| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/15/2007 08:35:26 PM · #51 |
Then you would love these books The God Particle & The physics of immortality which is about the Omega Point Theory Frank J. Tipler.
Love Quantum Physics!
Message edited by author 2007-06-15 20:35:41. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 08:49:14 PM · #52 |
Regardless of which one is true, evolution is a scientific theory and intelligent design is not.
By what standard? The standard of science. There is a precise definition of a "theory" in science, which Intelligent Design doesn't come close to qualifying for. The creation of mock-scientific institutions by religious/political factions doesn't change that. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 09:00:09 PM · #53 |
I'm just going to quote my post above since it got lost in a quick flurry of posting. The thread seems to have come around again...
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To start with, I firmly believe in evolution. However, I also think the person who thinks evolution is as plain as the nose on their face doesn't really know what they are talking about either. The more you study evolution and concentrate on the molecular evolution of life, the more it really is an amazing process which even in times of sobriety can cause crisises of scientific faith.
It is sorta like the Neils Bohr quote about quantum physics: “If anybody says he can think about quantum physics without getting giddy, that only shows he has not understood the first thing about them.” |
|
|
|
|
06/15/2007 09:06:17 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm just going to quote my post above since it got lost in a quick flurry of posting. The thread seems to have come around again...
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To start with, I firmly believe in evolution. However, I also think the person who thinks evolution is as plain as the nose on their face doesn't really know what they are talking about either. The more you study evolution and concentrate on the molecular evolution of life, the more it really is an amazing process which even in times of sobriety can cause crisises of scientific faith.
It is sorta like the Neils Bohr quote about quantum physics: “If anybody says he can think about quantum physics without getting giddy, that only shows he has not understood the first thing about them.” |
|
Yeah old Borh is always good for the paradox.
"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."
:-P
ETA: I like this one too.
'Einstein, stop telling God what to do!"
Message edited by author 2007-06-15 21:08:17. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 09:15:44 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by noraneko:
Evolution has to do with the environment in which a species lives. Species either adapt to a changing environment, or do not survive.
Here is an example: as you are probably aware, most iguanas do not swim or feed underwater. Why? Because there is no need for them to swim in order to survive. However, on the Galapagos Islands, a special type of iguana, called a marine iguana, has developed due the environment - these iguanas cannot rely soley on food sources from the ground and thus developed the capability of remaining submerged for long periods of time. In fact, these iguanas feed mainly on seaweed. |
Now when they develop gills and breathe underwater then you have something there. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 09:18:08 PM · #56 |
i saw a link to tipler's _the physics of christianity_ recently and thought it looked interesting...
w/ you're second referal, i'll have to check him out... thanks. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 09:20:56 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Regardless of which one is true, evolution is a scientific theory and intelligent design is not.
By what standard? The standard of science. There is a precise definition of a "theory" in science, which Intelligent Design doesn't come close to qualifying for. The creation of mock-scientific institutions by religious/political factions doesn't change that. |
see. you're still attacking the website that reprinted the article because of their religions afiliation.
but you still haven't read the article, have you?
come on. it's just one little bitty article. it couldn't possibly shake your religious faith in evolution that hard... could it?
(i tease, yes, but in all in fun...) |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 09:37:13 PM · #58 |
Evolution vs. Creation is one of the oldest debates, and its always going to come down to personal opinion. Same as religion, same as politics.
I honestly can't call it evolution. Its Adaptation. Every example of evolution posted, has been of species that adapted to their environment. Certain subspecies that developed a trait to fit their environment over who knows how long.
Just look at humans. Forget the discussion of evolving from apes, and just look at current day. We're all human beings, but why do people look different according to the region that they originated from? African natives, have a greater amount of menalin in their skin, thus having darker skin that protects them from the sun. Whites have less menalin, thus a lighter pigment. There are 6 different variations, and they all vary according to origin of race. We're still all the same biologically, but we've adapted according to our location. Our bodies changed to protect us, but we're basically still the same.
Believe in the bible or not, but every religion still points to a higher power, even those with multiple gods. Christianity and Judaism, Yeshua, the god of abraham. Christianity just adds the son of God. Muslims and Allah, is the same God of Abraham, but they believe Ishmael was the chosen son, instead of Jacob, and the Muhommad decended from there (Not an expert, so different sects might have different beliefs) The Greeks had multiple gods for love, war, etc.. but still had Zeus who created everything. And there was a National Geographic article way back, can't remember, where a jungle tribe, had multiple altars for gods, but had an alter to the god who created it all. If you don't believe in any higher power, then you come to your own conclusions.
