Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is NOT science: A challenge
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 301 of 591 (131270)
08-07-2004 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Clark
08-07-2004 2:04 AM


Re: Evolution does NOT deal with the origins of life
I think you have to distinguish between why evolution theory exists, and why the creation vs evolution controversy exists. If you look at evolutionist literature, and evolutionists activists on this forum, you can see that they generally don't have a coolheaded factual approach to the controversy one might expect from scientists, or science enthusiasts.
If I were to for instance debate someone who believes in a flat earth, or that the sun goes around the earth, I couldn't imagine I would be so arrogrant, selfrighteous, sanctimonious as evolutionists many times are on this board. (.....but maybe I don't know myself that well here, maybe it might be very frustrating to debate a flat earther) I mean I would have confidence in my position, I would be sitting pretty with all that evidence to support my position that the earth is round, and the earth goes around the sun. There must be some kind of protelyzing attitude at base which makes evolutionists loose their cool approach, while at the same time they're sitting pretty with all the evidence of evolution.
I think when evolutionists say that natural selection is a creative force, then they don't really know what they're talking about. Differences in reproductive success aren't a creative force as far as i can tell. Go look it up in a science dictionary, natural selection means differential reproductive success of variants. Natural selection is a comparison. The nylon eating bacteria produces ten times more then it's non-nylon eating ancestor, what does that create? Natural selection is just a comparison on reproductive success, it creates nothing.
The eiffel tower is higher then londonbridge, what does that create? Since you say differential reproductive success creates things, why wouldn't differential building height create things as well?
As offered before in this thread, an alternative "natural" explanation to evolution, is to trace back the appearance of some organism to the events at which they became likely to appear later on. So for instance there might be some event near the start of the universe, at which it became a relative certainty that there would be plants on some planet some billions of years later. This creationist approach allows for evolution theory to be true, but trivializes it's significance.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Clark, posted 08-07-2004 2:04 AM Clark has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Wounded King, posted 08-07-2004 7:00 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 335 by Loudmouth, posted 08-09-2004 1:52 PM Syamsu has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 302 of 591 (131283)
08-07-2004 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Syamsu
08-07-2004 5:28 AM


Re: Evolution does NOT deal with the origins of life
One word Syamsu, mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Syamsu, posted 08-07-2004 5:28 AM Syamsu has not replied

Glordag
Inactive Member


Message 303 of 591 (131370)
08-07-2004 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by NOTHINGNESS
08-07-2004 2:39 AM


Re: Before "Time"
...So wait, what was your point again?
I believe you clarified this yourself, but you can't use infinity in basic arithmetic like you did. Also, how do you know that we can't have an infinite number of events in the past? I mean, there actually is a theory that the universe continually expands and contracts over and over again forever. Granted, you can always say that the original universe had to come from somewhere, but how can you say where? My point is that you have no evidence to support your claim that there isn't an infinite number of events back to an "original" creation, just as I have no evidence that "God" didn't create the universe. We can only make speculations and guesses as to what happened, and any and all "concepts" such as infinity are welcome to take part until proven wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-07-2004 2:39 AM NOTHINGNESS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-07-2004 10:17 PM Glordag has replied
 Message 309 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-08-2004 12:31 AM Glordag has not replied
 Message 310 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-08-2004 12:48 AM Glordag has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 304 of 591 (131399)
08-07-2004 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by NOTHINGNESS
08-06-2004 3:54 PM


Re: Who created God?
NOTHINGNESS writes:
People always ask this question, but they do not realize that they are basically doing the same thing , which is -believing that an uncaused nothingness, created something.
For something to be a cause it must exist, therefore 'nothingness' can not be the cause of the universe. I am not claim that nothing (object) caused the universe. You are claiming that everything that exists requires a cause. Therefore, if God exists then he also requires a cause. What or who caused God?
NOTHINGNESS writes:
What is the difference between believing in an uncaused 'designer', creating something. And what you believe-an uncaused nothingness, creating something? Same principle.
I have never claim that 'nothingess' caused the universe. Leave the strawmen be.
NOTHINGNESS writes:
The Big Bang created -time-and space.
The BB is an event and as such required spacetime in which to occur. The BB did not create spacetime, at most the BB was the first event and occured in the very first instant of time.
NOTHINGNESS writes:
Since time has a beginning, and space(universe) has a beginning, then something caused it.
I do not claim that all things which exist require a cause. You do. Who or what caused God?
NOTHINGNESS writes:
... but I also have the right to believe that the 'uncaused designer' created it. Same results, different initiators.
You have the right to believe whatever you want. I don't however believe that 'nothingness' caused the BB.

