Printable View
Let's not tell anyone to shut up. Poke holes in each other's arguments, but don't poke holes in each other, if that makes sense. If you think someone is being insulting, use the warn button. Replying to it will just get you in trouble. Remember that there is a very strict policy on flaming in this forum.
Ok, continue!
No, I didn't mean to put across that I agree with the Big Bang, but it is a possibility. The point is, that according to that proof, there was a beginning to matter and time + a relevant being(s) which created them. If I don't get my hands on that book soon, though, I won't be able to be completely sure of these points. Matter having a beginning does not necessarily mean the big bang, though if you want to know, the big bang does not contradict creation either.Quote:
So TastyPies says that the Big Bang is ridiculous, and Auronhart says it's proof of Intelligent Design. Hm.
He's trying to bring it into context, creation vs evolution even though the theory of evolution doesn't directly contradict creation.Quote:
"I doubt any evolutionist will admit that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the many species of the world."
I doubt any creationist will admit God doesn't exist. Why is this relevant?
This isn't my area of expertise, so I'll ask a clarifying question. Do these scientists have any serious evidence to prove that certain new species were created/evolved? (because species dying out gives us no information)Quote:
And we know that things were different in the past (fossils). So species change over time, a lot of time has passed, and there are different species now than there were before (referring to fossils).
Newtonian physics apply under most circumstances, (they can be tested with many different tests) and (I think) only fail at the quantum level. Evolution is more of a guess, (because it is obscure enough that no tests can be made for macro-evolution) therefore I don't think comparing those two is a very good idea.Quote:
Newtonian physics, for example.
Exactly, the macro-evolution=micro-evolution argument is exactly the above, extreme extrapolation. (Plus we don't have any evidence that species change on the small scale)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
They break down both on the quantum level and the relativistic level. Relativity, however, doesn't break when you try to apply it to everyday situations; it just doesn't produce significantly different results. But anyway, that misses the point altogether. The point was, by studying the best guess that we had, we got closer to the truth. By studying evolution, the best guess we have as to how life got to be how it is now, we will get closer to the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Auronhart
You can hope, but if it ends up evolution is way off the mark the theory will have to be entirely discarded. I suppose nothing bad will happen from studying evolution, though, as long as people look at it as a theory (that hasn't been tested) not fact. I personally think that it is ridiculuous that they teach evolution in schools and as a result people accept it as fact.Quote:
The point was, by studying the best guess that we had, we got closer to the truth. By studying evolution, the best guess we have as to how life got to be how it is now, we will get closer to the truth.
"The point is, that according to that proof, there was a beginning to matter and time + a relevant being(s) which created them."
Other than religious reasons, in science there is never a reason to bring god into the equation. You say you don't know how it started. Unless you detect god rays, or you see it happen, or some observation to base it on, there is no reason to bring in an intelligent being at all. It's unscientific, and unnecessary. So I don't consider it proof. "Well, we don't know" or "I can't see how it could happen if god doesn't exist" is not proof.
"Do these scientists have any serious evidence to prove that certain new species were created/evolved?"
There's species around now that there are no fossils of in earlier geological records. There is tons of proof that the record goes back millions of years (please say you agree the earth is old, because if you disagree, I can't say anymore). Aside from these fossils just laying around, it's logical. Species like humans and dinosaurs simply couldn't live at the same time. Dinosaurs would win the competition hands down, same with many of the mammals today. Aside from that still, the sheer amount of fossils (completely disregarding evolution altogether) indicates that the species must have existed at different times also, because the ecosystems simply couldn't possibly support that many different species at once.
I'll also address some of the other things I missed before now that exams are over. woo.
"(we haven't seen any partly evolved beings, which we would see if it was that slow)"
You say this as if it's a matter of half evolved, and fully evolved. Evolution is a gradient. There is no partly evolved. If you mean creatures leading up to the species we are today, there are plenty of examples in the fossil record. There are many vestigal, or developing features in the animal kingdom, even in us.
"Last thing, the principles of evolution are based on things evolving (getting better)"
No where is that said. Evolution means change, not necessarily for the better. Generally, the mechanisms of evolution better suit the species for the environment, but obviously due to circumstances, and changes in environment, it can actually spell the death for the species.
"would you come up with some examples of good mutations or are we supposedly at the top of the evolutionary chain."
