Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
3 Candidates State they don't believe in Evolution

Home // Evolution Versus Creationism



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Turk wrote:
exton wrote:
Turk wrote:

Evolution is a theory just like global warming.


And gravity.
No gravity is a fact global warming and evolution have never been proven.


That's not true.

http://www.google.com/search?h.....tnG=Search

To quote Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity :

Quote:
Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, but the much simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation in most cases.


They use a THEORY to describe gravitation or they make APPROXIMATIONS using Newton's law. I'm not sure if you understand science or not, but basing something on a theory and approximations does not count for being proven.

And in terms of science, calling something simply a theory is not an insult. It's one thing to reject science based on principles or whatever, but it's another thing entirely to reject science without having even the most basic understandings of it.

You like to speak of propaganda Turk. Can you explain in terms of science why you reject evolution or global warming?
Back to top
Might Makes Right
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Since it would be entirely to lengthy for me to quote and reply and it would take up to much space. I will just reiterate my position.

First of all the Law of Conservation of Mass states that Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Thats pretty simple, and a pretty decent idea that is so far beliveable, and does not have any of the aparent issues. Lets say thats true.

Now as a matter of personal opinion, it is impossible for me to fathom that the Big Bang "jelly ball" in which all the matter that makes up the universe today was condensed into a mighty super atom or some thing along that line. What created that mass, and why did it explode?

Even simpler matters in my view point to inteligent design. Science can only go so far, but it cannot answer why things are the way that they are. Why does Alkaline metals react violently with water? If science answered this there is an even more perpetual why questions. Why are there elements that can bond with one another to form even better elements. Science so far can only go back to the supposed moments of creation of the universe. When it boils down to it, alot of things are just explained with "it just is that way".
Back to top
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Even simpler matters in my view point to inteligent design. Science can only go so far, but it cannot answer why things are the way that they are. Why does Alkaline metals react violently with water? If science answered this there is an even more perpetual why questions. Why are there elements that can bond with one another to form even better elements. Science so far can only go back to the supposed moments of creation of the universe. When it boils down to it, alot of things are just explained with "it just is that way".


You have absolutely no understand of the scientific process, do you? Science attempts to answer questions based on the knowledge we have at the time, or the knowledge we are seeking at the time. If new information comes to light about a previous answer, science seeks to correct the mistakes. This is why science is superior to explanations that we find in religion, where things are simply what religion states, no matter the evidence found to the contrary, and why science IS logic.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Turk wrote:
exton wrote:
Turk wrote:

Evolution is a theory just like global warming.

And gravity.
No gravity is a fact global warming and evolution have never been proven.


No, gravity really is a "theory".

A "theory", in science, is an idea that is supported by evidence.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Might Makes Right wrote:

First of all the Law of Conservation of Mass states that Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Thats pretty simple, and a pretty decent idea that is so far beliveable, and does not have any of the aparent issues. Lets say thats true.


But it isn't true. It is, in fact, demonstrably false.

Quote:

Now as a matter of personal opinion, it is impossible for me to fathom


Nature is not limited by your imagination.

Quote:

that the Big Bang "jelly ball" in which all the matter that makes up the universe today was condensed into a mighty super atom or some thing along that line.


No. In fact, it was a singularity - a single point of zero size.

Quote:

What created that mass, and why did it explode?


The mass didn't need creating.

And it didn't explode. "Big bang" was a name made up to mock the theory; it stuck anyway.

Quote:

Even simpler matters in my view point to inteligent design.Science can only go so far, but it cannot answer why things are the way that they are. Why does Alkaline metals react violently with water? If science answered this there is an even more perpetual why questions.


Ah, but there's the difference between science and supernaturalism: Science attempts to answer the questions. Supernatural explanations do not.

"God did it" is not an answer to the question "how did the universe get here?". It's a renaming of ignorance.

Even supposing you accept the line "god did it", you're still left with exactly as many questions as you began with, and many more.
Suppose god did it. Well, so what? The question still remains - how did he do it?
And then there are the additional questions raised: who is god, and where does he come from?

It fails to answer the question, and actually raises more questions.

Quote:

Why are there elements that can bond with one another to form even better elements. Science so far can only go back to the supposed moments of creation of the universe.