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-06-2004 3:54 PM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6155 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 305 of 591 (131405)
08-07-2004 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Syamsu
08-07-2004 1:29 AM


Re: Evolution does NOT deal with the origins of life
Syamsu writes:
I think your arguments are clearly in avoidance of the reality of evolutionist science. You make the narrow observation that evolution is not neccessarily insonsistent with creationism
No, it is NOT consistent with creationist ideas. But it's more accurate to say that creation like you seem to be promoting is not consistent with the evidence.
and then you proceed to deny any and all reality of how evolutionary science relates to knowledge of creation in practice.
There's lots of stuff known about the early earth. What is known does NOT agree with creation as a literal interpretation of Genesis. Just because the information that a biologist attains doesn't agree with your predetermined beginning doesn't mean they're wrong.
Why should I accept such an obstinate, and sabotaging attitude?
Sabotaging? With all due respect, I have not tried to say that the last century and a half of scientific study was all just a gigantic conspiracy to shut down a preconcieved idea of the origin of life.

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Syamsu, posted 08-07-2004 1:29 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Syamsu, posted 08-08-2004 1:19 AM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

NOTHINGNESS
Inactive Member


Message 306 of 591 (131451)
08-07-2004 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Glordag
08-07-2004 3:48 PM


Re: Before "Time"
Could it be that that the reason people jump into the wagon of a multiple universe system is simply because they have a difficult time explaining a single universe system?
Most of these hypotheses are entirely speculative and have little basis in physics. However, the most popular theory, inflationary cosmology, has more credibility, proposed by Andre Linde of Stanford University, which is based on advanced principles of quantum physics. Nonetheless, it defies easy visualization.
A small part of this super space is blow up by a theoretical inflation field, sort of like soap bubbles forming in an infinite ocean full of dish detergent. Each bubble becomes a new universe. -Chaotic inflation theory-
Then, each universe has a beginning and is finite in size, while the much larger super space There is an awful lot of loose ends with it. If Linde’s theory could account for the existence of many universes, this would not destroy the case for the single universe. It would just kick the argument up another level.
If the single universe system were as complex as it is, a multiple universe system would just add on to the complexity, and order theory. You would need a mechanism to supply the energy needed for the bubble universes.
Second, you would need a mechanism to form the bubbles. This would be Einstein’s equation of general relativity. Because of its peculiar for, this would supposedly cause the bubble universes to form and the ocean to keep expanding.
Third, you would need a mechanism to convert the energy of the inflation field to the normal mass/energy that we find in our universe. Fourth, you would need a mechanism to allow enough variation in the constants of physics among the various universes.
Not only that, you would need a way to vary the constants of physics so that by random chance you would produce some universes, like ours, that have the right fine-tuning to sustain life.
Super string Theory?
Right now, it’s just a theory whose main merits are that it’s mathematically elegant and that it holds the promise of unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity, two branches of physics that physicist have struggled to reconcile for over fifty years.
Without Einsteins equation and the inflating field working together harmoniously, it wouldn’t work. If the universe obeyed Newton’s theory of gravity instead of Einstein’s, it wouldn’t work.
You would also have to have the right background laws in place. For instance, without the so-called principle of quantization, all of the electrons in an atom would be sucked into the atomic nuclei. That would make atoms impossible. Furthermore, without the Pauli-exclusion principle, electrons would occupy the lowest orbit around the nucleus, and that would make comples atoms impossible.
Finally, without a universe attractive force between all masses- such as gravity-stars and plants couldn’t form. If just one of these components was missing or different, it’s highly improbable that any life-permitting universes could be produced.
Also, you would need to make trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of universes I order to increase the odds that the cosmological constant would come out right at least once, since it’s finely tuned to an incomprehensible degree. And that’s just one parameter.
In all that, you would also have to consider the Razor’s Edge Principle about single universe systems.
This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-07-2004 09:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Glordag, posted 08-07-2004 3:48 PM Glordag has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-08-2004 12:16 AM NOTHINGNESS has not replied
 Message 333 by Glordag, posted 08-09-2004 6:39 AM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