Regardless of what you believe, you can't step outside and look at a tree and not be in wonder and amazement. Every detail of every living thing on this planet is so unique, and so different, yet so alike. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 09:42:29 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by sabphoto:
always wondered...if we evolved from monkeys, why are their still monkeys? Why not all evolve? Also why couldn't God have created us to evolve? |
And if evolution is still happening why are there no species found that are partially evolved, shouldn't we have part monkeys part man species all around (present company excluded..lol). I know the argument will be there was something that triggered the change that no longer exists but then if that is the case evolution must not be happening anymore. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 09:43:19 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Regardless of which one is true, evolution is a scientific theory and intelligent design is not.
By what standard? The standard of science. There is a precise definition of a "theory" in science, which Intelligent Design doesn't come close to qualifying for. The creation of mock-scientific institutions by religious/political factions doesn't change that. |
Your hypothesis: The universe came about randomly over billions of years.
My hypothesis: God created the heavens and the earth, and you and me
Can either be proven? No. In the absence of a proof, science teaches you to observe:
Your observations: micro evolution, carbon dating, etc, etc
My observations: life, the human mind is too complex to have just happened randomly.
I bicker that your observations are flawed. You bicker that mine are flawed. In the end, there's been a lot of bickering. I'm not changing my mind, and you're not changing yours.
But here's one final observation: the OP started an obviously unwinnable argument, stated in a closed minded, self-projecting and condescending way. I'm not sure how that helps anyone here. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 10:17:35 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by yanko:
How can something start to fly when it previously couldn't? It's not like the example of your iguana where due to desperation some took a chance and ventured into the water and those survived and procreated while the others died off. How can something like that happen with flight? You either can fly or you can't. |
This is the usual position of those who don't understand evolution at all. The development of flight is EXACTLY like the example of the iguana. Two land-based iguanas didn't suddenly give birth to AquaLizard, nor was a prior ability to thrive at sea necessary. A baby dinosaur doesn't just jump off a cliff and sprout wings to fly away. That's not how it works at all. Evolution proceeds through subtle changes over long periods of time.
In the case of the marine iguana, you'd start with a population of "regular" land iguanas on this small island chain (either as plate tectonics separated the island from the mainland or as they washed ashore riding on floating debris). The island itself turns out to be a favorable habitat and lacks predators, so the land iguanas thrive. Over time, you get lots of iguanas, which creates pressure on the limited food sources of an island. As the usual food becomes scarce, the iguanas supplement their diet with other sources (just as deer will eat less desirable plants during hard times). A good source of food for an island dweller: seaweed found in tidal pools. Now it gets interesting. Lots of iguanas can access seaweed washed onto the shore or in shallow pools, but maybe some hold their breath to reach deeper seaweed. Those that can hold their breath the longest will be able to reach more food than others and thus have a survival advantage. They tend to survive and pass along that trait, while iguanas who can't hold their breath as long tend to starve more often. The same goes for any other advantageous traits: a flatter tail for swimming, ability to tolerate salt, etc. If the space between one individual's toes has a little more skin that another's, then maybe that iguana can swim a little better and pass along that trait, leading to webbed feet. More and more iguanas compete for less and less food over hundreds of thousands or millions of years, and only those who can reach the most food will tend to survive and pass along those adaptations. End result: specialized marine iguanas.
A similar process likely lead to flying birds. Outside of religious texts, there is no "abracadabra, you've got wings!" The cliff notes version: skin > scales > thinner scales > feathers > hollow feathers > climbing > gliding > flight. While we commonly equate feathers with flight, the fossil record shows that a number of dinosaurs had feathers. These likely developed over time to offer other survival advantages, such as temperature regulation, camouflage, and speed, and only later developed into flight feathers. Early fish and reptiles developed scales for protection. Eventually, some were pressured into really thick, heavy scales for armor, while others went toward lighter scales for speed. Thinner, lighter scales also turned out to be good insulators for temperature regulation as increasingly sophisticated scales could be "fluffed" to trap pockets of air. Eventually, these took the form of feathers. Lighter, hollow feathers allowed small dinosaurs to climb trees and reach insects that heavier animals couldn't access. Hey, now we've got dinosaurs with feathers in trees! Pretty soon (relatively speaking), they learn to hop from tree branch to tree branch, then glide over longer distances, then fly independently... all over a period of millions of years. What some people consider "impossible" macro evolution is nothing more than micro evolution over a VERY long stretch of time... baby steps that accumulate into giant leaps of change, and maybe not so unbelieveable after all. ;-) |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 10:24:18 PM · #62 |
.