Changes in colour or size that better suit the organism? Polydactlyism? Polyploidy in certain species causes them to grow to double the size (salamanders, specifically, is the example I'm thinking of), and in tree frogs it caused a pigmentation (darker) that caused them to blend in better. That's just off the top of my head.
"Not really, because it causes many more problems then it resolves."
Untrue. If you're homozygous for the trait, yes, you'll almost certainly die. If you're heterozygous though, you show very few symptoms, and are resistant to malaria. This is coming straight from my genetics professor.
"I don't think anyone would really want to have sickle cell anemia just to be resistant to malaria."
That's not relevant.
"I mean like a being which is half human-half ape or equivalent."
Do you mean right now, or in the past? There are plenty of examples in the past. If you want to know why there's not a human mostly ape in the past (Lucy, although she's debatable), the climate conditions have to be VERY specific in order to have fossil formation. Because of that, it's entirely probably that where the creatures were living, no fossils were made. Or that we haven't found them yet.
Right now I pretty much addressed above.
"there should be some evidence that can be viewed in creatures."
I don't see how you can disregard everything that's been said here so easily to say there's NO proof of evolution.
"Until you factor quantum physics. Under quantum physics, as I am led to understand it, everything involves probability and uncertainty; under quantum physics, literally anything is possible, though most of it is extraordinarily unlikely."
I dunno, I don't think quantum physics are why we're here. There's more likely reasons, via the Miller-Urey experiment.
"And most of that evidence lies in DNA."
I disagree with this. The evidence is in observing current species, genetic trends, and in the fossil record.
"My biggest problem with evolution is that if it's true then not only did it somehow manage to form a human being, it manage do to it TWICE. Two things evolved from random processes that were so similar and they happened to be able to get together and have offspring. That more than doubles the probability factor."
That's not how it would be. Evolution happens specially, genes and traits are passed on. It would an entire species slowly becoming human, not two beings springing from no where.
"It's a lot more likely that humans evolved gradually from chimpanzees, to the point where there were two separate strands of beings, one which were chimpanzees, one which were what are now called humans."
Common ancestor. We are not evolved from chimps.
"If by miracles you mean the creation of matter, lets put it this way. Evolutionists do not have an answer for this, it cannot be understood by science."
Is not does NOT equal cannot. You're attributing it to god with no reason. I could attribute the creation of matter to this can of V8 here, and I have as much reason to believe that, as you do to believe god did it.
"As I said before, the topic was intelligent design, which would be a 100% if relativity was correct."
Not following you here.
"However, I've yet to see evolutionists give evidence which would make it even close to as likely as simple creation."
No. Just because we don't know doesn't automatically make creation any more likely.
"But the moths and cochroaches will always be moths and cochroaches."
I don't know for sure they change, but you can't say for certain they don't either.
"I personally think that it is ridiculuous that they teach evolution in schools and as a result people accept it as fact."
Can you read all I've said and still say it's ridiculous? I don't understand. Fossils. Genetics. Biology. Saying "this is definitely how it is, no questions asked" about evolution is bad. No teacher I've had has said this. They give us the evidence. They give us Darwin's observations and inferences (http://www.emunix.emich.edu/~ghannan...darwinobs.html)
What is wrong with that? Please show me where Darwin's inferences go so very wrong to make his theory ridiculous. What should they teach instead? The belief of a religion that doesn't include everyone? Nothing? How is evolution ridiculous? I really, really don't understand how you can believe that. It has holes, sure, many mechanisms aren't understood, sure, but ridiculous?
You obviously haven't read all my posts, I am talking about a mathematical proof done by Stephen Hawking, which proves that time and matter had a beginning and that they were created by a causal agent(s) (I suppose this could be plural) outside of time. This implies there is at least one "God". The only premise in this proof you can pick at are the laws of relativity.Quote:
Other than religious reasons, in science there is never a reason to bring god into the equation. You say you don't know how it started. Unless you detect god rays, or you see it happen, or some observation to base it on, there is no reason to bring in an intelligent being at all. It's unscientific, and unnecessary. So I don't consider it proof. "Well, we don't know" or "I can't see how it could happen if god doesn't exist" is not proof.
Micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution period. When I say evolution I am referring to macro-evolution.Quote:
I don't see how you can disregard everything that's been said here so easily to say there's NO proof of evolution.
