yet been proven correct. This howerver doesn't mean that there isn't somethign that set all of this in motion. This I cannot know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synexo Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Wow I can't believe how low a percentage of 'evolutionists' there are here. I imagine it is due to the fact that a lot of sci-fi fans are of the pseudo-sceptical conspiracy theory sort, who believe in aliens and bigfoot and the like, and distrust established authority and science. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, because I am not a scientist, but as I understand it, the biological theory of evolution actually does not address the issue of life's beginnings. It only addresses how different species come to be, that being that they evolved from earlier species. Theories of 'chemical evolution' are those that suppose that life arrises from non-life. I'm pretty sure this is at least one misunderstanding that causes people to reject evolution. Another is likely that people think of species as more of an objective definition then they really are. Some types of animals are considered different species simply because they do not breed in nature, even if it is true that they could breed under different circumstances. Also it is thought that the role of hybridization in evolution may be more important than previously thought, as a new species of fruit fly was recently discovered to be the direct result of hybridization. The point is that a species is a somewhat 'fuzzy' definition. Here's a good one actually. In australia, before european contact, both the men and the dogs of that continent had been isolated for around 50,000 years. The dogs that they brought with them are now considered a seperate sub-species from either dogs or wolves (the dingo), but the men who arrived at the same time as the dogs are not considered a seperate sub-species of human. And FYI, carbon dating is NOT the method used to date ancient fossils. Carbon dating is only usefull for a few tens of thousands of years. There are a number of different dating methods used to arrive at more ancient dating, however the dating of most ancient fossils (such as dinosaurs) is mostly done in reference to where they are found in the geologic record. Personally I think geology makes the best arguments for evolution. And Niteshdw, as far as all that stuff about matter we can't detect, and forces outside our universe and such, my opinion is: If something is outside of our universe, but can not interact with our universe, then it can not be said to 'exist' to us. We could never know it exists, and that's fine, because it can't affect us. On the other hand if it could possibly interact with our universe, then we could possibly detect it, and therefore bring it within our understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synexo Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 If anybody has any doubts about evolution, they should first read, or listen to, 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' by Bill Bryson. A Short History of Nearly Everything - Torrent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 I will have to disgagree' date=' carbon dating works flawlessy. [/quote'] I'm calling ya on this one http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 I will have to disgagree' date=' carbon dating works flawlessy. [/quote'] I'm calling ya on this one http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp That's fine and good... except that the Genesis flood is not likely to have actually happened, and was probably a tale stolen from older flood stories in other contemporary religions in the first place... Carbon dating IS good for short term, ballpark dating up to 50,000 years, as mentioned by StephenOfNine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quosego Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 I will have to disgagree' date=' carbon dating works flawlessy. [/quote'] I'm calling ya on this one http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp Yes this is exactly what I said. Carbon dating works.... I don't get it... You have just proven my point.. But if you mean that carbon dating can't date anything older than 50000 years and doesn't give to accurate results but approximations I of course agree (as should anybody). But if you know the concentration of C-14 in a rock/organism when you want to start counting it's age you can easily know it's age... So obviously it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now