Message edited by author 2007-06-15 23:34:09. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 10:28:21 PM · #63 |
| No offense, but feathered dinosaurs is a tough one for me to equate into this whole scenario. For as long as there's been palientologists, we've been fed into all those species being reptiles and dinosaurs. As technology has grown and we've discovered more, now we're finding out that our favorite dinosaurs had feathers. It used to be just the one species, and now its going back further and further with each new discovery. Isn't it possible that they were a bird species that were around the same time, and not the great walking reptiles we once thought? Birds and reptiles aren't that much different in comparison today, except that the reptiles today are just smaller, as are the birds. Less enviroment to roam, and thus smaller species survived. Thats natural selection, not evolution. I just think there's so much we don't know that both sides seem to fill in the blanks with their theory instead of having a true debate. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 10:33:30 PM · #64 |
I don't think we are an accident, but I also don't believe creation was done in six literal days. I also don't believe the Earth is only thousands of years old.
Does that conflict with my Christian views? No. I don't interpret the Bible literally. I don't think God intended me to.
FWIW, call my beliefs Supervised Evolution, if ya will.
Message edited by author 2007-06-15 22:34:46. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 10:39:19 PM · #65 |
| Well according to the bible, every day to him is equal to a 1000 years to us, so that could have been 6000 years. Most believe that between verse 1 and 2 is where Lucifer was thrown down from the heavens, and the fallen angels mating with humans is where Giants and other myths came about, so who knows. The Bible itself had sections chosen by the "church" on what went in it, so how many writings were left out that told a different story. We can only go by the faith we have. Believe in the creator, not beliefs about what others tell us to believe. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 10:46:14 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Originally posted by smardaz:
I have actually studied evolution pretty extensively and have found it to have so many holes that it's quite amazing to me that people believe it. There are so many amazing facts about our bodies,nature and the universe that it is out of the realm of possibility for me to think that it all just came about by chance.
If I showed you the watch on my wrist and told you it just evolved there due to my species need to know the time you would call me crazy but science is ready and willing to attribute this same theory to the FAR more complex universe.
But as we like to say on this site, this is, after all, JMO. :) |
But you see the watch on your wrist did evolve. It did not just appear. In biblical times they had no such thing as a watch. But over time our ability to tell time evolved. That evolution was due to the need of the species to have a more precise measurement fo time.
edit: I should add that I do not discount a "god". I just think that the argument over evolution and creationism is crazy. Neither can be proven but at least some of the science in evolution can be proven. There are just too many religions in the world to say which one is correct. |
The watch was created...By an intelligent designer... |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 10:48:59 PM · #67 |
At the risk of incurring the wrath of both sides:
I believe that evolution is a tool of the Creator. To evolve is to survive. No one, setting out to design a world (eco-system) would dare to try to make it unchanging(static). Static systems do not stay that way, the only way around the destabilization that will occur is to make a system that has components which are able to adapt. Even the extinction of man would be a process of adaptation by the planetary system which we occupy. The Earth has been here for how long? The dinosaurs were on the earth for how long? Long enough to compare that homo sapiens has been the dominant form of life on this planet for only a minute fraction of what the dinosaurs were. If the dinosaurs were subjected to the changes caused by an asteroid impacting the earth, they either had to adapt or die.
Seems to me, the Creator was pretty smart. He knew just how to make a system that SURVIVES. Do I need to go on? |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 10:58:28 PM · #68 |
Challenge suggestion: Photograph the supreme creator or the process of evolution whichever you beleive in.. :)
Lets see who/what wins..and that settles the argument in a photographic way.
Have fun!! |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 11:07:26 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by wsl:
Well according to the bible, every day to him is equal to a 1000 years to us, so that could have been 6000 years. |
The only problem with this interpretation is (from what I understand, and I am not, by any means, an ancient language scholar) that the Hebrew word for "day" used in the Old Testament is very similar to the Greek/Aramic word used for "day" when Jesus is on the cross. So, either creation was 6 "days" as we know it, or Jesus was on the cross for 3000 years. :)
Honestly, for me, it is as much a matter of faith as it is an intellectual belief. I do not believe it because someone told me to believe it, but rather because through my self-search for truth, it is the answer that makes the most sense and rings the most true to me.
It's not that I don't want to argue/discuss it; I just see it as an endless argument that will eventually start winding in circles. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 11:26:36 PM · #70 |
Well... to me, I like crunchy much more than smooth, but not as much as I like mayo better than Miracle Whip.
Okay...different participants...same argument!
|
|
|
|
06/15/2007 11:36:23 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I am not trying to harass creationists, and certainly not trying to call people out or discriminate...
But is there really anyone out there that does not in their heart of hearts know that evolution is real? Even Intelligent design people- don't you just know its real? Ca't we all just admit it and get over the hump...
I mean, what are trilobites? Dinosaur bones? carbon dating? Hybrid species?
Science is in no way perfect, but is it more fun to have a world full of magic and sorcery, or the wonders of dinosaurs - reality, and planets that aren't flat? |
I am a Christian who believes in evolution. Chrisitanity leaves me the theological leeway to view the Bible's creation story as allegorical and metaphorical while accepting its more central tenets. Like you, I find it very difficult to accept WESTERNERS who do not believe in evolution.