Those are examples of micro-evolution. Apes changing into humans is a much larger change.Quote:
Changes in colour or size that better suit the organism? Polydactlyism? Polyploidy in certain species causes them to grow to double the size (salamanders, specifically, is the example I'm thinking of), and in tree frogs it caused a pigmentation (darker) that caused them to blend in better. That's just off the top of my head.
Hmm, are you going to argue whether the laws of relativity hold now? That is the only leg you have to stand on. (unless I'm getting mixed up about the proof which I still have to read through)Quote:
Is not does NOT equal cannot. You're attributing it to god with no reason. I could attribute the creation of matter to this can of V8 here, and I have as much reason to believe that, as you do to believe god did it.
Read what I said about the proof. The only uncertainty of Mathematical proofs is in their premises.Quote:
Not following you here.
I was pretty sure they taught macro-evolution, (maybe they only teach it in some places) those inferences don't look so bad.Quote:
Can you read all I've said and still say it's ridiculous? I don't understand. Fossils. Genetics. Biology. Saying "this is definitely how it is, no questions asked" about evolution is bad. No teacher I've had has said this. They give us the evidence. They give us Darwin's observations and inferences
See back to my comments about the proof. (Man I'm really overusing it, I better make sure I have it correct)Quote:
Is not does NOT equal cannot. You're attributing it to god with no reason. I could attribute the creation of matter to this can of V8 here, and I have as much reason to believe that, as you do to believe god did it.
Apes become humans etc. Macro-evolution is almost entirely based on the getting better principle, (and yes I do understand that it is meant to be that they only "get better" because of the "survival of the fittest") but I still haven't heard of any mututations (these are the only actual changes that in species which are beneficial.Quote:
No where is that said. Evolution means change, not necessarily for the better. Generally, the mechanisms of evolution better suit the species for the environment, but obviously due to circumstances, and changes in environment, it can actually spell the death for the species.
Yes, it is, mutations are the only method of possible species change that we know of. (adapting to your environment does not equal species change)Quote:
That's not relevant.
"You obviously haven't read all my posts, I am talking about a mathematical proof done by Stephen Hawking, which proves that time and matter had a beginning and that they were created by a causal agent(s) (I suppose this could be plural) outside of time."
No, I did. I just disagree. First of all, it proves nothing to me until I see it, so you might as well not talk about it at all until you explain it in detail, or give me a link. Secondly, if it does prove that time and matter were created... How do you prove a casual agent? I don't see how you prove god through math. I will keep an open mind, because I don't see how you can prove other dimensions exist through math, but they've done that. Really though, I do need something aside from you saying that you think his theory proves things.
My take on it would be that it's proof that time and space were created, yes, but by what, I don't think can be inferred from formulae. Maybe it was god, or maybe it's natural processes we don't yet understand.
"Micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution period."
Well I don't see how you can say there's no evidence of that either. The fact that we can't observe it directly is irrelevant, it doesn't mean there's no evidence.
Like I said before: species change over time. A lot of time has passed. Species exist now that didn't before, and you can see gradients of special development in the past. Genetic evidence of changing genomes exist today. New species have poped up from old ones. Why is it so very ridiculous to think evolution could be right?
"Those are examples of micro-evolution. Apes changing into humans is a much larger change."
Macro-evolution is the sum of micro-evolutions. The sum of changes like what I listed over millions of years. I don't know what you mean by larger change. Do you mean one giant spontaneous genome change? That's not the mechanism evolution describes.
"Hmm, are you going to argue whether the laws of relativity hold now? That is the only leg you have to stand on. (unless I'm getting mixed up about the proof which I still have to read through)"
I was refering to where you said "it cannot be understood by science". Just because it isn't now doesn't mean it can't be.
"I was pretty sure they taught macro-evolution, (maybe they only teach it in some places) those inferences don't look so bad."
They tell us what I said and then say that the theory is that these changed accumulate over time to produce speciation. That's biology. Creation is not biology, and until it is, I don't think creation should be taught. I will say that my teacher did mention creation when she taught us evolution.
"Man I'm really overusing it, I better make sure I have it correct"
You should've done that before using it so zealously in this debate, but no matter. I'm itching to see what this thing says. Hell, if it's really that solid I'll become a theist. Proof is proof.
"but I still haven't heard of any mututations (these are the only actual changes that in species which are beneficial."
