Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6054
|
quote: as he progressed in his scientific career he grew more and more unsatisfied with the Theory
Well no wonder! He was learning about evolution in the '70s. That would be like being a computer scientist in the 1950s and getting fed up because computers were the size of a large room, years before anyone thought up personal-sized computers. I suppose it's true that he keeps up with advances in evolution theory as the years go by, but ever since he abandoned it, he's been looking at evolution with a bias towards it being false. That's like telling a former Christian that someone's finally been able to speak to God. He won't believe you because he's already decided God isn't worth his time. Okay, sorry for all the metaphors. That's the only way I can think today, it seems.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|
Registered: February 10, 2007
Posts: 691
|
quote: I don't think you quite understand just how much time 13 billion years is. It an insanely huge amount of time. Even one billion years is too huge for humans to really think about. There really is enough time in there for coincidences to happen.
I looked at the current age of the Universe and Earth, and your 13 billion year number was actually the age of the universe, the earth has only been around for about 4.5 billion years. Second the time span for evolution is decreased by the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian period started about 600 million years ago and the period of animal species lasted for about 10 million years. Biologist Jonathan Wells said that “the Cambrian explosion gave rise to most of the animal phyla alive today as well as some that are now extinct.” The explosion of animal species has caused many scientists to refer to the Cambrian explosion as the “Biological Big Bang”. Now the Cambrian explosion forms a big problem for evolution for two main reasons, first how relatively recent, and how relatively short the event was. Second and an even bigger problem is that phyla and classes appeared right at the start, while Darwinian evolution claims that phylum and class level differences emerge after long spans of divergence from lower categories.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
|
Registered: February 10, 2007
Posts: 691
|
quote: They aren't even related. Something need not be complex to be ordered.
The more complex something is the harder it is the make orderly quote: Give me a scientific source to back that broad statement up. It is Hugh Ross' opinion that such studies have weakened Archaeopteryx's status as a transitional creature
Hugh Ross was a man who originally believed in Evolution, and did not believe in any world religion, as he progressed in his scientific career he grew more and more unsatisfied with the Theory, so he is a source, that is telling us the problems that he has found. Also he is a scientific source, here are his credentials. http://www.reasons.org/about/staff/ross.shtmlAnd finally the quote was actually from one of his fellow scientists.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
|
Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6054
|
You just jumped from order to complexity, which is simply amazing. The two are not the same. They aren't even related. Something need not be complex to be ordered. quote: The following quote is from Hugh Ross’ web site Reasons to Believe.
Of course I'm totally going to believe something from someone out to prove evolution wrong. Give me a scientific source to back that broad statement up. It is Hugh Ross' opinion that such studies have weakened Archaeopteryx's status as a transitional creature, although I bet none of the studies he's referring to (if any) even implied that.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|
Registered: February 10, 2007
Posts: 691
|
quote: Evolution essentially says life went from a single cell to multiple species. A single cell is very ordered. Multiple species aren't.
What is more ordered a paper airplane or a Jet Fighter. By your argumentation the paper airplane is more complex because it is only made out of one component, while the Jet fighter is made out of many. Clearly this is ridiculous, the Jet fighter requires many complex parts working together perfectly while the paper air plane only requires a peace of paper, and a child. In the same way, multiple, complex species, all living together in a delicately balanced ecosystem, shows more order, then one organism. quote: A good example of macroevolution in progress would be creatures like Archaeopteryx, which is the most compelling evidence towards showing that birds were once reptiles.
Also Archaeopteryx is losing its status as a transitional link between reptiles and birds. The following quote is from Hugh Ross’ web site Reasons to Believe. quote: For many evolutionary biologists, Archaeopteryx serves as an important example of a transitional intermediate in the fossil record. Even though this specimen is considered to be a bird, it has features that are interpreted as transitional between theropod dinosaurs and birds. These features include teeth, three fingers and a tail. Many think that Archaeopteryx could not fly or at best possessed limited flight capabilities, a characteristic that supports its transitional status. A new study that examined the brain and inner ear structure of Archaeopteryx indicates that it possessed full flight capabilities. This weakens its status as a transitional form. Archaeopteryx was a true bird in every respect, albeit distinct from modern birds.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
|
Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6054
|
quote: If I understand evolution correctly, then type of man who was around in say the time of Buddha, or an almost entirely different species than today.
