|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/29/2005 4:36:55 PM | Maybe Pandy was just warning about the general tone of the thread.
There are a few pages on this thread and she seems to be moderating a few other threads. Maybe she got to this a little late, or maybe she enjoyed the show. :)
Put the conspiracy theorys aside gentlemen, I wasn't talking specifically about ANY poster...but , as mentioned, the tone of the thread. That any moderator singles you out for presenting your views is completely erroneous .
Despite how you might feel, arguments that get too heated (and are viewed by moderation as being a train wreck waiting to happen) are going to get deleted.
I gave you the courtesy of a warning...please take it as such, and do not post another off topic remark. Each and every thread should relate directly to the topic in the original post, or it constitutes off topic posting.
I'll also add that those caught debating the relative merits of other USERS rrather than the topic at hand can face punitive action.
Pandy/moderator | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/29/2005 7:50:14 PM |
teach creationism as an elective in a high school religious studies or philosophy class.
It's an option. I don't think there's enough there for it's own course, just like evolution is a subject for biology class.
teach the science behind the mechanisms of evolution in science class.
Exactly.
there is no science behind 'creationism', but rather faith and literal interpretations of the bible.
This is true, but as I've pointed out, there is science connected with it. Too bad all that science is aimed at "anti-evolutionism" (which is funny, if you look at it from an etymological staindpoint), rather than in support of creation (which is somewhat funny, but mostly disturbing).
there is no science behind philosophy (unless you're an ancient greek - who bypassed this mess by going straight to discussions on ethics).
Don't know about this. Science grew out of philosophy, so it's more accurate to say that there's philosophy, if not behind, at least in the background of science.
Ah motif, but the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, such a usefull thing counld never have evolved on its own and so theirfore must have been created, thus proving that god dose not exist.
Just watch out at those zebra crossings...
...there are essentially two steps to scientific inquiry. The first is an unbiased, stream of consciousness approach to ideas.
I'm sorry, I gotta jump in on this one. Stream-of-consciousness is subjective, and therefore, biased. It's based on the perceptions and interpretations of the individual. I trust you know this and are simply referring to "unbiased" as in value-assessment.
...but the second step is then holding any new conjecture to the rigours of testing and peer review.
I think this is more the truly unbiased thing, in that it requires use of objective testing and the alternative and possibly contrary biases of others.
With the scientific bigotry sometimes manifested in this thread, I wonder if we wouldn't be better cutting science education from the science curriculum and creating more open minds.
Okay, I wasn't going to get into this one, but others have, so... Come on, guys. If this isn't blatant sarcasm, I don't know what is. Remove science from science as far as education goes? That's freakin' hilarious!
"They would have ended on page three with a lot of hollering, huffing and puffing going on. Simply because we wouldn't all be able to google simultaneously!"
Okay, everyone has individual internet access. This event will be hosted by a cyber cafe with a large convention center. Hey we're pretending anyway.
I still think Enviro's got it right, if only because we've already demonstrated the volatility of the discussion, and the fact that few of us would have the self-control to maintain our seats throughout.
As the Bible, can and does scientifically as well. As said, it is an interpretation of the facts at hand.
I'm sorry, CR. I don't see any scientific reasoning as to how the Bible addresses, well, anything. Could you explain?
By your even admitting the possibility of it being divine, then offers that the Bible IS proof of what we speak of.
How so?
How did a universe that is obviously put together with an enormously intelligent design get that way? Spontaneous generation? Design without a designer? That doesn't make a lot of sense, "scientific" or otherwise.