I just listed a bunch in my previous post. What are you looking for, and why aren't mine valid? Apes don't turn into humans. Big changes like that don't happen. That's not how it works. It's slow, and small. Little changes, like the ones we observe add up to big changes in the long run. Malaria and polydactylism. All the things I listed above were mutations that are beneficial in one way or another.
"Yes, it is, mutations are the only method of possible species change that we know of. (adapting to your environment does not equal species change)"
I meant the fact that you said people wouldn't want to trade malaria for sickle-cell anemia.
I need a few days to read Hawking's book and understand his exact assumptions/argument correctly. I will respond once I have done so. I want to make sure I don't have any holes in the argument.
Does his theory/formula/whatever have a name? Something I could look it up by?
Maybe someone else already said this, but evolution doesn't state that chimps turned into humans. Evolution states that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. I didn't evolve into my sister. We both evolved from our common ancestors. (I actually don't have a sister, but we will pretend I do for the sake of argument.)
Here's a good analogy for you:
Some Catholics became Anglicans. Others became Lutherans. Yet we still have Catholics. Clearly some members of a population can change over time (I won't call the Protestant Reformation an evolution) while other members of the same population, influenced by the same stimuli, can stay the same.
Read this. http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html.
Quote:
However, many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe
The idea is that if time (you could also add in space and matter etc., but time is the only important one) had a beginning, then there exists at least one supernatural being who did not have a beginning, who either created time (and space etc.) or created another supernatural being(s) (of course it can keep going i.e. #1 creates #2 creates #3 creates #4 creates #5 which created time (and space etc.)). This of course does not imply that any one religion is correct, it only implies that we were created by a supernatural being or supernatural beings. (yes I know this doesn't contradict evolution, but it does contradict the "we were not created" argument) There is actually extra evidence on the site for a beginning even if General Relativity is false.Quote:
The focussing of our past light cone implied that time must have a beginning, if the General Theory of relativity is correct.
That's a very weak proof for the existance of god. Again, "we don't know" is not a reason to say god did it. Where's the 100% proof "if relativity is correct"? All he's talking about here is the big bang. The big bang ALREADY acknowledges that time had a beginning. This is nothing new, and nothing that proves intelligent design.
I find it funny that him saying "seemed to imply" became 100% proof. He isn't saying it shows that god existed, only that time had a beginning. Obviously theists would say it seems to imply god, but I wouldn't. I already believed that time had a beginning, but only in a technical sense. As a singularity, time doesn't exist. That doesn't mean there was nothing before that. Although as Hawking says in the paper, everything that happened previous to the singularity is irrelevant.
Hawking claims to be a deist, I believe, however there are people formerly close to him who claim he only mentions God to ramp up his book sales. Regardless, even if he is a deist, that means he certainly does not believe in intelligent design, he would believe in a God who waved his hand, created the Big Bang, and left forever.
He says on the website in the quote I found that the equations of General Relativity implied (means that if relativity is true, time had a beginning) that time must have a beginning, I will finish reading his book to see what he says about this, but implied means if R then B. (where R is relativity and B is the beginning of time)Quote:
That's a very weak proof for the existance of god. Again, "we don't know" is not a reason to say god did it. Where's the 100% proof "if relativity is correct"? All he's talking about here is the big bang. The big bang ALREADY acknowledges that time had a beginning. This is nothing new, and nothing that proves intelligent design.
That still is a belief in intelligent design, which I am sure came from his work. Anyways, what he believes is none of my concern, it is the results he came up with.Quote:
Hawking claims to be a deist, I believe, however there are people formerly close to him who claim he only mentions God to ramp up his book sales. Regardless, even if he is a deist, that means he certainly does not believe in intelligent design, he would believe in a God who waved his hand, created the Big Bang, and left forever.
God waved his hand and created the big bang? That sounds like intelligent design to me. Even if God just started the universe, that is still intelligent design, even if I don't believe that is what happened. (like a clockmaker starting a clock and then leaving it)Quote:
that means he certainly does not believe in intelligent design
How is that intelligent design? If I throw an seed into a field, and it sprouts into a tree, did I design the tree?
"He says on the website in the quote I found that the equations of General Relativity implied (means that if relativity is true, time had a beginning) that time must have a beginning, I will finish reading his book to see what he says about this, but implied means if R then B. (where R is relativity and B is the beginning of time)"
That is the implication, yes. I don't think there are many modern scientists who don't think that time (at least the "bubble" of space-time that we call the universe) had a beginning.