Theory of evolution vs creationism

[nuages]

as a sidenote I'd like to mention that based upon quantumtheory' date=' I could argue that this does not necessarily has to be true, in quantumtheory, it is possible to have two different states at the same time and it can even be said that it is possible to be at 2 locations at the same time[/quote']

 

my understanding is quantum mechanics says that there is a probability of an object being in located at certain positions. However it can only be in one position at a time.

 

An example being schroedinger's cat, you can setup a device that will kill the cat half the time, you let the device run through a cycle, without looking to see the result, you know there is a 50% chance the cat is dead, 50% it is alive. It cant be both.

 

 

Sorry to go off topic, I've got a test on quantum mechanics (among other things) tomorrow. ;)

 

 

Actually, before the box is opened it its both dead and alive, as the cat is a quantum cat of course:P there is a 1/2 chance it is alive and 1/2 chance dead, when you open the box, it is not one or ther either untill it us "measured" and you break down the wave equation. This is what allows crazy things like quantum computing to be a possibility, where you have one particle represting both a 1 and a 0.

 

on the matter of evolutionary theory and intelligent design, only one is a scientific theory. In order to be scienctfic theory and not philospy, you must be able to prove it wrong. Such as proving special relativity wrong by flying a jet REALLY fast with an atomic clock on it, and comparing it to an atomic clock to see if their is a time difference, this can be prove special relativity wrong(actually this experiment was performed and verified special relativity). This is the reas String theory or M-theory is in such a tight bind right now, because there is not really any way to prove it wrong, and thus can't prove it right. There are some ideas for it right now, but nothing that is going to save the theory and time soon. As such if nothing comes up for string-theory eventually to attempt to prove it wrong, it can easily become a dead science in 10-20 years.

 

Evolution can be proven wrong, whereas intelligent design cannot. Omnipotence, as a creator would be in the world he created, this gives intelligent design the flexibility to jump around any disproof. Evolutionary theory has tons of ways to be disproved. As such evolution is the way for me, it changes and improves, and continues to get more and more accurate, as it can be proven wrong. Intelligent design is not science, and never will be, its not neccesarly wrong, but its not neccesarly right. At least with evolution if it is wrong, it can be proven so, and probably will be in my liftime. Intelligent design is faith and nothing else, no getting around that anyway.

[azuro]

i think we've talk abt evolution in the past. i still agree that the only evolution humans and all other living things are going through is only adaptation to their surroundings, eating habbits, etc. mutation may play a part in it but i do believe its very small. i do architecture and anthropometrically, asians has grown as large as the westerners these days thus requirements have also change.

on the other hand the big bang theory might have a little truth to it. it was discovered that elements in space, i dont really remember what it all was, are moving away from the sun at a constant speed due to momentum. cant really confirm that.

one thing i do know is that all living things are created UNIQUE. cats are not iguana decendents, betazoids are not amphibians, humans are not monkeys. and adam shouldhv been a great man to produce all of us 6billion in this world.

[nuages]

i think we've talk abt evolution in the past. i still agree that the only evolution humans and all other living things are going through is only adaptation to their surroundings, eating habbits, etc. mutation may play a part in it but i do believe its very small. i do architecture and anthropometrically, asians has grown as large as the westerners these days thus requirements have also change.

on the other hand the big bang theory might have a little truth to it. it was discovered that elements in space, i dont really remember what it all was, are moving away from the sun at a constant speed due to momentum. cant really confirm that.

one thing i do know is that all living things are created UNIQUE. cats are not iguana decendents, betazoids are not amphibians, humans are not monkeys. and adam shouldhv been a great man to produce all of us 6billion in this world.

 

mutation does play a small part, but thats where the larger changes occur, where species start to seperate, you are right about it being small though, and thats why the evolutionary process takes SUCH a long time, it is not something that can be directly observed or anything, and thats why the subject is constantly being studied and changing today, since there is still so much to learn about it.