I caught this late, so it might be out of sequence. Here's the ticket, Art. As I've pointed out before, very little is obvious. It might seem so, but there's a big difference between "obvious" and "apparent" (yeah, pragmatics, but I doubt anyone will shoot me over it). Simply because everything has, by the time we got around to looking at it, calmed down into patterns that appear to function interdependently, does not constitute compelling evidence that there must be an intelligence behind those patterns. The thing I think that folks tend to get off on a tangent with is that "irreducible complexity" does not automatically equal "intelligent design." It might, but that's not my point. The actual point is that, in our perceptions, the patterns of life appear to be designed. Maybe it's a function of the lack of ability of the language to properly express that, but just labelling something as a design (based on our biased perceptions) and then insisting there must be a designer simply confuses the issue and causes us at times to miss the sense that is made.
NOT GUILTY as charged. I did NOT pop in saying I "know it all" NOR did I say that "evolution has no basis."
I don't think it's an issue of "knowing it all" or "popping in once and running for the hills." I would like to know, as far as that's concerned, why the post (Msg 2624) was almost word-for-word a re-posting of your earlier one (Msg 2317), but that's me. As far as answers to your imminently relevant questions:
Yes, evolution could work as the developmental force behind creation, if we're not concentrating on the Bible as literal in Genesis. If a literal interpretation of the creation account could be supported by objective observation and evidence, then evolution (that which has been observed in the time period since the advent of the theory notwithstanding) would be irrelevant.
If there is no "creation", and an intelligent, creative force behind it all, where and how did it all get started?
This is a good and legitimate question regarding cosmology and the creation or occurence of the universe itself. As it relates to evolution, unfortunately, it is only relevant from the standpoint of creation and the "anti-evolutionism" subset of believers.
If the "big bang" theory (without an intelligent creative force) is true, isn't that rather like those cartoons where a house gets blown up and then magically falls to the earth in the form of a house again?
Not necessarily. From a scientific standpoint, it's not at all like that, since there are a lot of physical constants involved, and it doesn't actually stand to reason that there was a house there in the first place. Even using the analogy of a house implies design, which is, at least in my view, irrelevant. And, referencing magic is as well. As far as whether or not the modern world as we perceive it is the result of supernaturally directed creation or the combination of a myriad of sequential factors (many observable and testable, possibly many more to be discovered), humanity does not at present, and may never know for certain, although there are many people on both sides of the cosmological debate that insist that their beliefs equate into knowledge. I believe nothing is, at this point, absolute.
How did a universe that is obviously put together with an enormously intelligent design get that way? Spontaneous generation? Design without a designer?
Yes, I already addressed this, but I like to be thorough (sometimes). Again, there is nothing obvious about it, unless one is arguing from a standpoint that there is design to the phenomena that we observe. I still say there are patterns that we interpret as design, and that we can infer from this that there is a designer. But, the point is that, while the option is there, we have no proof beyond our fallible, conjectural, biologically biased observational interpretation that the complexities of life are inherently mechanistic and structured in such a way as to achieve any given end. It's difficult, even for scientists, to break away from this kind of reasoning. In biology textbooks, you'll even see the point made that a given structure is "for" something, although, in actuality, while certain biological functions do require prior existence of other biological functions in order to (there it is again, yes?) occur, their existence may or may not be "designed" for something. An example: the wing. Not necessarily "designed for flight," as many will interpret the data. Rather, the original structure and any subsequent modification made it easier for birds and bats to accomplish tasks and goals, therefore the genetic expression of the structure was "successful" in that it was passed on to subsequent generations (descent with modification). Airplane wings, on the other hand, were designed, since man had a definite goal in mind, and logically deduced the effectiveness of the natural structure, extrapolating concepts necessary to creating a facsimile that functions similarly and achieves a definite goal. Long-winded and simplistic, all of this, which is why it is easier (not to mention more cost-effective) for the publishers of textbooks and, yes, scientific treatises to use simpler language, such as "for," "designed," etc. to get the point across. It's a function of the language, and it's almost as confusing as the debate. It's just a matter of looking to the basics, though, and logically reasoning from there.
Tune in next time, when someone gives a question as to how something could be done from the creation standpoint, and I take a different approach. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/29/2005 9:12:31 PM | "I'm sorry, I gotta jump in on this one. Stream-of-consciousness is subjective, and therefore, biased. It's based on the perceptions and interpretations of the individual. I trust you know this and are simply referring to "unbiased" as in value-assessment."