NOTHINGNESS
Inactive Member


Message 307 of 591 (131485)
08-08-2004 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by NOTHINGNESS
08-07-2004 10:17 PM


The Oscillating Model
I believe you were talking about-The Oscillating Model- which contradicts the known laws of physics. Theorems by Hawking and Penrose show that as long as the universe is governed by general relativity, the existence of an initial singularity-or beginning-is inevitable, and that it's impossible to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state.
And there's no known physics that could reverse a cotracting universe and suddenly make it bouce before it hits the singularity. Thw whole theory was simply a theoretial abstractin.
Physics never supported it. Another problem is that in order for the universe to oscillate , it has to contract at some point. For this to happen, the universe would have to be dense enough to generate sufficient gravity that would eventually slow its expansion to a halt and then, with icreasing rapidity, contract it into a big crunch.
But estimates have consistently indicated that the universe is far below the density needed to contrast, even when you include ot only its luminous matter, but also all of the invisible dark matter as well.
It's very likely that the recent tests have calculated a 95-98 percent certainty that the universe will not contract, but that it will expand forever. In fact, in a completely unexpected development, the studies indicated that the expansion is not decelerating, but it's actually accelerating.
This put the nails on this model. And one more problem: even if physics allowed the universe to contract, scientific studies have shown that entropy would be conserved from one cycle to the next.
This would have the efect of each expansion gettig bigger and bigger and bigger. Now, trace that backwards in time and what do you get? They get smaller and small and smaller, until you finally come to the smallest cycle-and then the -beginning of the univrs.
Other people claim that the universe undergoes an endless sequence of cycles i which it contracts with a big crunch and reemerges in a n expanding Big Bang, with trillions of years of evolution in between.
And that mysterious 'dark energy' first pushes the universe apart at an accelerating rate, but then it chages its character and causes it to contract and then rebound in cycle after cycle.
Howerver, this scenario postulates that our universe is a three-dimensional membrane in a five-dimensional space, and that there's another three dimensional membrance which is in an eternal cycle of approaching our membrance and colliding with it.
When this happens , it suposedly causes an expansion of our universe from the point of colision. then our universe retreats and repeats the cycle again, and on and on.....etc.
Well, this isn't even a model, it's just sort of a scenario. This cyclic scenario is plaqued with problems. for one thing, it is inconsistent with the very strng theory it's based on! nobody has dimesional equivaent of a three-dimensional osillating universe.
As such, it faces many of the same problems that the old osillating model did.But more interesting, I believe it was Alan Guth-inflation theorist- and two other physicists wrote an article on how inflation is not past eternal.
They were able to generalize their results to show that they were also applicagble to multidimensinal models. So it turns out that even the cyclical model in five dimensions has to have a beginning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-07-2004 10:17 PM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 308 of 591 (131488)
08-08-2004 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by NOTHINGNESS
08-07-2004 2:39 AM


Er, nice post, but somehow you totally missed my point.
So the universe can't have an infinite number of events in the past, it must have had a beginning.
Yeah, see, I agreed that the universe had a beginning, remember?
But there's no way that that beginning can have a cause, because that beginning is the beginning of time, and since cause must preceed effect, but since there's no "before" before time, there's no way we can say that the beginning of time has a cause.
Causality is local to spacetime, not above it. Spacetime cannot be caused because there's no time before time for the cause to have existed in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-07-2004 2:39 AM NOTHINGNESS has not replied

NOTHINGNESS
Inactive Member


Message 309 of 591 (131489)
08-08-2004 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by Glordag
08-07-2004 3:48 PM


Personal Cause
The reason I believe in a 'Personal Cause' is the following example of many.
Water freezes at zero degree Centrigrade. If the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternty past.
It would be impossible for the water to just begin to freeze a finite time ago. In other words, once the sufficient conditions were met-that is, the temperature was low enough-then the consequence would be that water would automatically freeze.
So if the universe were just a mechanical consequence that would occur whenever sufficient conditions were met, and the sufficient conditions were met eternally, then it would exist from eternity past. The effect would be co-eternal with the cause.
Putting the issue a big simpler, There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moents in eternity? It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo-Divine will constituging Nature from nothingness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Glordag, posted 08-07-2004 3:48 PM Glordag has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by mark24, posted 08-08-2004 11:44 AM NOTHINGNESS has replied

