Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 19 20
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Anon posted:
"Name me a species that only partially evolved."

I thought that it may be possible that all life on this planet may be still evolving, ie partially evolved, (except for dragonflies and crocodiles!! ) But maybe we are not. That's not the question really, as other species are evolving right now, and have in the past. The process takes eons sometimes, and we usually cannot see it happening, as SM says. But that does not mean it isn't happening. And to us as well, after all we are animals too.

Whilst I realise SM, that American universities generally are not invoved with the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent Design, there are more formal educational courses in this area in American schools and colleges than elsewhere. My belief is that they represent the sincerely held views of many in that nation, and they are the people encouraging the belief in God and his/her creation of the world, which seems to discourage (in the US) a belief in the evolving nature of the development of life on Earth.

.
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Aside from the standard, sadly misinformed creationist talking points, there is a vast quantity of evidence supporting evolution. Every angle that it's been approached has supported and strengthened it. It is one of the most successful theories in scientific history. But, to the point of why Americans are slow to accept its reality is, in my opinion, due to the fact that we are a very religious country, and evolution specifically applies to our origins. It took the church a long time, and many smart, well-intentioned people suffered, before they accepted heliocentrism. Same with the abandonment of the silly dogma of the perfection and unmoving nature of the heavens. They could eventually accept that and still believe the myth of our special creation and attention from a doting deity. Evolution strikes a near fatal blow to that delusion, and the religious mind lacks the flexibility to adjust quickly and maturely. Also, our science and math education is poor. I would also add that the size of our country contributes to the slow flow of information to isolated, ignorant demographics.

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 84
Anon posted:
"Name me a species that only partially evolved."

Species cannot "partially evlove". Evolution is not a quantity, it's a process. It is change. To think that evolution can reach some kind of completion is to imply that there is a goal in the first place. That would imply some kind of plan which would imply some kind of planner. People who reject the idea of God in favor of evolution, then simply reassign the qualities of a god to the process of evolution, are simply renaming God. Evolution does not have a "plan".

"Also, our science and math education is poor. I would also add that the size of our country contributes to the slow flow of information to isolated, ignorant demographics." --by Anon

I live in what would likely be considered an isolated demographic; the least densly populated area of the US. There is ignorance here but no more so than any metropolitan area in the country. There are areas in any city that are as isolated and ignorant as any here in the "wilds". So the size of our country has nothing to do the ignorance factor. Ignorance is ubiquitous.


When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: Iztaci
Anon posted:
... Evolution is not a quantity, it's a process.It is change.
Good point, Iztaci. I think of GOD in the same way. As you say, "evolution does not have a "plan".
IMO, neither does GOD. GOD is the plan. And, if we choose to accept it, we have an important role to play in helping the plan unfold, or evolve.

Am I "renaming God"? as you put it. No, I think of myself as redefining the god hypothesis. Check out:
http://www.redefinegod.com/profile/RevLGKing


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
I agree with you Iz. There is no such thing as an ignorant demgraphic, or at least an ignorant demographic due to geography. Ignorance can bloom in prestige universities, churches and teeming cities. It is a state of mind. It occurs when we refuse to acknowledge that maybe, just possibly, someone with a contrary view to ours may be, if not right, then at least worthy of a hearing. And like the flu we can all catch it! So we need to be alert and if necessary inoculate ourselves against it as ignorance can destroy us.

Last edited by Ellis; 12/14/08 11:36 PM. Reason: Speeling rely badly this mornin
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
I can see no reason, why to believe in any scientific theory. After all, direct evidence for evolution wasn't still given.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Zephir wrote
"I can see no reason, why to believe in any scientific theory."

Abolutely agree with you, that is your prerogative, but I am very interested to hear what other theories you don't believe.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Evolution is not the issue, rather undirected evolution. Atheists say, e.g. the light sensitive retina of the eye (which is really part of the brain) contains over 10 million photoreceptor cells. They claim the eye evolved from here into an outward cup, then the cornea, iris, pupil etc. etc. Impossible mathematically. And there are thousands of similar examples of complexity. It is claimed that complexity only implies design. Wishful thinking.



curtismoh@gmail.com

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Ellis
.. what other theories you don't believe...
My understanding is, logical theories are just an particular interpretations of reality from particular perspectives. From AWT perspective the evolutionary theory appears as quite relevant, but the creationism has some substantiation, too. The water droplet condensation is an emergent phenomena, rather the evolutionary one. So we should consider new species formation as a sort of phase transform as well. In this sense, creationism is useful, as it looks for alternatives to evolutionary theory. For example, we cannot be sure, the humans evolved from apes, until we find a definite evidence of it. The search for evidence of human race evolution couldn't prohibit us for looking for extraterrestrial origin of it and other alternative hypothesis.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Humans did NOT evolve from apes. They share a common ancestor.

Atheists have no great thoughts on eyes. Useful things for everyday use and hard, though not impossible to do without. As an atheist I definitely believe in eyes.

What atheists say, and what the word means, is that there is no god.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
So all the millions of complexities, many interconnected, occurred by means of natural selection, beneficial mutations?
How was insulin, inside the body, selected to metabolise glucose which is obtained from outside the body? Just one example, extremely complex. Chemical formulae must match perfectly.
Has any atheist ever realised that without a guiding hand, evolution is impossible?
[php][/php]

curtismoh@gmail.com

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Anon wrote:
'So all the millions of complexities, many interconnected, occurred by means of natural selection, beneficial mutations?'