I guess my choice of words was unclear, or perhaps I did not qualify them sufficiently. What I meant by unbiased in that context was unbiased by methodology- unbiased stream of conciousness. I am implying an "anything goes" approach to processing concepts and the emergence of novel ideas. The point I'm making is that science is often mistakenly condemned for not being "open minded." The position I'm taking is that there are no restrictions on what leads a scientist to new conjectures. The restrictions are in the methodology of testing those conjectures to determine if they are useful and accurate. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/29/2005 10:17:27 PM | | No argument here, just thought the post could stand to be elucidated. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/29/2005 10:33:39 PM | | Thanks actually, Feral. I don't want to be unclear, or give the impression that I'm implying something opposite to my actual point, so I encourage you to edit; it is to my benefit. I'll remember to qualify that next time. | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 2606 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/30/2005 11:42:21 AM | If the "big bang" theory (without an intelligent creative force) is true, isn't that rather like those cartoons where a house gets blown up and then magically falls to the earth in the form of a house again?
No it isn't. This is an important point that is greatly misunderstood . The overwhelming drive toward disorder from the point of the big bang event and onwards does not mean that orderly structures like stars, life forms, planets and houses cannot form. They can and obviously they do. What the 2nd law of thermodynamics states is that in the formation of order there is an even greater overcompensation of disorder. The problem is that you don't "sense" this and what you do "sense" is misleading you.
I.e. A human being is an example of a low entropy physical system in a highly ordered state. However to sustain this astonishingly ordered state there must be a more than compensating generation of disorder. And there is! Food, water and oxigen provide the raw materials from which a human being draws its life sustaining energy. In doing so they increase the low entropic state of food and water and convert it into a high entropic state. Furthermore, the energy that they take in they more than release back into the environment mostly in the form of heat and other waste generated from other metabolic processes associated with life sustaining activities.
A star for example is a highly ordered physical system that maintains its state by serving as a conduit that converts a huge amount of low entropy energy into an even greater amount of high entropy energy.
What causes stars, planets and massive objects to convert from a high entropic state to a low one? Gravity...but that is something that falls outside of the scope of this discussion. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/30/2005 12:13:30 PM | | Rake- excellent examples of the relationship between energy and entropy. | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 2608 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/30/2005 12:33:04 PM | | Thanks Wonkavision. My feeling is that some posters "feel" that stars, planets, life forms and other physical objects that are in a visibly "ordered" state, aquire and maintain such a state due to an intelligent designer/architect/God/higher being when in fact they did and continue to do so since the big bang because of gravity and the low entropic initial state of the universe just after the big bang. Imho if there is a God, there is no evidence of him here. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/30/2005 12:45:02 PM | | One could logically take the position that the laws of nature are a facet of god as filtered through our limited perceptions without contradicting our knowledge of the natural world. It's not the position I take, but it's not contradictory to science, and many physicists hold that philosophical position. What is logically flawed, as you point out, is the claim that complexity is evidence for the conjecture of god. At best, that's non-sequitur reasoning and superfluous, as we have a very satisfactory understanding of structure without invoking anything beyond the laws of physics. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/30/2005 5:23:14 PM | I would have to diagrea with you partialy Rake. Entropy is not increasing disorder. This is the most comon misconception and one I have adressed many times.
Entropy is a measure of the amount of energy in a physical system which cannot be used to do mechanical work.
The only referance to complexity is in Statistical mechanics where Entropy is used as a difintion of the uncertainty. In this context Entropy is a mesure of how many microscopic changes you could make without seeing any macroscopic changes in the system.
This dose not mean in any way that Entropy leads to reduced complexity. Entropy leads to reduced state fluctions, this often means an increase in complexity. (Liquid metal has many state fluctions and so high entropy, but solid metal has few state fluctions and so low entropy. Soild metal has more bonds in the sytem and so is considered to be more complex.)