Then you clearly don't understand evolution. Different species result from macroevolution, which occurs over huge spans of time. Over the span of a few centuries, humans have not had the time to develop any significant adaptations, especially considering that humans have had thousands of years in which to adapt already. I suppose one could point out traces of microevolution between then and now (and most certainly within the past few millennia), but we are by no means a different species, and no evolutionist would seriously think that.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|
Registered: February 06, 2007
Posts: 153
|
Evolution being defined is a sort of Hyper Adaption is a common misconception I believe. Several "evolutionist" would look at a coral snakes colors as proof positive of evolution. If I understand evolution correctly, then type of man who was around in say the time of Buddha, or an almost entirely different species than today. Now allot of Creationist believe that one day there was a Deer and Crow, and so thats how its been ever sense. I suppose I kind of straddle the fence on this topic. Evolution itself is an unstable theory, that without some sort proof of a common ancestor for the Deer and the Crow, I find farcical logic. But then again I do not think that we are in fact the the same humans we once were 2500 years ago. I do think that it is backwards to teach Evolution and no Intelligent design however.
"Come now, and let us reason together!" Says the Lord... -Isaiah 1:18
|
Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6054
|
quote: Now this creates a problem for the theory of evolution that states that we went from a state of disorder to a state of order.
I'm not sure if Khary's link said anything about this, but who's saying evolution went from disorder to order? Evolution essentially says life went from a single cell to multiple species. A single cell is very ordered. Multiple species aren't. It really depends on your point of view. I find life to be very disorderly, therefore I don't find evolution to be in conflict with the second law of thermodynamics. quote: And lastly there has been no observed Macroevolution only Micro evolution.
Macroevolution is never observed because it occurs over a very long period of time. Much longer than the time in which microevolution can occur. A good example of macroevolution in progress would be creatures like Archaeopteryx, which is the most compelling evidence towards showing that birds were once reptiles. We can agree that birds and reptiles are currently different species, but it is clear from fossil evidence that birds were once reptiles and evolved over a long period of time into something else, dispensing (for the most part) with teeth and large bones in favor of adapting feathers, beaks, and hollow bones. So, if macroevolution is evolution at or above the level species (in this case, it occurs at the class level), then birds and reptiles are sufficient evidence of that.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|
Registered: February 10, 2007
Posts: 691
|
quote: However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.
First of all how can you say that you get energy to overcome the second law of thermodynamics with the sun, but how could you do that before the forming of the Sun, and secondly if the sun is all we need to over come the second law of thermodynamics, then why do we see the effects of this law all around us. You talk about evolution being about small changes and over a long period of time. However you left out three important facts. First of all mutations are almost negative, and almost never positive, so one would expect to see a lot more steps back then steps forward. Secondly the theory of evolution was developed before we new about DNA. Now that we have studied DNA we know that a creature can mutate only within the bounds of its DNA. And lastly there has been no observed Macroevolution only Micro evolution. We can see Microevolution happening all the time but it is not evidence of Macroevolution. Lastly I am not a creationist, in the usual sense of the word. I believe in Intelligent Design/scientific creationism, although I specify who the designer was.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
|
Registered: April 15, 2003
Posts: 1396
|
quote: "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
Talkorigins.org - Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. Frederick Douglass
|
Registered: February 10, 2007
Posts: 691
|
I would assume that since you keep citing the scientific method and good science that you aware of scientific laws. Now scientific laws are better established then a theory and if a scientific law contradicts a theory then the theory is can be assumed to be wrong. With that in mind let’s look at the second law of thermodynamics. Now this law states that all systems tend toward disorder. Now this creates a problem for the theory of evolution that states that we went from a state of disorder to a state of order. Also a lot of the evidence for evolution has been shown to be wrong, Examples of these are in Icons of Evolution Also I.D. is backed by large amount of evidence from a multitude of fields of study. Don’t just assume that since you’ve never seen any evidence for I.D. that there isn’t any.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
|
Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6054
|
quote: First of all that number is assuming that we already have a planet in the exact right galaxies, in the perfect solar system, and with the sun at the right age, by that I mean that during the early development of the sun life could not be supported on earth because the sun would be to unstable, there goes your first couple billion years. Then you also have to have a planet in the exact right location.
