One thing that really bugs me is that all these Christians our their...aka my science teacher...believes in God but insists we evolved from apes.I don't see how people continue to think this because facts have shot down these theories. What do u think...did we really evolve from apes?
Mandy If we did....wouldn't all of the the apes evolved and not just some?
1st off, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of matter. nowhere does evolution postulate that matter suddenly was created. therefore, the 1st law of thermodynamics is not in conflict with evolution. 2nd, as i mentioned earlier, the earth is not a closed system - it is in communication with the rest of the universe in terms of energy transfer. simply put, order may be created from chaos if the overall entropy of the universe still increases.
how do you explain the fact that people can create buildings from sand (via concrete)? simple - the use of energy, in terms of electrical power and heat, is utilized to create a more structured being. however, the total entropy of the universe is still increased - the heat transfer and expended power represents a greater increase in entropy than the structured building's representation of loss of entropy. therefore, the 2nd law of thermodynamics still holds - local order may be constructed in a universe dying a heat death.
the same goes for the earth in relationship to the rest of the universe - DNA can be thermodynamically created from primordial soup if the overall entropy of the universe increases. so i reiterate - how does evolution conflict with the laws of thermodynamics? if anything, creationism's ideals are in direct conflict with the laws of thermodynamics - god "created" matter whereas "nothing" existed before, god is able to construct order from chaos, etc.
lastly, by your own definition of the word "theory" (a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body), the evolutionary theory is perfectly suitable. so why do you insist that it is not a "theory?"
sing4jc - my memory is a bit rusty, but i believe that a geometry theorem consists of a notion that is not proven but exists by definition. but i may be confusing it with the definition of "postulate." either way, my side point was that different fields of study define words differently. by biological standards, i'd argue that the use of the word "theory" is appropriate for evolutionary theory.
THere is a reason why I love the internet sooo much... it hooks you up to so many sites such as one of my favorite, webster.com If you look up 'theory' in this lovely website you will read,
quote: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body
quote: hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption
Basically, when you sum all of this up, a theory is a hypothesis or in laymen's terms... an educated guess. The first law of Thermodynamics states:
quote:This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. However, it can not be ]created nor destroyed[/QUOTE Basically, something cannot form from nothing. When you think logically, there had to be something that created that quote unquote premordial ooze(correct me if I'm wrong). You cannot create something from absolutely nothing... over 10,000 scientists have repeatedly no one has been able to The Second Law of THermodynamics states : [QUOTE] This law also predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases with time. Entropy is the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system. Because of the second law of thermodynamics both energy and matter in ]Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on [/QUOTE Take this as an example, if you buy a pair of shoes , according to the Second Law, they must become aged and older as times goes on. therefore, losing workingness(not a word lol)How can evolution be true if it violates that law? It went from a tiny little ooze (dont know scientific name off hand) and suddenly created this big earth. Not very logical when you stop to think about it. Also, evolution violates the Chaos theory which states: [QUOTE] Order cannot form from Chaos.
That's pretty easy right? So you see Kg, there are so many holes in this philosophy of evolution its ridiculous. In reality, it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in Creatonism. God Bless! Katie
how does evolution contradict the laws of thermodynamics? remember, we aren't living in a vacuum - decreasing the amount of entropy on earth is more than matched by an increase in entropy in the universe as a whole. the temperature was, and still is, more than adequate to derive a negative gibbs free energy value to compensate for a negative entropy change, so that is also keeping in the line of thermodynamics. what examples did you have in mind?
postulates and theories have varying definitions - i believe that you're using the mathematical definition of the word "theory."
Wow sounds like you know alot about this subject. Can you expand on the Criteria? I am curious on what evolution is laking to be a real theory.
Almost all the "proof" they have on evolution can be proved wrong. Like the Nebraska man for example. Scientists found a tooth thinking it came from an evolving human and they created a whole diagram and theory around it. They later did testing on it and found it came from and extinct pig. Even take Lucy also. The knee joint that they found for upright walking was found 1 mile away and 150 feet deeper. And this couldn't possibly be a humans knee?
this is actually pretty cool becuz i just had a really deep conversation with soemone about htis today lol Please give me some proof that there is a such thing as evolution becuz all the proof that people claim to have have either been tampered with , they are completely redundant or they are still lacking TONZ of information. and im not sure who said evolution was a theory but thats actually incorrect. In order for something to become a theory it needs to fit 14 criteria scientifically and in order for it to become a postulate it must meet 7 wanna hear something???? it only fits 3 criteria!!!therefore, its a philosophy... Anywayz, as you may or may not know, evoltion violates all three laws of thermodynamics these laws have tried to be broken by scientists and guess what?? they cant! so how this philosophy is correct is beyond me God BLess! Katie
Just because evolution is considered a "theory" by scientists certainly doesn't make it less true - it doesn't even mean that scientists thamselves are uncertain of it. Believe me, almost every certified biologist in the world today is 100% certain of evolution's validity.