Yes, maybe.

"How was insulin, inside the body, selected to metabolise glucose which is obtained from outside the body?"

Not a clue. Seems a silly idea though and not one which would be designed by anyone with thought for convenience.

"Has any atheist ever realised that without a guiding hand, evolution is impossible?"

Now this I find an interesting question. Actually it seems to me that it would be possible for a believer in a god figure to believe that their divinity had created life on earth, by evolution, and without giving precedence to any species.

Surely belief in a god does not have to include the belief that the creation myth as depicted in the Old Testament of the bible is a scientific description of the origin of man ('man' as in humans that is, we all know that the bible thinks that the origin of woman was a BAD BAD idea).

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
" Impossible mathematically."
Of course it isn't.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
I am confused by all the Anonymous people---- or it's one person arguing against him/herself, which is interesting but annoying!

I can't figure out what is 'mathematically impossible'. I've reread the posts on this page over and they seem contradictory.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Has any atheist ever realised that without a guiding hand, evolution is impossible? "

Why would they when it isn't true?

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
I agree. There is a guiding hand. GOD in us, and GOD we are in, is the hand. But, IMO, GOD--an acronym, not a noun--is not a personal being separate from us.

To those who say "God is a personal being." I say: please have "him" post us a response.
http://www.redefinegod.com/profile/RevLGKing

REDEFINEGOD.COM


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
From Aether Wave Theory perspective, both God, both concept of creation are having a good physical meaning. By AWT all observable reality is formed by nested density fluctuations of hypothetical particle field of infinite mass/energy density, so called the Aether. This hypothesis violates no known experiment or observation, made so far.

The God is omnipotent, omnipresent creature of infinite intelligence and clairvoyance. We can observe His behavior by the same way, like our animal pets are following our behavior. From perspective of our dogs, the behavior of humans is totally incomprehensible, it appears like chaos or like the behavior of large system of chaotic particles.

The same dual view exists for creation. Every condensation (a phase transform) inside of dense particle system appears like sort of miracle. The water droplets are condensing from nothing, from hidden dimensions of space-time. Such condensation appears like miracle for me - just because it appears so often, I've a tendency to marginalize it's unexplainable behavior.

Should we consider the condensation of droplets in rain consider as the same sort of miracle, like the creation of species? Well, we should do. After all, the ideas, the observable reality is just a simulation of more intelligent powerfully creatures is sort of deism as well. It conceptually doesn't differ from deism of Christians and other churches. For further reading you can visit:

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-much-universe-appears-clever-for-us.html

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
C
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
C
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 11
I was not anonymous, since my email was in the message. Now I'm registered.
So, MAYBE the complexities evolved? "Naturally", this is the best science can do.
Inconvenient to metabolise glucose? Design a better one, then. Oh wait! it happened by natural selection with no selector! Now that's impressive.
Surely guided evolution is the answer, go to the top of the class, Revlgking!
If unguided evolution is possible, then "fallible friend" has invented a new form of probability. I won't bother to even go into the complexity of proteins, amino acids, etc. that are required for successful adaptations, because scientists say they have the answer, DNA has been sequenced, ha! ha! What a feat, explains everything, no designer required.
What is mathematically impossible? Take cosmology. Latest theories (could be wrong, scientists are only wrong in the past), claim that the gravitational constant, AND strong nuclear force, AND weak nuclear force, AND electromagnetism, ALL had to have been in place in their very, very, very, precise measurements at the instant of the big bang. How do scientists explain? Multiple universes!! Wow, but no proof. Maybe with infinite universes, and infinity of time going backwards, could it have happened? Add to the permutations for good measure laws of thermodynamics.
If you still do not comprehend mathematically impossible, ask, why four forces. Can an equation for a universe such as this be written?

All who ask God to appear, ought to have lived 2,000 years ago, then they could draw their own conclusion. After all, some say there was no holocaust, only 50 years ago.
The creator is a being outside of time, but when He appears again, there will still be doubters!

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
CM, you ask
Quote:
If you still do not comprehend mathematically impossible, ask, why four forces. Can an equation for a universe such as this be written?
How about E = MC2 X F(aith)+H(ope)+L(ove)?
FHL have to do with the human imagination, which, Einstein said, is more important than knowledge.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
How about E = MC2 X F(aith)+H(ope)+L(ove)?
FHL have to do with the human imagination, which, Einstein said, is more important than knowledge.


I'm sure he didn't imply imagination without knowledge.
Faith can be invested in anything.
Hope driven from a sense of fear or hopelessness pitiful, and love when attached to objects of desire obsessive.

Energy equaling mass X Constant (speed of light) times superstition X inadequate knowledge X attachment = Churchianity or evolution based on beliefs and ideals, or superstition combined with theory equaling an active imagination split between 7 billion people.

It would be wise to find common ground within the beliefs and ideals of imagination driven by sphinctered knowledge and the runaway opinion of belief and superstition.

Anyone can make up mystical representations of reality and couple it with scientific theory but it don't make it True.

History has given us a pretty good picture of such nonsense.

Page 3 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 19 20

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5