Evolution is NOT science: A challenge

In mathematics, you would have to use a 'finite' random system, not 'infinite'. Groud zero would be 'finite'-Big Bang. It changes everything.

You've either missed my point, or chosen to ignore it entirely.For the best, I suppose.. your posts continue to have no bearing on the thread's topic.Why don't you open new threads for some of this stuff?

When did I mention multiple universes? I'm not really sure how addressing something that was never posed does anybody any good, but I guess if it makes you happy...As far as the "oscillating model", I didn't mean to say that I necessarily thought it correct, but just that it was a theory currently out there. I think your second scenerio of contracting and expanding is more along the lines of what I was speaking of, though.

quote:

---

Super string Theory?

​

Right now, it’s just a theory whose main merits are that it’s mathematically elegant and that it holds the promise of unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity, two branches of physics that physicist have struggled to reconcile for over fifty years.

​

Without Einsteins equation and the inflating field working together harmoniously, it wouldn’t work. If the universe obeyed Newton’s theory of gravity instead of Einstein’s, it wouldn’t work.

​

You would also have to have the right background laws in place. For instance, without the so-called principle of quantization, all of the electrons in an atom would be sucked into the atomic nuclei. That would make atoms impossible. Furthermore, without the Pauli-exclusion principle, electrons would occupy the lowest orbit around the nucleus, and that would make comples atoms impossible.

---

I'm not sure where anybody mentioned Superstring Theory in this thread (though I guess I might have just skipped it/forgotten it), and I'm also not sure how it relates to anything. I'm actually about to read a book on it, though. From what I've heard and gathered from my professors though(I'm a physics major, but not in grad school yet), the hope is more along the lines of unifying all the forces (strong, weak, EM, gravitational), not unifying quantum mechanics and newtonian mechanics (which is what I assume you meant, instead of general relativity). I'm not gonna be too picky or get into any detail on the Newton/Einstien gravity thing, as it has no bearing on anything.It seems like you are just spouting a whole lot of nonsense out about whatever you choose for little reason other than trying to sound intelligent. I mean, I'm sure we're all glad you've looked into these things, but please try to stay on topic. Debating the origin of the universe has no bearing on the discussion of whether or not evolution is a science.Edit: Made a correction in my discussion of the superstring theory.This message has been edited by Glordag, 08-09-2004 05:42 AM

NOTHINGNESS, You have no idea. You lack the data with which to make a probability based argument. What is this an argument for?To make the statement above analogous with natural selection, the monkeys would retain a correct letters rather than discard them. In this way they would get Bob Shakespeare's works in the end. Consider the following.1806The chances of randomly generating the four numbers sequentially right off the bat is 10^4, or 10 thousand to one. All things being equal, we would have to generate those numbers 10 thousand times before we got it right. However, the chances of getting any one right is only 10:1, if we retain a correct number & only reroll the wrong ones, then we would get 1806 after only 10 rolls of the dice (on average). This is how NS works, it retains the "good" mutations, discards & rerolls the rest. See the Hall 1982 citation last post. I just walked outside & noted the first cars registration that went past. It was X567 P3Y. The odds of that occurring are 26*10*10*10*26*10*26 = 175,760,000 : 1 You'll never guess what? The next car had a registration of W777 Q7W. The odds of those two cars coming past with those registrations are 175,760,000^2 =
30,891,577,600,000,000 : 1 !But so what? Two cars were going to pass me, & the odds of any given combination is always going to be astronomical. You see your problem, had you predicted the universe as being the way it is, then you'd have a point, but after the event statistics without predictions are meaningless. And that has yet to happen. And the evidence that they did continues to grow. The rest of your post continues to make the same after the event probablistic arguments that I counter above. If a universe is going to occur, even a very different one to ours, then you are going to be able to make exactly the same after-the-event arguments you make here, & they would be equally meaningless.So, do you have any evidence that supports your "divine" hypothesis that doesn't fall into any given logical pit? I cited Barry Hall's lac operon which represents astronomical odds of occurring using your logic, but is just a matter of time with random mutation & natural selection.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

If you look at evolutionist literature, and evolutionists activists on this forum, you can see that they generally don't have a coolheaded factual approach to the controversy one might expect from scientists, or science enthusiasts.