OK, than why do they call it a "theory?" Well, that's just another part of science's self-correcting mechanism. Even though many scientists are dead certain of many different principles of science - the theory of relativity, for example - they can't say that these principles are absolutely true no matter what.
Why shouldn't they say this? I mean, if enough evidence is shown for all matters of science - from astronomy to zoology - shouldn't we just stop researching and start commiting everything to paper, following it religiously for years to come? Scientists are certain of scientific principles, right?
This would be the worst thing to happen to science. It would result in a sort of scientific "freeze" to which no improvements may be made. Suppose such a freeze had occurred 50 years ago? Human space travel, quantum physics, radio astronomy - these advancements would all be completely lost. Science would be just as advanced now as it was 50 years ago.
This is the reason for the self-correcting mechanism - individual scientific principles must be willing to admit that they're wrong, if enought evidence proves them to be. I see none of this in creationism. All I see is Truth with a capital T - the idea that we're right and we know it, so why change any of our ideas? Creationism itself is an illustration of the scientific freeze in action - it's only as advanced as it has been for thousands upon thousands of years, because it wasn't willing to admit that it had any flaws.
I would write more, but right now I'm being squashed by all these mountains of evidence supporting creationism. They're physically squishingotmydomygod sks xh s dfdkfg jfdgijdf; hlp sdjfaisgps;help
But seriously, folks, I have yet to hear one smidgen of evidence in support of creationism that isn't merely an argument against Darwinism.
(Note; this is similar to political campaigns that consist of putting the other guy down and not of supporting yourself. Here in my state, the governer was elected largely because his campaign was entirely in support for himself, whereas his opponent's campaign consisted of pointing out the other guy's flaws.)
and to think about all of those fossilized remains of related species and bioinformatic DNA tree alignments and darwin's cute little finches... oh well. you live in your world, i'll live in mine; hopefully they won't meet anytime in the near future.
i find it amusing to read how you are so indignant that such an explanation could exist when your 1st choice to explain the origin of life is that a being that many of us don't believe in and one that none of us can see one day created life.
creationism is not science, it is a theologic belief that chooses not to undertake scientific rigors of explanation. creationism holds that science must prove its theologic beliefs wrong; anything less is clear support for its ideas. evolution is science. whether you choose to believe that it is correct science is your prerogative. but evolution seeks to explain based upon observations and data - it postualtes ideas and challenges those ideas with new data. that's why evolution is taught in science classes - because it is the most widely-acceptd scientific explanation for today's current organism patterns.
lastly, evolution and the origin of organic molecules are not synonymous - they are 2 different areas of study.
I agree with you Christine. The reason they do teach it is because if they don't have a section to teach on that then they got nothing. They just chose the one they liked. Their is 4 different ideas on how we got here. And they chose like the 2nd worse one. The other one is we got here by a bunch of particles somehow coming together to make us. I would like someone to explain that one to me!!!
no, i know what you are saying, but i was just voicing MY opinion, not trying to start another one or anything...isn't that what we're supposed to do here? -e.k.
I don't know where the hell we came from, but in our school they teach us the evolution thing,just like they only teach protestant RE. I have a point. I dont think anyone knows for sure where we came from,cuz theres always gonna be someone who says 'no,god made adam and Eve.' So I think they just choose one or else they dont have anything to teach. I probably dont make any sense, sorry about that, but I know what Im trying to say. Christine xxx
We are not argueing we are discussing our point of view rationally. That is what the point of this site is to see other peoples point of view. IF eveyone agreed then this site would be boring. I just wanted to see what people believe which is why i started this convo....There are soooooo many topics on war and racism right now what is the point of a starting another one. On this site you can talk about anything you feel is important. And in my mind this is important.
But you do make a good point...and Welcome to the site!
i think that it is possible because of the way it seems like almost everything around us is evolving every day, like technology, culture, society and such, but does it really matter? whether we came from apes, were created, or just blasted or way into existance by some inexplicable cosmic force of energy, isn't the most important thing about who we are today and where we are going? i think it's silly for people to argue about these "scientific" things and not be concerned about where the human race is going RIGHT NOW with all of this hate and discrimination and threat of war. but, hey, it's just my opinion. -e.k.
quote:The chances of such a mutation being beneficial are extremely small. just wanted to point that out.
i agree. but we're talking about millions of cells over millions of years. i think that you already know that, as you believe in (micro)evolution, so i'm really pointing this out to others.
Topics 
If we did....wouldn't all of the the apes evolved and not just some?