 

they discovered that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. and it didn't disprove the bigbang theory, but is leading towards the development of something called dark energy, a sort repulsive force, opposite of gravity.

[mateya]

I dont see why the theory of evolution/big bang would absolutelly deny intelligent design behind it or for that matter why creationism (genesis) wouldnt be to a degree some part of it. and vice versa.

point is that we really know a very small part of the hole picture and maybe some of this things overlap each other in some places..

about string theory - there is acctually one unifying string theory (from edwad witten) which combines all 5 string theories in one; and in that case we would have 11 dimensions to consider.

so, heh; if that is really the case (it doesnt matter if you use evolution, creationism or intelligent design behind it), we will still have a lot to understand to even begin to imagine the hole complexity of the universe and what is behind it (or not?:))

[Ruk]

http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hdertoc.htm

 

This page will gave you many reasons (and proof) why evolution cannot be true. Read it and jusge for yourself.

Chewbacca... all I can say is this: that site has so many logical inconsistencies and old arguments I simply can't refute them all here.

 

Chapter 3 on probabilities is full of unwarranted assumptions. For example it start off with the idea that building blocks can't naturally exist due to various reasons. Problem is, they not only exist, but are observable not only on our planet but throughout the solar system. Also your site states: The simplest organism that is theoretically capable of existing and reproducing would actually not be simple at all. and goes on to list all the requirements (DNA, etc) needed. Problem is that we have already observed simple peptide chains that reproduce themselves. These are just simple chemical reactions. And this flows into the whole "probability" problem they mention. They assume the long probability of life using a similar rational of a million monkeys pounding out Shakespeare on the keyboard (DNA/cell walls/etc all magically coming together). But the first stages of "life" wasn't nearly so complex and just like the Lottery, while the odds of it happening once in a specific place are long, amazingly enough someone usually does win, because the number of people playing is also high.

 

Chapter 4 is entirely without merit. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies ONLY in a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to generate increased complexity. Likewise they make much of the fact that mutations are generally bad. While this is true, the problem is that they forget one small thing! Positive mutations get passed to offspring, while deadly ones usually don't (because they kill the organism). Thus while most mutations ARE bad, the majority of mutations that are passed along are actually beneficial.

 

Chapter 7 likewise greatly exaggerates the "missing link" problem. The number of transitional fossils is huge. What's more, as genetic analysis is progressing, we are discovering that observed relationships found in the fossile record are reaffirmed in the genetic records of present day species. If the predicted relationships were not true, then why would this be the case?

 

The problems go on and on.

 

I suggest you take a day or two and read the following page and all the sub-links. Most of the "issues" addressed in your site are well refuted here:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

[Hilander72]

I've done it. I've read the entier thread and realise that I've missed an excellent oppportunity to debate and argue about almost anything. :(

So I won't... ;)

 

I have to admit that I admire TetsuoShima to stand alone between several and often opposing believes (evolution vs creation vs all other factions) and still trying to prevail alone.

 

There seems to be a lot of belives and opinions about what is what. And if in doubt a lot of references are give to backup the facts with whatever seems to fit the occasion.

 

I have only this to add:

 

Have an open mind

 

There is no reason to be defensive and randomly dismissing every opposing fact, belife or opinion, because they don't confirm your own.

 

I have to agree with TetsuoShima, for the most part, but still there are a lot of things that I belive that is not backed up by any facts/religions/science/evidence/etc.

 

For example. I currently don't belive there are Aliens (from outer space), but I don't dismiss the possibility that I might be wrong... And that does not make Star Trek any less enjoyable.

[DarthMarley]

 

It's common knowlege that milk from COWS has growth hormones in it, whether natural or artificial now. There's plenty of dispute on this matter, and I believe warnings. Milk is not needed after infancy.

 

Yes, milk, even human breast milk, has growth hormones.

 

Are you suggesting that milk product consumption is a new trend?

 

 

 

[wahaha]

It has the WRONG kind of growth hormones / protein for humans. Cows milk is for COWS, period. You know where that udder has been? eck...