However, I live in a Muslim country. I would venture to say that almost NO Muslims believe in evolution. The reason for this is that the Muslims' holy book (the Qur'an) repeats the creation story found in the Old Testament of the Bible (Adam and Eve). Unlike most Christians who believe that the writers of the Bible were simply divinely-guided (leading to different Christian sects having different interpretations of the Bible and even including different books in the Bible), Muslims believe that the Qur'an is word-for-word a dictation directly from God to the Prophet Mohammed via the Angel Jibril (Gabriel) in Arabic. This is an extremely important point, because it prevents them from dismissing anything at all that is in the Qur'an and drastically limits the amount of personal interpretation available to a Muslim. This even goes so far as to mean that when you translate the Qur'an from Arabic into another language, it is no longer considered the Qur'an because it inevitably loses some of the original meaning in the translation. The Muslims believe that God dictated the Qur'an IN ARABIC.
For this reason, you might find a very very small handful of Westernized Muslims that believe in evolution. But, by the time a Muslim accepts evolution, there's a strong argument that he's no longer a Muslim at all. Asking a Muslim to accept evolution is akin to asking him to stop being a Muslim. It's not like Christianity which leaves the theological wiggle room for a Christian like me to be able to accept Christianity and evolution simultaneously. A Muslim can't do that.
Now, given that the world has something like 2 billion Muslims, that's a lot of people right there that reject evolution -- even before you count anyone who isn't a Muslim.
AND THEY ARE NOT UNTHINKING IDIOTS WHO CAN JUST BE MOCKED AND DISMISSED. There are many educated, sophisticated and intelligent people among them -- just as in the West.
When you look at it in this light, I think you have to be careful of what adjectives you use to describe creationists -- because you're talking about a HUGE chunk of the world's population that says evoultionists have it all wrong -- maybe even the majority.
Now, it seems to me that many people on the DPC lean to the left politically. In the West, the political left is more likely to accept evolution and less likely to accept creationism. Interestingly, the Western left is also more likely to espouse multi-culturalism, than the right.
So, we arrive at a confusing juncture -- the Western political left views creationism with disdain. But it also views cultural arrogance in a similar light.
How will the Western left reconcile its disdain for creationism with its advocacy of multiculturalism?
Sorry to be so heavy so early in the morning (or late at night depending on where you are). It's about 7:30 in the morning here. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 11:42:00 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by wsl:
Well according to the bible, every day to him is equal to a 1000 years to us, so that could have been 6000 years. |
Regardless of time scale, there are some fundamental problems with the type and order of the things created. Pick your favorite version of Genesis and take a close look: the land and water of earth existed before the stars (and no mention of other planets). There were evenings and mornings, and light in general, several "days" before there were any stars (compact fluorescents maybe?). There was grass and trees before there was a sun for photosynthesis or heat, and fruit before there were any animals for pollination. Those were lean times for the carnivorous plants.
Where exactly do fossils fit into this? Whales and cattle were certainly important enough to spell out by name, but T-rex, Titanosaurs and 30 foot flying reptiles don't get a mention. Maybe the early scribes left out some key sentences... "Let most of the animals that ever lived drop dead and instantly turn to stone before I create man so that he may haveth a hobby digging them up later. Sorteth the species into different layers of rock by age and reset the dates on atomic decay to make them appeareth millions of years older than they really are. Let there be primitive man-like hominids mixed in there just to confuseth him."
Life is apparently too complex to have formed on its own, so it must have been created by something infinitely MORE complex that just always existed- even before there was a place to exist. Man was created from clay rather than just poofed onto the stage like the clay itself, and in the image of an entity without form. He is made with special attention by a perfect being, yet designed to be imperfect so that a strategically placed trap will cause him to be banned immediately from the pool area and all of his decscendents cursed from birth as unworthy without salvation.
Those who do not believe in miracles need look no further than those in the 21st century who would accept such stories as historical fact. ;-) |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 11:42:44 PM · #73 |
 OmanOtter That was one of the best posts I've read here in a long time. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 11:43:15 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by sabphoto:
always wondered...if we evolved from monkeys, why are their still monkeys? Why not all evolve? Also why couldn't God have created us to evolve? |
Good question, but you made a common mistake about evolution. Evolution does not hold that humans evolved from apes. It holds that apes and humans have a common ancestor. Thus, both modern groups (humans and apes) evolved on separate paths from that common ancestor in the same way that the many species of apes evolved from an earlier form of ape or the many races of humans evolved from an earlier form of human. |
|
|
|
06/15/2007 11:43:44 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
OmanOtter That was one of the best posts I've read here in a long time. |
Thanks Leroy! |
|