---

You've never been to a scientific conference, have you? Ever been to a scientific presentation that contradicts a current paradigm? I am sorry, but scientists are not cool headed, but they are factual.

quote:

---

If I were to for instance debate someone who believes in a flat earth, or that the sun goes around the earth, I couldn't imagine I would be so arrogrant, selfrighteous, sanctimonious as evolutionists many times are on this board. (.....but maybe I don't know myself that well here, maybe it might be very frustrating to debate a flat earther)

---

But you do act sanctimonious while misquoting and misrepresenting Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene". Continually asserting falsities is the epitomy of selfrighteousness, whether you want to believe it or not. Continually redefining scientific terms to fit your argument is the epitomy of arrogance.

quote:

---

The eiffel tower is higher then londonbridge, what does that create? Since you say differential reproductive success creates things, why wouldn't differential building height create things as well?

---

And it is this type of ignorance that rankles us most. The Eiffel tower and the London Bridge do no reproduce themselves and so they can not be used as an analogy. And also, differential building height causes a difference in length.

quote:

---

As offered before in this thread, an alternative "natural" explanation to evolution, is to trace back the appearance of some organism to the events at which they became likely to appear later on.

---

If God "created" the natural laws, and those natural laws include evolution, then what is the difference? Wouldn't it be possible to deny the existence of the supernatural and still be correct in describing nature?

quote:

---

This creationist approach allows for evolution theory to be true, but trivializes it's significance.

---

So you wouldn't have a problem with science if they started all of their meetings with the Lord's Prayer?

quote:

---

Evolution does deal with the origins of life. Thats why theres such areas of evolution called chemical evolution. And prebiotic evolution.

---

Right, and neither one of those are BIOLOGICAL evolution.There's also stellar evolution, cosmological evolution, the evolution of language, of culture, of ethics, of religion, etc...BIOLOGICAL evolutionary theory deals with the change in alelle frequencies in a population over time.It begins with life ALREADY HERE.Now, please indicate in your reply that you understand and will therefore not use this argument again.

Boy, I am sorry I missed this one.
I didn't read the whole thread, so I don't know if this was addressed or not. By definition having faith is believing in something for which there is no proof.So if you believe in evolution, you have faith in it, period. Thats fine. If you center your life beliefs around that thought, then it becomes your religion. No need for proof.Only a good scientist would agree with me.

quote:

---

By definition having faith is believing in something for which there is no proof.

---

Not quite. Faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence. I don't have proof that everytime I step on the brakes in my car that the car will actually stop, but I do have previous experience as evidence. Would you call faith in my brakes the same as faith in God? Is the faith in my brakes warranted? Is the same faith in a scientific theory that has proved it's trustworthiness in the same way as my brakes the same as a faith in an untestable and unevidenced God? I would argue that scientists accept evolution because it is trustworthy in it's past record and in it's predictions. I would argue that christians believe in God in the absence of objective data, but instead rely on their emotions and coincidences.

quote:

---

So if you believe in evolution, you have faith in it, period.

---

My "faith" in evolution comes from evidenciary support and the track record of the theory. I do not have faith in evolution to prop up any philosophical tenets or moral codes.

quote:

---

If you center your life beliefs around that thought, then it becomes your religion. No need for proof.

---

I will agree with this statement. If you form your life around a scientific theory you have risen it to the level of religion. There is no evidence or proof that evolution should guide morals or lifestyles. By structuring your life around evolution you are doing so in the absence of evidence. However, I no more shape my life around evolution than I do any other scientific theory such as gravity, quantum mechanics, or the laws of thermodynamics.