 

If cows eat grass for calcium, why do humans keep drinking milk? Not to mention the studies that say milk actually removes calcium from bones and clogs up the blood stream. It will make you taller while weakening your bones at the same time apparently.

[bones2097]

It has the WRONG kind of growth hormones / protein for humans. Cows milk is for COWS, period. You know where that udder has been? eck...

 

If cows eat grass for calcium, why do humans keep drinking milk? Not to mention the studies that say milk actually removes calcium from bones and clogs up the blood stream. It will make you taller while weakening your bones at the same time apparently.

 

dude!!! :o

 

you got a link for that & wana read bout it ... thanks B)

[mateya]

It has the WRONG kind of growth hormones / protein for humans. Cows milk is for COWS' date=' period. You know where that udder has been? eck...[/quote']

 

I dont get it - if cow milk is for cows, does that mean we also shouldnt eat cheese, jogurth, cacao, milkshake, curd..

 

If cows eat grass for calcium' date=' why do humans keep drinking milk? Not to mention the studies that say milk actually removes calcium from bones and clogs up the blood stream. It will make you taller while weakening your bones at the same time apparently.[/quote']

 

never heard that before. but I read that a lot of people is allergic to some milk proteins and for those is not good to drink it becose it has unpleseant side effects but is not dangerous.

what doesnt kill you, makes you stronger!! :)

[Sly12]

My Belief...

 

INTELLIGENT PLAN,

 

i see it as, we look down the microscope at the tinyest forms of life, why cant there be something looking down at us?

 

Like to me it seems all to planned about how animals have developt to give variety i know this touches on in the idea of evolution but seems at little weird that the cells that make are body just happened to make animal life perform sexual reproduction when plants are asexual. The fact are cells worked together the way they do seems highly unusal, seems more like theres a purpose to it.

[Sly12]

In reply to the whole "milk and "calcuim" thing...

 

It's probably true we dont need it particular, we dont need vegetables and fruit either, there actually more designed for eating meat but thing is if we all ate meat then animals would need to be slaughtered at faster rate than there produced and more food for animals like fruit and vegetables would need to be given to the animals. We can eat animals and take in all the minerals from the animals that eat fruit and vegetables.

[Hilander72]

Humans are omnivores (eat animals and plants) and some humans are not by choise. There are essentials the human body can't produce and needs to eat those instead.

 

Milkproteins are still proteins that have nutritional value.

 

Lactose is a carbohydrate ("sugar") not a protein. eg. Lactose intolerance ("allergy").

 

Hormone is a general name describing a huge group of related substances. To be more specific humanGrowthHormone (hGH) and bovineGrowthHormone (bGH) are two very different hormones and have no known effects on other species that their own.

 

Bonedensity is strongly correlated to physical activity and age.

[mateya]

yeah, I googled it - two milk problems can occur:

 

An intolerance is a physical reaction to a substance that usually does not involve the immune system. For example, lactose intolerance occurs when a person has a deficiency in lactase  the enzyme that breaks down lactose, the carbohydrate found in cow's milk. So, this milk sugar is not digested adequately, producing abdominal discomfort, gas, and diarrhea.

 

An allergy is an immune response - the body senses that a harmful substance has entered it, and specific antibodies are released to combat the perceived threat.

[Hilander72]

yeah, I googled it - two milk problems can occur:

 

An intolerance is a physical reaction to a substance that usually does not involve the immune system. For example, lactose intolerance occurs when a person has a deficiency in lactase  the enzyme that breaks down lactose, the carbohydrate found in cow's milk. So, this milk sugar is not digested adequately, producing abdominal discomfort, gas, and diarrhea.

 

An allergy is an immune response - the body senses that a harmful substance has entered it, and specific antibodies are released to combat the perceived threat.

 

Since, intolerance is far more common than allergy most ppl confuse these a lot and assume that they're the same "illness".