Sory to pick you on this, but it is exactly this argument that I have had to corect with the creationists so many times. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/30/2005 5:34:18 PM | "Entropy is not increasing disorder."
In relation to thermodynamics this is true, and an important point to make. The term has bled over into other disciplines, though, where a relation to disorder is more accurately drawn. In statistical theory, as you point out, the comparison is more relevant as it is in information theory which draws an inverse relationship between entropy and information. Really the second law of thermodynamics is just a simple concept that defines entropy as energy that is not available for work in a closed system, and is often misapplied. I really didn't get from his post that he meant it the way you infer though. I think he was just using the term loosely as it is used across disciplines. | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 2612 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/30/2005 6:47:00 PM | Entropy is not increasing disorder
You are both right gentlemen. Entropy is not increasing disorder and it was not my intention to characterize it as such. Disorder is probably a bad connotation because it implies disorganization.
I simply meant that the concept of entropy relates to the terms of order and disorder through statistical reasoning by counting the number of ways in which any physical situation can be realized. In leyman's terms high entropy simply means that there are many more ways for the consituents in a given system to achieve an out of order outcome whereas low entropy means that there are fewer ways.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/30/2005 7:15:35 PM | Sory, my mistake. I'm so used to having to corect people about Entropy having nothing to do with complexity thts its become second habbit.
that there are many more ways for the consituents in a given system to achieve an out of order outcome
I guess this means that the lift in my Uni is a High entropy sytem then!  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/30/2005 7:54:08 PM | A lift is called an elevator in the more civilized regions of the globe, Bright1 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/30/2005 8:24:45 PM | Realy quietjohn2? So what do they call it in the good ole' US of A then? LMAO
Oh, picked up a point from earlier by the way.
Why, oh Why, do people believe the universe is too complex to have been created with out a designer, yet God, vastly more complex, can spring into being out of completely nothing????
Inteligent Desighn/Creationists/Christians (whatever theyre calling themselves these days) do not belive that the God was created. They belive that God exists outside oftime and as such can not have a begging or end (this presents al other kinds of theoligical problemsbut those are for another thread.) Basicaly, they belive that some force outside the univrse (and as timeis a function of the universe, thefore also outside of time) created the universe with intent and design. Where as many astrophisasits belive that a force from outside of the universe, created the universe., but refuse to postulate on wether or not this extant force had any intent.
There is actualy quite an intresting section on it in Stephen Hawkings 'The Universe In A Nutshell', only $34.99 avaliable now from all good stockists. (order now and get these free stake knives!)  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/30/2005 10:05:14 PM | Oh, if people only understood some of the 'connect the dots' and 'paint by number' projects...
This is from start of the article I mentioned a bit ago [Dragnet Ecology]. (If you can read it all, do; this isn’t available online, other than from the journal, that I’ve found)
Oh, so relevant:
[BACKGROUND MUSIC]
“…Sergeant Friday sweeps aside the irrelevant circumstantial details offered by the actress and solves the puzzle with characteristic ease. Friday’s sidekick, Bill Gannon, responds to a different challenged and touchingly asks for the faded actress’s autograph. ‘I didn’t know you collected autographs,’ says Joe, as they leave the scene. ‘I don’t,’ replies Bill. DRAGNET is a modern version of a morality play, myths and all, the prevailing myth being that it may take time to apprehend the suspect, but eventually ‘just the facts’ will inexorably solve the crime. But isn’t Bill Gannon essential to this process?