That is certainly one definition of faith, although looking at dictionary.com it says 'proof or material evidence', it is not however the only definition and not all of them rely on an absence of proof/ evidence.It also doesn't logically follow that believing in something means having faith in it, unless you can demonstrate that there is no material evidence for that belief.TTFN,WK

You mean these Dawkins quotes?"We no longer have to resort to superstition when faced with the deep problems: Is there a meaning to life? What are we for? What is man?""My purpose is to examine the biology of selfishness and altruism. Apart from its academic interest, the human importance of this subject is obvious. It touches every aspect of our social lives, our loving and hating, fighting and cooperating, giving and stealing, our
greed and our generosity.""This gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behavior.""Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish."Nothing found for Dawkins Work Books Selfpage Shtmlregards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You cannot prove your brakes work, until you actually step on them.
Because you believe they work doen't mean that sometimes, people actually atep on them and they don't work and you crash.So its faith.
Bad analagyMain Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Then people have changes the meaning of the word faith.
Either way it's not proven yet. So there is an element of faith.
Like so many other scientific things, it could very well change.
Kepping that in mind is the important thing.
Basing your life belief's around evolution is wrong IMO. Or using evolution to disprove God is wrong. We have established that on this forum already.

quote:

---

Then people have changes the meaning of the word faith.
Either way it's not proven yet. So there is an element of faith.

---

NO NO NO.There is no more an element of faith in accepting the Theory of Evolution as accepting the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System, the Germ Theory of Disease, Gravitational Theory or the Atomic Theory of Matter.It is true that the ToE is not 100% "proven", but then neither is any other theory in science, including all of the above.Do you believe there is an element of faith to accept that matter is made of atoms, that germs cause disease, and that the sun is the center of our solar system?Yes or no?

quote:

---

Like so many other scientific things, it could very well change.

---

No.Like ALL other scientific theories, it could change.The problem you have is that the ToE is extremely well-supported by 150 years of constant testing.It would be as silly to think that there is a lot of "faith" required to accept the ToE as it would be to say that there is a lot of faith required to accept the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System.There's just too much evidence stacked up in favor of the ideas.

quote:

---

Kepping that in mind is the important thing.

---

Sure, but do you "keep that in mind" for every other scientific theory as well?Do you doubt that germs cause disease, or that the sun is the center of the solar system becasue information just might come in that shows these ideas to be completely false?You would if you were to be intellectually honest and consistent.

quote:

---

Basing your life belief's around evolution is wrong IMO. Or using evolution to disprove God is wrong. We have established that on this forum already.

---

Well, sure it's wrong. Good thing that's not what scientists do, nor what the theory claims.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-13-2004 09:47 AM

quote:

---

You cannot prove your brakes work, until you actually step on them.
Because you believe they work doen't mean that sometimes, people actually atep on them and they don't work and you crash.
So its faith.
Bad analagy

---

I said that when I step on my brakes I EXPECT them to work. I have faith because of previous experimentation and observation. If they don't work, I know it is not because of the brake design but because the design broke down. I have faith in this statement because of previous observations and experimentation. Now, is this type of faith the same as faith in a supernatural deity? I would argue NO. Faith in God is faith in the absence of evidence. These are two different types of faith which is why they are listed separately in your dictionary reference (especially " firm belief in something for which there is no proof"). Do I exhibit faith when I pitch a softball in the air and expect it to arc back to home plate? Am I a religious softball player?

Yes, it is not proven, so it is faith.
2+2=4, that is proven, and it is not faith anymore.
The Sun is indeed yellow in color, so it is proven, not faith.
The sun does not exactly sit in the exact center of our solar system, yet for years they believed it did, so they had faith in it.I don't care how much evidence there is, the words theory and faith go hand in hand. If you belive in it, you are putting your faith in it.
If you believe it is an unproven theory, then you are not putting your faith in it.Its pretty simple. If that were only true.