NOTHINGNESS
Inactive Member


Message 310 of 591 (131492)
08-08-2004 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by Glordag
08-07-2004 3:48 PM


Even out of convenience:Best Gambler
I agree with what you say. By the way,
Do you like to gamble? Let's pretend we were kids playing with cards. we can both agree that death is inevitable.So let's use that base. I believe that somewhere around the world, two people die at the same time.
Let's just say that these two persons were you and I. Forget about all these arguents. We would be too busy looking at girls to discuss such issues.
We are eighteen years, but our number was called. We are destined to die together.
Knowing that we shall die together, and let's say we also know the exact time-Noon-. Knowing we have less than five minutes left we gamble on our destiny.
You believe you go into nothingness-I believe I can go to heaven-not because I'm better, just because my beliefs state that.
We play cards, and two minutes are left. In these two minutes we shall die, and we will find out once and for all if anything lies beyond the universe.
All the people that supported me, and all the people that supported you wont even come along-all alone.
Now, one minute before our final breath, we gamble on who is going to be right. If I am wrong, I will go where you believe-nothingness,or wherever you believe, and I will not even know I was wrong, because I will not even exist.
But if you are wrong, you will not go where I believe simply because you chose not to believe.
Even out of convenience-who would you say is the better gamber?
You do not even need to answer. But in my world, it's only common sense to go with the odds, and not against.
Bad example? Oh well, i tried.
I also answered your question on the Oscillating Model-Expansion and Contracting Model earlier.
This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-08-2004 12:24 AM
This message has been edited by NOTHINGNESS, 08-08-2004 12:42 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Glordag, posted 08-07-2004 3:48 PM Glordag has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by crashfrog, posted 08-08-2004 1:36 AM NOTHINGNESS has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 311 of 591 (131501)
08-08-2004 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by One_Charred_Wing
08-07-2004 7:34 PM


Re: Evolution does NOT deal with the origins of life
I have a different recollection of our debate. I thought you recognized creation as a distinct and valid principle from evolution. The evidence can all still be in agreement with a scientific literal interpretation of genesis, but not a common sensical literal interpretation.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 08-07-2004 7:34 PM One_Charred_Wing has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by jar, posted 08-08-2004 1:24 AM Syamsu has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 312 of 591 (131504)
08-08-2004 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by Syamsu
08-08-2004 1:19 AM


Re: Evolution does NOT deal with the origins of life
Saysu says:
The evidence can all still be in agreement with a scientific literal interpretation of genesis,...
immediately followed by
but not a common sensical literal interpretation.

Right! LOL


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Syamsu, posted 08-08-2004 1:19 AM Syamsu has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 313 of 591 (131508)
08-08-2004 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by NOTHINGNESS
08-08-2004 12:48 AM


Even out of convenience-who would you say is the better gamber?
The problem here is that there's, like, hundreds of different religions with different afterlives, as well as different criteria for admission.
So even if your analogy is valid, you don't even accept it - if it was just a matter of hedging one's bets against the afterlife, you'd be an adherent of all religions instead of just the one you adhere to now.
So clearly there's something wrong with your analogy if it isn't even enough to convince yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-08-2004 12:48 AM NOTHINGNESS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-08-2004 1:55 AM crashfrog has replied

NOTHINGNESS
Inactive Member


Message 314 of 591 (131512)
08-08-2004 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by crashfrog
08-08-2004 1:36 AM


Convinced
I'm convinced, but that analogy was just a way of getting a point across between two persons at a stage when these issues aren't as important-18 years old.
That was the way I approached life at the time. I was a kid, and so I just broke it down to the basics.
I know too much not to believe. But I'm sure you believe the same on your side of this issue. All I have to say is..........Good Luck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by crashfrog, posted 08-08-2004 1:36 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by crashfrog, posted 08-08-2004 11:29 AM NOTHINGNESS has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 315 of 591 (131579)
08-08-2004 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by NOTHINGNESS
08-08-2004 1:55 AM


I'm convinced
You mean, you're an adherent of all religions?
You must have a busy weekend. Friday at the mosque, Saturday at the temple, at least three churches on Sunday (where you find an Eastern Orthodox church around here, I'd like to know), and then B'hai, Shinto, and Buddism all the rest of the week.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-08-2004 1:55 AM NOTHINGNESS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by NOTHINGNESS, posted 08-08-2004 12:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024