Many scientists share Joe Friday’s mythic goal. In the simple world of Sergeant Friday, there is a single true answer; in the scientific equivalent, the scientist believes that there is a single truth, and attempts to find it. Much scientific activity uses simple model, and thus amounts to no more than calibration. But as our colleague [UW-Madison,] John Norman... points out, 'I can do a lot with calibrations’ (and he can, too), so we much not underestimate the importance of focusing situations until they become simple…
..critique of science, we invite scientist to move beyond bickering and explore the literature of science studies for themselves…[citations on social relevance, social constuction of science, postmodern case study in physics]
…Denying the Enlightenment project may seem pessimistic, but we have seen the man behind the curtain and objectivist realism is now compromised.”
"...metaphysics of reality notwitstanding." | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/30/2005 11:05:08 PM | Why, oh Why, do people believe the universe is too complex to have been created with out a designer, yet God, vastly more complex, can spring into being out of completely nothing????
Why oh why do people believe that from before the Big Bang and then onwards the result is us debating the origins of it all coming from nothing other that astronomical odds. When a person really thinks hard about it, it is a lot easier to believe that there is an intelligent designer who masterminded it all. To think any different is a failure to grasp the incredible enormity of our existence. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/30/2005 11:24:54 PM | | ^^^ ya, its hard to believe all this planets diversity was just a fluke....I think somebody once worked out the odds, and the odds against were greater than the estimated number of atoms in the universe.. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/30/2005 11:49:24 PM | hmmm..seems like more and more..even evolutionists are allowing for a supreme being at work?  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 12:20:08 AM | When a person really thinks hard about it, it is a lot easier to believe that there is an intelligent designer who masterminded it all. To think any different is a failure to grasp the incredible enormity of our existence. I have to disagree. I think it is a lot easier to believe that there is an intelligent designer who masterminded it all and then stop thinking, rather than really thinking hard and trying to understand all of the knowledge that has been garnered over millenia. To think any differently is a failure to grasp the incredible enormity of the world which brought us into existence.
ya, its hard to believe all this planets diversity was just a fluke The interesting thing is that science doesn't see creation as a fluke. Rather that it was the inevitable consequences of scientific laws. There seems to be an acknowledged inevitability in physics that 'fundamental' particles get together and form subatomic particles. And that subatomic particles get together and form atoms. And that atoms get together and form molecules. The step to abiogenesis isn't understood, but seems a logical progression. So the real difference between science and Intelligent Design seems to be the difference between the laws of Nature always having existed and driving the development of the Universe and a Creator who has always existed and who created the laws upon which the Universe operated and possibly drove the development of the Universe. For a minority of people that Creator singlehandedly created everything in the Universe over the span of 6 days. Although the constituents by which we currently measure days took a day or two to create, so they weren't there to measure the first days.
I think somebody once worked out the odds, and the odds against were greater than the estimated number of atoms in the universe. . Well, that's a very interesting statement, though it would be nice to know a little more about who the somebody was and what they actually said so that the statement could be better evaluated. One context that I read it in was the odds of atoms randomly combining to form complex molecules like DNA.
I've addressed twice previously the idea that equilibrium constants result in breakdown of complex molecules. It equally supports that the creation of those complex molecules is inevitable. It also means that unsuccessful molecules can be broken down and the constituent atoms / molecules reused for other compounds, thus allowing recycling of atoms. If recycling occurred every hour for a billion years, the estimate of the number of atoms would need to be divided by about 10 trillion.
As for the Big Bang, science has now provided several scenarios which allow for existence prior to the big bang. I've provided links in previous posts.