I don't think you quite understand just how much time 13 billion years is. It an insanely huge amount of time. Even one billion years is too huge for humans to really think about. There really is enough time in there for coincidences to happen. But the simple fact remains that's bad science. As I said, you need evidence. You don't disprove a theory simply by saying it couldn't have happened. You need to prove it didn't. Also, I have read books on intelligent design by scientists. One of them is The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder. It was a good book, but there was really no hard evidence in it. It was all things like "Well, since the chances are too large that things like the golden ratio could come about by coincidence...there must be something else at work." That's not evidence. That's supposition, which is all ID and Creationism are. Evolution is simply one step up, in that it's supposition with evidence. And that's science.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|
Registered: February 10, 2007
Posts: 691
|
quote: And the universe has been around for roughly 13.7 billion years. More than enough time to make that chance.
Well actually that’s not true. First of all that number is assuming that we already have a planet in the exact right galaxies, in the perfect solar system, and with the sun at the right age, by that I mean that during the early development of the sun life could not be supported on earth because the sun would be to unstable, there goes your first couple billion years. Then you also have to have a planet in the exact right location. This is only a few of the requirements if you want more read Rare Earth. Then the number is also assumes perfect conditions, and a constant rate of life trying to form. I have an experiment for you. Role a dice until you get a six, now role it 100 more times each time getting a six. If you don’t get a six on one of your roles, go back and start again. I don’t care if you do that for the rest of you life you won’t ever reach that, unless you have a weighted dice. As for intelligent design and scientific creation, there is plenty of evidence; they just don’t present any of it in schools. And it’s not just Right wing Christians with an agenda that raise problems with evolution, and believe in intelligent design. Two people who have written some good books are Michael Behe and Hugh Ross. They both were raised in atheistic homes and believed in evolution until they got into their scientific carriers’. Michael Behe is the author of "Darwin’s Black Box, And Hugh Ross has written many good books, such as the creator and the cosmos and the Genesis Question. The only reason that so many scientists stick so strongly to evolution is that, that’s all they are taught in school, and it is very detrimental to their carriers to speak out against evolution.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
|
Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6054
|
quote: The odds were one in 10 to the hundred billionth power, (one followed by one hundred billion zeroes, writing that up in small print would fill an entire volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
And the universe has been around for roughly 13.7 billion years. More than enough time to make that chance. quote: It is called the theory of evolution, but it is presented as fact. They never tell you any of the big problems with the theory ether, it up to individuals to find them themselves.
There are many theories presented as fact. That is done because they are the most widely accepted theories. Nearly everyone in the scientific community agrees with them, and there is enough evidence to support the possibility of them being true. Scientific theories don't mean "maybe, maybe not"; they mean "most likely" and they stay that way until irrefutably proven or disproven. Evolution has yet to be either proven or disproven, so a theory it remains. Study up on your scientific method. Intelligent design, on the other hand, has no evidence. There is no proof to support ID because ID depends solely on coincidences and the idea that the odds are "too great" for evolution to happen. This is not how science works. Without evidence, a theory isn't even considered credible, which is why ID and Creationism are not taught in (good) science classes.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|
Registered: February 10, 2007
Posts: 691
|
Really? It is called the theory of evolution, but it is presented as fact. They never tell you any of the big problems with the theory ether, it up to individuals to find them themselves. Also every time people try to teach intelligent design as well as evolution, it is shot down. They need to at least tell people some of the challenges to evolution and present some of the alternative theories.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
|
Registered: October 28, 2005
Posts: 5354
|
Evolution is taught as the THEORY of evolution.
draft beer not soldiers...
|
Registered: February 10, 2007
Posts: 691
|
It can be argued but not necessarily intelligently, evolution is a theory as is creationism, and intelligent design, however only one is taught in schools, why because the evolutionists are afraid of the intelligent design, and scientific creationist’s movements.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
|
Registered: October 22, 2006
Posts: 2535
|
Please note that this issue can be argued till whatever diety you beleive in comes to earth (Or if you believe in evolution, until we evolve wings and fly).
J'irai bien.
|
Registered: February 10, 2007
Posts: 691
|
quote: Creationism and ID...there is no SCIENTIFIC fact to support either
Well bluedemocrat, sorry to burst your bubble but there actually is a lot of evidence for creation and intelligent design. I’m not talking about the created in six days, followed by global flood type of creationism, I’m talking about the scientifically backed old earth creation theory which is the type of creation referred to in the Bible and evidenced by scientific observations. If you want some go to Reasons to believe at www.reasons.org/They have lots of good stuff. Also I would recommend the Genesis Question written By Hugh Ross By the way did you know that a group of mathematicians calculated the probability of life spontaneously forming on earth? The odds were one in 10 to the hundred billionth power, (one followed by one hundred billion zeroes, writing that up in small print would fill an entire volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
|
Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6054
|
| |
