|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
adeadlyintegral 
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: May 2000
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 25 2000,22:20 |
|
    |
i... don't... under... stand...
anyway, personally i think evolution is a bit "iffy" just because it seems too complex to be plausible to me, and also because it pisses me off since it's often preached with as much dogmatic fevor as creationism is, in my opinion... evolution seems to me to be one of those things where there's <I>so</i> many people offering so many pieces of evidence that contradict each other that it's too damn hard for the layman (me) to figure out who's right... i mean some people may say that the fossil record supports evolution, some people blithely say, "no, it doesn't" people say naturally created complex chemicals are too random for life to be created, some people say other things...(bah... when you read too many science fiction books, and too many creationist books given too you by your dad, it gives you headaches, especially when you don't know too much about prehistory&biology to begin with :-D)
my .17 :-)
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Hellraiser
PH34R M3
Group: Members
Posts: 977
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 26 2000,00:21 |
|
|
Evolution is a theory, an should be taken as such. Most people spout it as fact when indeed it has not been proven, and there is a certain amount of evidence that indicates that there are serious flaws in the theory.Personally I find it takes as much or more faith to believe in Evolution as it does to believe in a Supreme Being. I prefer not to assume either when it comes to discussing things from a purely scientific point of view, but personally I believe we are created beings. From what I have seen and heard in life, and some of what I learned in school, it would seem that as far as we can see, the universe is becoming disordered from a previous state of higher order, and I find it hard to believe that there isn't an intelligence behind this order. It has been my experience that order doesn't spontaneously come out of nothing. And for all I know, a Creator could have made the universe billions of years ago and allowed it to evolve according to a set of rules to see what would come of it. Or (S)He could have used His/Her almighty powers and made the universe in such a way as to make it seem like it is billions of years old and that we evolved from apes. It's all within the realm of possibility. I have a problem with people that assume that scientific theories are facts, and that what we currently believe that we know is the sum of all things in the universe, or that everything must be bound by the same laws that we seem to be bound by. After all, it was a known fact in the past that the sun revolved around a flat earth, and that the atom could not be split. It was also known that the stars were little holes in the curtain of night that let sunlight through. That was all based on what was currently observable using the technologies at the time. What it comes down to is that we really just don't know, and probably won't for a long time yet. It is an interesting thing that almost no theory or law in science can be proven beyond all doubt to be true, but many can be and have been proven to be false. Good theories have lasted for years or centuries without any evidence to the contrary, but all it takes is one shred of evidence that disagrees with the theory, and it must be reevaluated. The problem is that a lot of people in their effort to deny the existence of the supernatural cling to every shred of evidence that might seem to support their precious theory, and ignore anything that throws doubt on it. Thanks for listening to my Ũ.02  ------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
The_Hiro
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 26 2000,00:29 |
|
|
(Caution: The opinions expressed in this post may be disturbing to some individuals.)Billions and billions of years? Not quite so long a period. It's generally agreed among the scientific community that life began on a time frame of 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. At any rate, I personally believe that we're the product of evolution. Naturally there's no way for me to disprove that a higher being is responsible for it all, nor is there any way for a creationist to prove the converse. And the unfalsifiability of creationism is what causes me to reject it as unscientific (Note: the falsifiability of scientific theories is a strength, not a weakness). I don't think creationism should be taught as an alternative to the theory of evolution. I think that religion has its place, but that place isn't as an explanation for the physical world. I think that the religious sphere complements science (i.e. science has nothing to say about the realm of the spiritual, the emotional, or the ethical), and should act in this capacity. The two can, and should, work together rather than against each other. As for evidence in support of evolution (from 'the mud'), to start off with there's the famous Stanley Miller experiment, in which atmospheric conditions on primordial earth were reproduced (a mixture of non-organic compounds and elements: methane, hydrogen, ammonia, water vapour) and subjected to sparks of electricity (meant to simulate lightning). Within several days amino acids were produced - the building blocks of life. Using similar methods, scientists have managed to synthesize purines and pyrimidines (constituent molecules of DNA). All this in the space of 50 years. Admittedly, none of this is conclusive, but it's something. Anyhow, if you're interested, here's an American Scientist article on the origins of life. -------------------- Hellraiser:
About science, you're correct. No theory is ever proven per se. Science isn't like math; the best that can be accomplished is to propose a theory, see whether it stands up to scrutiny, and if it fails, throw it away and try another one. To the extent that a theory stands up to repeated tests, confidence in the validity of the theory grows. AFAIK, the theory of evolution has stood up to repeated tests quite well. I think that's why it has received the stamp of approval. I am unaware of the gaps in the theory that you speak of. Please supply more details... Ok. Feel free to attack. I've braced myself for it.  P.S. I edited my post within the time frame that you posted your subsequent message. Hope this doesn't create confusion. [This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited June 25, 2000).]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
The_Hiro
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 26 2000,02:37 |
|
|
Ah. That question. "If God created everything, who created God?"
The best solution I've been able to come up with is that if God exists (s)he is not subject to the laws of causality. (S)he exists outside of time and space. (S)he just is. Time holds no meaning for God, so the idea of how (s)he came into being is meaningless. But even if you dismiss the existence of God you still have to deal with a similar paradox. How did everything begin? How did the universe come into existence? I think that it's the notion of causality that causes this paradox and why it seems unresolvable. That's my intuition at least. Btw, I'm not waffling on my orignal position. I like to mull over these problems for fun (Yes, I need to get out more). Just for the record, I'm an agnostic who leans towards atheism (i.e. I'm an agnostic on Sundays and special holidays; otherwise an atheist). And before anyone says anything, yes, I am aware that atheism is unscientific. But bitterness and cynicism have gotten the better of me. I wish I could believe; I think I'd be happier, but I'm unable to. [This message has been edited by The_Hiro (edited June 25, 2000).]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