hmmm..seems like more and more..even evolutionists are allowing for a supreme being at work? You sorta got it here, CR. If you look carefully, you'll probably find that's a theme that runs through the thread, EVOLUTION DOESN'T EXCLUDE GOD. I guess some creationists assume that because their views oppose the views of evolutionists that the views of evolutionists must exclude a creator. Not so, never was. But it suggests that some supporters of teaching ID in science classrooms don't have even a basic understanding of logic that would be essential in a science classroom. Doesn't that suggest that they shouldn't be allowed in science classrooms? (At least as teachers) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 12:28:40 AM | | To add to quetjohns post, I and others like Dharma and wonka and MJR have explained that the universe is not ranodom, it is ordered and folows simple rules and principles. As such the chances of life evoloving are significantly reduced. Life is not a random proces, it folows the laws of nature. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 12:38:49 AM |
EVOLUTION DOESN'T EXCLUDE GOD Interestingly, a similar misunderstanding probably contributed to Galileo's misery when he anticipated Newton's first law, stating that objects in motion tend to remain in motion. At the time it was generally believed that forces had to be continuously applied to keep things in motion. Many people saw this as a threat to the existence of God because they believed that the planets were kept in motion because angels pulled them across the sky. They assumed that without that job, there would be no reason for angels to exist.  | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 12:48:30 AM |
You sorta got it here, CR. If you look carefully, you'll probably find that's a theme that runs through the thread, EVOLUTION DOESN'T EXCLUDE GOD. I guess some creationists assume that because their views oppose the views of evolutionists that the views of evolutionists must exclude a creator. Not so, never was. But it suggests that strong supporters of teaching ID in science classrooms don't have even a basic understanding of logic that would be essential in a science classroom. Doesn't that suggest that they shouldn't be allowed in science classrooms? (At least as teachers)
While I partially agree with YOU 'QJ', as to 'some' allow for God, wonka (no offense bud) and a few others either:
1) exclude 'god' all together', or
2) minimalise the interaction of a 'supreme being' so much, what is the point anyway?
While I am on the side of those FOR allowing 'some' kind of Creation version into the school systems, I think it could be done along the lines of at least allowing it as an alternative view, or showing what 'some' believe as well.
Yes, it naturally borders on religious injections, but I think with enough input, it could be brought to enough school boards to as to be shown as the proverbial alternative.
Look at this another way; We have various world histories being taught in the school systems, with different grades learning about different periods along the way; with of course, various faiths, socio-political and *gasp* religions learned about all up through the school system.
It is not PROMOTING any one religion over the other, but merely presenting to the students as to what all the world's cultures have gathered along the historical path...
Much the same with ID and/or the Creation account; both sides COULD hypothetically be presented in a fair balanced manner, thereby allowing for said students to draw their own conclusions.
I do agree, there ARE zealots on BOTH sides of the debate as to getting Creationist views into the school systems. But with a little time, thoughtful discussions and patience, I think it could be done.
But, even then, you would have various school districts all over North America at odds as to how much to accept, and how much NOT to accept as well.
Conversely, ya gotta admit, that evolutionists world wide even debate as to many specifics on the topic. Creationists for the most part are mostly in agreement as to 'their' versions...I would think that, logistically, one would actually favour a side that has most of it's supporters in agreement, rather than at odds over it?
 | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 2624 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 12:55:41 AM |
EVOLUTION DOESN'T EXCLUDE GOD
107 pages of pseudo-science vs science, deliberate misinterpretation vs real definitions, myriad logical fallacies vs dialectic.
Proves what I said, somewhere in the first 10 pages or so.
Mixing science and religion is like dancing about architecture. | |
|
Rake
|
Joined: 3/12/2005
Msg: 2625 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 12/1/2005 4:58:05 AM | To think any different is a failure to grasp the incredible enormity of our existence. Let me put it to you this way, if the entire age of the universe were 1 day (24 hours) long, mankind would have just shown up on the scence at about 23:58 P.M. The incredible enormity is the universe. Our existence hasn't even been around long enough to even be noted to seriously.
ya, its hard to believe all this planets diversity was just a fluke....I think somebody once worked out the odds, and the odds against were greater than the estimated number of atoms in the universe.. A conservative estimate of the Drake equation yields at least 1,000 communicative civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy Alone. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the known universe. This means that there should be over a trillion communicative civilizations out there. The reason we have not yet deteceted any of them in the last few years or so of "looking" is because of the astonishing "distances" that separate us from them not only across space, but also time. | |
|
|
| Page 105 of 156
|
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131 |
|
Home
login 