[Potato]

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"

 

I think you'll find that all public schools still teach evolution even if they also teach intelligent design. Religious schools will teach it also, as a theory (which it is), so as to show their pupils what others are taught.

 

I love Sci-Fi and I don't believe in Evolution (If man is best suited for survival, why are there still other animals?) or the Big Bang (The universe is created by a big explosion? What exploded? There was no universe, so there was nothing that could explode.) And what research supports this? Has the missing link been found? Are people walking out of the jungle who were apes yesterday? It's all too vague. So we're left with a choice between theories and no real evidence to support either, so why not teach both as theories?

 

Also as I posted on another thread, you can not seperate church and state because then you would have to stop taxing people whose income came from religious sources and this would increase the tax load on everybody else.

 

Just a few thoughts.

[thedrtim]

Dude, you're not going to be old enough to notice evolution.....

 

 

Touchee. I agree.

 

I think anyone who argues for intelligent design need look no further than the mating habits of the dragon fly to see THEIR theory contains holes.

 

Creationalism? I can't and so therefore won't dignify it with comment.

 

Evolution? Well our species seems to be rapidly evolving into a race of self obsessed, homicidal morons, hell bent on exerting our "individuality" at the expense of the benefits of group effort. Perhaps we will prove ourselves evolutionary aberations and evolve out of existence. Then the other species on this palnet can get on with whatever the hell it was they doing before we came along and started butt f****** the place.

[GorunNova]

I love Sci-Fi and I don't believe in Evolution (If man is best suited for survival' date=' why are there still other animals?) or the Big Bang (The universe is created by a big explosion? What exploded? There was no universe, so there was nothing that could explode.) And what research supports this? Has the missing link been found? Are people walking out of the jungle who were apes yesterday? It's all too vague. So we're left with a choice between theories and no real evidence to support either, so why not teach both as theories?[/quote']

 

You DO know this shows that you really haven't read very much about either evolutionary theory or the big bang theory, right? -_-'... If either theory were saying what you're saying they do, then they WOULD be in trouble...

[hbomb]

oh man. to be stuck on an idea simply because you read it in a book goes beyond my concept of rational human thought. i believe in evolution because i practice science. i have come to my own understanding through my own research into genetics, chemistry, physics, and biological behavior and it's affect on humans. fact based on tested results. could there be a god? yes. could the "bible" be correct? sure. open-mindedness seems to be key. nice topic, btw. -thumbzup-

 

 

-h

[Tenebrae]

For me - things like Creationism or its hip new alter-ego Intelligent Design are basically ideas accepted by the lazy, ignorant, unintelligent or more recently, those trying to manipulate the former.

 

I saw a programme on BBC2 about Intelligent Design - it's basically being funded by right wingers who are pushing it as the first phase of a plan to try and alter the political landscape of the US. I think the plan basically went - if you can get people to say there are 5 lights, you've got them where you want them.

 

It's actually an extremely devious scheme. Darwin has often been called the man that killed God and what better way than to get God back everywhere than killing Darwin? It's a very cynical ploy but one ideally suited to mould the fabric of America.

 

In terms of ID vs evolution debates - well, I've seen the two sides go up against one another and really it's not a contest. ID (and those still touting Creationism) generally try to undermine the theory of evolution by going "look at this example - this doesn't work, therefore the whole theory must be wrong."

 

I think that the evolution of drug resistant strains of bacteria is an excellent example of evolution in progress. One bacteria is resistant, all its mates die - it reproduces, only the resistant strain remains. Bit of a pisser but that's evolution in action.

 

Is the Bible correct? Well, there are certainly parts of it that key in with some historical facts but to take it literally? I wouldn't recommend it.

 

And a God? I've known more than my fair share of theology and philosphy students in my time - of a variety of faiths. The only thing they seem to agree on is that regardless of God existing or not, it would be impossible to prove his existence either way.

 

I think the important thing to remember is that science has changed a great deal over the past 2000 or so years. The Bible hasn't... well, except for the rewrites the Catholic Church supposedly did.