Evolution Sucks!

POSTED BY: dougp59
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:36
VIEWED: 32323
PAGE 10 of 20

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE

MINIME

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:50 PM

I have nothing intelligent to add to this discussion.

I was not, however, when I clicked on the link with the title 'evolution sucks' prepared to actually encounter an actual debate about evolution. I was more prepared for a comment about the friendliness of orang-utans, or the idiocy of many supposed intellectuals, both of which topics I feel I could discuss more freely.

I have enjoyed reading other people's posts.

WORKEROFEVIL

Thursday, January 12, 2006 12:02 AM

Quote:
If on the other hand, you're positing that no statements about God are provable, then the statement "There is no God" must certainly fall into that category. If that's the case, why conclude, out of hand that He doesn't exist? Or that He didn't create the universe?

I don't think science argues that God doesn't exist. Science (real science anyway) ignores the question of God because it is inherently unscientific. It can't be proven or disproven. It's a matter of faith or belief (to use Book's word). If you believe in God, that's fine. I have no problem with that. Personally, I'm agnostic. I don't know if there's a God, but I'm not arrogant enough to say there's not. I have a problem with people trying to put discussion of God in a science classroom. God is not science. God is faith.

Also, evolution is actually provable, but only if you're talking micro-evolution. That is, a lizard evolving into a different lizard species. It's just that a lizard changing to a bird that can't be DIRECTLY seen. That's because it would involve many more adaptations which are slow to arise.

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 12:37 AM

Minime:
Welcome to fireflyfans.net...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

CAUSAL

Thursday, January 12, 2006 12:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by WorkerOfEvil:
Quote:
Science (real science anyway) ignores the question of God because it is inherently unscientific. It can't be proven or disproven.

Actually, I think that strictly speaking, we should say that science ignores the question of the existence of God, because it's unscientific. But it would be difficult to deny that the strict material monism (even it's a methodogical monism) has ramifications for the question of God's existence. If each and every physical phenomenon (past and present) is assumed to have been part of a random causal chain operating according to deterministic laws, then there is no place for God. Either he can't act in the physical world, or he can but doesn't. Either way, the net effect is the same. God winds up as some kind of impotent transcedent spiritual entity, and I don't know about any other theist, but that's not a very compelling vision of God.

Quote:
I have a problem with people trying to put discussion of God in a science classroom. God is not science. God is faith.

I have a problem with God being discussed in the classroom, too. As I understand it, though, the statement that was to be read in the Delaware classroom didn't reference God or religion in anyway. It's easy to merely assume that Intelligent Design is God in science's clothing, but as I understand I.D., it's not religion as such; it's philosophy (which incidentally doesn't have a place in the science classroom, either).

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:16 AM

I didn't get this earlier. I thought someone was saying c isn't really a constant, which it isn't, it depends on the medium. But no, it doesn't change steadily through time. If it did, it would not produce the results we see.

The more plausible tired light hypothesis is about wavelength and frequency and not about speed. Light may lose energy as it passes through space over extremely long distances. If this is true it obviates but does not preclude a big bang.

I particularly think that tired light is more important than big bang, but I also think that big bang is viewed incorrectly, in a pseudo-religious manner. The universe is far larger than the one we see, and any past big bang is likely to be far smaller. Little bang, as it were, but pretty big if you were standing right next to it.

Also, the universe by necessity would expand as it feeds off of the outer larger universe it lives inside, which it virtually must do since our universe is a black hole. But again, this expansion, addition to our local area of space or universe is not necessarily what we are seeing when we see doppler shifts. That may be, and I suspect is, just a reflect of the lifespan of the energy of a photon before it is reduced to its zero quantum state, which is about 16 billion years.

Final note, if you doubt this, the light sky paradox is in error, because eventually all radiation would be absorbed deflected or might even possibly expire after an extrodinarily large amount of time. Still, we should see a perpetual 21cm glow, which we do. This is a sign of an, if not infinite, an extremely large universe. I've seen nothing that strongly supports the idea that this is looking back into time into a big bang.