The universe may actually be exactly what one would reasonably expect to get, were it to have come from nothing at all.

Quote:

When it boils down to it, alot of things are just explained with "it just is that way".


Actually, that's not the case. In science, when something is not known, the answer to the question is put down as "we don't know. yet."
Back to top
Turk
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3340

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Turk wrote:
exton wrote:
Turk wrote:

Evolution is a theory just like global warming.

And gravity.
No gravity is a fact global warming and evolution have never been proven.


No, gravity really is a "theory".

A "theory", in science, is an idea that is supported by evidence.
Gravity is proven it is a fact not a theory
global warming and and evolution cannot be proven so all you have is a theory
Back to top
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Turk wrote:
exton wrote:
Turk wrote:
exton wrote:
Turk wrote:

Evolution is a theory just like global warming.

And gravity.
No gravity is a fact global warming and evolution have never been proven.


No, gravity really is a "theory".

A "theory", in science, is an idea that is supported by evidence.
Gravity is proven it is a fact not a theory
global warming and and evolution cannot be proven so all you have is a theory


You already stated this, and you're dead wrong. To repost what I said before since you obviously missed it (or just didn't want to acknowledge it):

Turk wrote:
exton wrote:
Turk wrote:

Evolution is a theory just like global warming.


And gravity.
No gravity is a fact global warming and evolution have never been proven.


That's not true.

http://www.google.com/search?h.....tnG=Search

To quote Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity :

Quote:
Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, but the much simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation in most cases.


They use a THEORY to describe gravitation or they make APPROXIMATIONS using Newton's law. I'm not sure if you understand science or not, but basing something on a theory and approximations does not count for being proven.

And in terms of science, calling something simply a theory is not an insult. It's one thing to reject science based on principles or whatever, but it's another thing entirely to reject science without having even the most basic understandings of it.

You like to speak of propaganda Turk. Can you explain in terms of science why you reject evolution or global warming?
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Might Makes Right wrote:
Now as a matter of personal opinion, it is impossible for me to fathom that the Big Bang "jelly ball" in which all the matter that makes up the universe today was condensed into a mighty super atom or some thing along that line. What created that mass, and why did it explode?


Ok so lets accept your idea, that god created the universe, what created god? And why did he then create the universe in such a way that evidence point towards an explosion?

Quote:
Even simpler matters in my view point to inteligent design. Science can only go so far, but it cannot answer why things are the way that they are. Why does Alkaline metals react violently with water?


When an alkali metal is dropped into water, there are two separate stages to the explosion. First, the metal reacts with the water, tearing off and liberating hydrogen gas. Second, and this part doesn't always happen, the heat generated by the first part of the reaction ignites the hydrogen gas, which burns, sometimes explosively, in the surrounding air. It is this secondary hydrogen gas explosion that produces the visible flame above the bowl of water and/or lake, not the initial reaction of the metal with water (which, of course, tends to happen mostly under water).
http://www.theodoregray.com/Pe.....index.html

Quote:
If science answered this there is an even more perpetual why questions. Why are there elements that can bond with one another to form even better elements.


One, if they bond with each other, they aren't elements anymore, they are compounds, secondly, they bond because they are 'trying'(in the sense that water tries to go downhill) to get to the most stable state possible, which is iron, i believe.[/quote]

Quote:
Science so far can only go back to the supposed moments of creation of the universe. When it boils down to it, alot of things are just explained with "it just is that way".


A lot of things are explained like that in junior high, because the teachers have a curriculum to teach and they can't get sidetracked, but highschool attempts to answer questions like that and I'm sure if one were to do a science at university, they would be able to answer all of those sorts of questions. As far as I know, the bible begins with the creation of the world/universe, so it too, can only go back to the supposed moments of creation.
Back to top
imnotbncre8ive
Newbie


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
InherentLogic:

Quote:
the famous astronomer, and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe


Any idiot who has been through high school can (or at least should) be able to calculate elementary probabilities in the manner that these two have. Yet why are an astronomer and mathematician leaving their realm of expertise in trying to make a pronouncement in the province of evolutionary biology? This is creationism propaganda that I've seen before, and the previous quotes refuting this assertion is appreciated. Hoyle grabs numbers out of thin air, much as William Dembski does, and claims to have disproven evolution.

Calculating the probability of finding biological life as we observe it today, even if such a thing were possible with our current knowledge, would be entirely pointless. If we went back in time to the good old days before multicellular life, it is entirely possible that different forms of higher life might have evolved. If we looked forward in time from then, we would of course say that the probability of giraffes and ignorant politicians (as we observe them today) is exceedingly small, simply because the space of possibilities is exceedingly vast. Nonetheless, here they are, for better or for worse. Also, of extreme importance and relevance to this topic (and I cannot emphasize this enough): giraffes are cute.

Though I am not calling your education in engineering and mathematics into question, I hope you will not take offense if I doubt your expertise in biology. Calculations of this sort are misguided at best, and dishonest at worst.

Might Makes Right:
I encourage you to investigate the Theory of Evolution further. As others have pointed out, your response indicates a lack of complete understanding. If you elaborate on the "major holes" that you claim, perhaps others here may convince you otherwise.

I will not comment on the matter of whether or not I believe the universe has a definite beginning or end, as I profess ignorance of the subject. Experts on the matter suggest various theories, but you are better served finding them elsewhere than reading my misinterpretations of them.

Quote:
matter cannot be created or destroyed

The law of conservation of mass is a simplification and approximation of what we have observed. For electronic chemistry and most other physical processes that concern our everyday lives, this is an extremely powerful approximation. However, it is not true of nuclear chemistry. The most famous equation of all time, E=mc^2, identifies a direct relationship between energy and mass. The devastating power of nuclear fission is a direct consequence of this. The (rest) mass of the fission products is slightly less than that of the beginning materials, and mass is not conserved. A small quantity of mass is converted to other forms of energy.

Other simplifications/approximations that fall apart under conditions not ordinarily observed in our average lives:
1) Distinctness of space and time
2) Additive property of velocity
3) Notion of electrons (or any mass for that matter) as particles
4) Ultimately deterministic universe
1) and 2) follow from Einsteinian relativism, 3) and 4) from quantum theory.

Lester provided a good explanation for why alkali metals such as Na and K react violently with water. Physics and chemistry are powerful.

Quote:
Nature is not limited by your imagination.

I think this is a crucial point, one that we have seen even the exalted Einstein forget. Einstein refused to believe in the nondeterministic processes of quantum mechanics. So far as we have seen, quantum mechanics and its successors are absolute marvels of physics, with unparalleled predictive and explanatory power.

Turk
Quote:
Evolution is a theory just like global warming.

At first, I thought this was a joke, but it seems that is not so. Science can no more PROVE gravity than it can anything else. Science does not seek to prove anything with 100% certainty. To do so is impossible, for there is always the exceedingly small likelihood that a counterexample may be found in the far reaches of interstellar space, or under my kitchen sink. Perhaps in those inaccessible locations, gravity does not behave the way we observe it to everywhere else. Nonetheless, we have overwhelming evidence that gravity behaves the way we have described, and so we accept it as the closest approximation to the unachievable TRUTH that we have yet attained. It is the same with the theory of evolution by natural selection.

And why do you insist on using the layman's definition for "theory"? It only throws attention to your ignorance on the issue.


Last edited by imnotbncre8ive on Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:52 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
imnotbncre8ive wrote:

I think this is a crucial point, one that we have seen even the exalted Einstein forget. Einstein refused to believe in the nondeterministic processes of quantum mechanics. So far as we have seen, quantum mechanics and its successors are absolute marvels of physics, with unparalleled predictive and explanatory power.


I, for one, still doubt the completeness of quantum mechanics for that very reason.

Nature isn't limited by my imagination, but my own understanding certainly is; i think that, to be complete, quantum mechanics would have to offer an explanation as to why processes seem to be statistical in nature, one with more explanatory power than "it seems to fit observation".
Back to top
imnotbncre8ive
Newbie


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
To quote Richard Feynman: "I think it is safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics."

Let us see what is revealed to us in several decades.
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Evolution Versus Creationism All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics
Politics blogs Politics blogs Article Directory Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory Top Blog Sites
My Big Breasts