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:45 AM

DreamTrove:
c IS a constant. It doesn't change. c is not the speed of light, c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

Quote:
Also, the universe by necessity would expand as it feeds off of the outer larger universe it lives inside, which it virtually must do since our universe is a black hole. But again, this expansion, addition to our local area of space or universe is not necessarily what we are seeing when we see doppler shifts.

Huh? There's nothing to suggest there's any 'larger' universe. Or that our Universe is a singularity within it?
Where did you get this from, just curious?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
I only take issue when a member of any faith attempts to push laws or teachings on non-believers; if you're not specifically asked, you keep your religion to yourself. It's that simple.

I agree with you about pushing laws or teachings, but as for keeping it to one's self:

I don't see the problem with believers of a faith, whatever it may be, trying to "spread the word." I just think when it becomes clear someone doesn't want to hear it they should shut up.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 12, 2006 2:02 AM

My sister in law is the head optic engineer of laser diagnostic inc., she says the speed of light is not a constant, so I accept that. But it's not unconstant in an ever diminishing way that would explain the astrological anomolies we see in space.

I read a lot about this stuff at some point. The dean of my college was the astronomy professor and we got into a long debate and I read lots of stuff, and it eventually ended with no conclusion, but there's enough evidence to suspect that the universe is in fact a black hole within a larger universe. Also, there's no such thing as a singularity, that's an illusion. Most probably matter within the event horizon is a mixture of highly compressed particles and plasma orbting a central focus, but not actually *in* the center. The external illusion is more or less the same.

About faiths, I agree. I think the limit should be the same as the limit to which people can advertise political parties, action groups, charities or other organizations.

DHARMAGAL

Thursday, January 12, 2006 2:10 AM

Interesting thread. All I have to say is this: if you really think evolution sucks, you only get one flu shot.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, January 12, 2006 2:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
If each and every physical phenomenon (past and present) is assumed to have been part of a random causal chain operating according to deterministic laws, then there is no place for God. Either he can't act in the physical world, or he can but doesn't. Either way, the net effect is the same. God winds up as some kind of impotent transcedent spiritual entity, and I don't know about any other theist, but that's not a very compelling vision of God.

I have to disagree with you on this, science will arrive at one of two conclusions in the end (tell me if there are more.)

1 Everything in the universe is determined, there are no random events therefore everything follows a strict sequence of cause and effect such that what happens tomorrow was determined the instant the universe was created. (Classical physics advocates this.)

Several religions believe this is the case, telling them that they are correct about everything that can be tested is hardly going to convince them that they are wrong, nor should it. The place for god is the place that these religions have been advocating from day one.

This is not to say that there necessarily is a god in this case, merely that one has in no way been ruled out nor are his powers less than believed by many today.

2 Not everything in the universe is determined, some things are random. (I believe quantum physics currently holds to this, but I’m a bit behind the times.)

In that case when a pair of particles is created, like they are, and one falls into a black hole (colloquial description I know) instead of annihilating the other that was a function or random chance, not deterministic forces. When the surviving one, unaffected by other random events, eventually bashes into a DNA molecule and causes a mutation that is caused by deterministic forces set in motion by random chance. A few million years later when that mutation results in a human being having a psychotic episode, influenced by her experiences and teaching, which includes a vision of god that is an effect of random chance.

If random chance also caused many other events associated with god perhaps it isn't random after all. Science can not prove that something is random, only that it can not be proven to be non-random, so whether or not it is random is a matter of faith. (Assuming I am up to date.) If seemingly random chance causes people to have visions of Bob the god of haircuts perhaps Bob really is pulling the strings.

If random chance somehow resulted in the birth of a male child to a female virgin (totally physically possible, just damn near impossible thrice over) why couldn't the "random chance" actually be non-random and controlled by the god of the Christians?

The power of god remains possible in this case, and again god's existiance is left to faith.

-

I'm not defending god, I'm not defending religion. I'm just saying that science, even if it finds a grand theory of everything that is totally correct in all ways, will not effect the question of god's existence.

I made these same arguments when I was an atheist and when I was agnostic, if I become either again I'm sure the arguments won't change because thus far no one has pointed out a flaw in them (though more often than not my presentation did have several flaws which took some time to correct, so I apologize if there are any this time around.)

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE