Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9042 total)
77 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr, PaulK (3 members, 74 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,100 Year: 3,746/14,102 Month: 51/315 Week: 51/131 Day: 1/50 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The future of Creationism and mankind's intellectual evolution.
dsv
Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 16 of 30 (221334)
07-02-2005 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Fluke
07-02-2005 11:45 AM


Creation "Science"?
This is OT. Please do not respond to this post

Wow, this is an old topic you're replying to. There are probably better topics where we could discuss this.

Anyhow,

I belive creation science has more going for it than evolution.

i have numerous example...

OK, what exactly does creation science have going for it? Let's hear the numerous examples.

If you believe in evolution, could you tell me in what order did organs come about.

That's about a six million page reply. Could you be more specific, perhaps pick an evolutionary line to concentrate on. Generally we say the start is archea, eukaryota and bacteria with the origins focusing on macromolecules and RNA. Getting from there to the current state of the human body would take a very very long time and many a hypothesis are involved.

There are, however, many studies going on currently that tackle this.

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-02-2005 11:08 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Fluke, posted 07-02-2005 11:45 AM Fluke has not yet responded

  
Fluke
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 30 (221337)
07-02-2005 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Chiroptera
07-02-2005 11:51 AM


the new guy
ok, i'm new here. i was off topic, i'll respond to the original topic.

As i said, I beilieve creation science has more going for it than evolution. there are many flaws in the evolution theory. natural selection/mutations being the main one. Creationism will never go away. it may get hidden by evolutionist science editors of magazines by not letting them publisg their findings. Which i think is unscientific, they should be looking at ALL theories to find the best one.

The only reason why creation science will go is if God wills it and the world becomes so bad that no one reads or does anything to do with God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Chiroptera, posted 07-02-2005 11:51 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by dsv, posted 07-02-2005 12:36 PM Fluke has not yet responded
 Message 19 by hitchy, posted 07-03-2005 12:25 AM Fluke has not yet responded

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 18 of 30 (221340)
07-02-2005 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Fluke
07-02-2005 12:22 PM


Re: the new guy
it may get hidden by evolutionist science editors of magazines by not letting them publisg their findings.

Why would science magazines publish articles about unscientific research or theories with no supporting evidence?

At any rate, I think this tangent is still somewhat off-topic because it's going to get into the how and why of scientific research and the lack of experimentation and observation in regards to creationist theories like Intelligent Design. I don't know, I'll wait for an admin to advise perhaps.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Fluke, posted 07-02-2005 12:22 PM Fluke has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by hitchy, posted 07-03-2005 12:32 AM dsv has not yet responded

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 4058 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 19 of 30 (221403)
07-03-2005 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Fluke
07-02-2005 12:22 PM


Re: the new guy
What flaws? Are you refering to the "tornado in a junkyard" bashing of mutations? Could you be refering to the antiquated "natural selection only acts like a sieve" argument? Just asking. Take care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Fluke, posted 07-02-2005 12:22 PM Fluke has not yet responded

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 4058 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 20 of 30 (221405)
07-03-2005 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by dsv
07-02-2005 12:36 PM


Religions will always bluster...
...but science will continue to enlighten us regardless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by dsv, posted 07-02-2005 12:36 PM dsv has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3839 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 21 of 30 (221416)
07-03-2005 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dsv
02-11-2005 11:21 AM


in response to the 1st post
I have not read the thread, but in response to the first post, and maybe others have addressed this, I really don't think belief in ToE is all that important to the intellectual advancement of mankind and I can see some ways it is extremely overly primitive and dangerous to mankind's intellectual advancement.

One of the tenets of evolutionists is to dismiss out of hand anything they consider smacks of spiritual or metaphysical.

But it's been over 80 years now already that physics has advanced well into the metaphysical.

Take the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics and other consciousness-based models. Had physics silenced the claim of quantum physics, or of many of it's leading theorists and experimentalists, simply because they posited the need for a Universal Observer, and interaction of matter with consciousness in some fashion, then we would be shutting down where the evidence seems to lead to.

Note: I realize the other alternative theory of late are waves that move backwards in time, and I am not dismissing that, although I think the consciousness-based models of explaining the collapsing of the wave function are probably the dominant explanation in quantum physics, from what I have read.

Regardless, evolutionary theory seems to rest in part by insisting on false assumptions of what science can address and what constitutes "material" or the physical world.

In that regard, it is overly primitive in it's current state and will probably be forced at some point to modify along the lines of some sort of ID theory, which takes into account what was once termed "spiritual" interactions as real forces acting in reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dsv, posted 02-11-2005 11:21 AM dsv has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 07-03-2005 8:18 AM randman has responded
 Message 27 by dsv, posted 07-03-2005 11:12 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 30 (221422)
07-03-2005 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by randman
07-03-2005 2:54 AM


Re: in response to the 1st post
quote:
Take the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics and other consciousness-based models.

Hello, randman.

The copenhagen interpretation is not a conscious-based model. The only "conscious-based models" I have heard of are advocated by New Age advocates, but these are definitely not mainstream science.

The confusion here is understandable. The Copenhagen interpretation (and other hypotheses) speak of an "observation" causing the collapse of the wave function. "Observation" clearly brings up the idea of a conscious observer, but very, very few physicists really believe that consciousness is required to bring about the collapse of a wave function.

No one knows why or when a wave function collapses into a particular state. "Observation" is simply the term used to describe this event, but no one really knows what actually constitutes an "observation". Roger Penrose in The Emperor's New Mind gives a sketch of some of his ideas on this, but it appeared to me to be incomplete.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 07-03-2005 2:54 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 07-04-2005 2:45 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 30 (221429)
07-03-2005 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by joshua221
03-03-2005 6:10 PM


Death of Literature
Bestsellers like the ones by by Hesse, Bradbury, cease to be produced, American novelists as prolific as Steinbeck or Angelou aren't here. Lifestyles have changed from respecable to utter laziness.

The decline in the reading of literature has been well documented by studies done by the Modern Language Association. Now that in itself would not be so troubling, since what interests people as regards the arts is always changing. Literature in the traditional sense is dying out. If the decline in reading such things as novels were being replaced by some other kind of reading, that would not be troubling; it might even be a good thing. But the decline in reading is a general phenomenon across all fields, not just literature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by joshua221, posted 03-03-2005 6:10 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by robinrohan, posted 07-03-2005 10:34 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 30 (221437)
07-03-2005 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by robinrohan
07-03-2005 9:34 AM


Re: Death of Literature
I might add that one exception in the decline of reading literature is that there has been upsurge in religiose fiction, such as stories about the Second Coming, etc.

This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-03-2005 09:34 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by robinrohan, posted 07-03-2005 9:34 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by CK, posted 07-03-2005 10:53 AM robinrohan has responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 3068 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 25 of 30 (221440)
07-03-2005 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by robinrohan
07-03-2005 10:34 AM


Re: Death of Literature
That would seem to be an american condition - people would look blankly at you if you mentioned "left behind" or any other of the jesus-lit stuff that is out there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by robinrohan, posted 07-03-2005 10:34 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by robinrohan, posted 07-03-2005 10:56 AM CK has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 30 (221441)
07-03-2005 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by CK
07-03-2005 10:53 AM


Re: Death of Literature
Glad to hear that, Charles.

Mighty vulgar stuff it is, too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by CK, posted 07-03-2005 10:53 AM CK has not yet responded

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 27 of 30 (221442)
07-03-2005 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by randman
07-03-2005 2:54 AM


Re: in response to the 1st post
But it's been over 80 years now already that physics has advanced well into the metaphysical.

There are definitely some metaphysical or even spiritual fringe theories out there. I still hold these as paths though. Scientific theories evolve, they're worked on, studied, experimented, observed. Where, in contrast, Christian creationism and Biblical Genesis is a singularity in itself with nothing else to "discover" -- it's both the beginning and the end.

Therein lies the problem with advancing a technological society based on those principles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by randman, posted 07-03-2005 2:54 AM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3839 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 30 (221588)
07-04-2005 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Chiroptera
07-03-2005 8:18 AM


Re: in response to the 1st post
I am not so sure of that. From what I have read, consciousness is considered necessary for observation. Maybe the Copenhagen interpretation alone does not fully address this, but certainly men like Wheeler and others have.

The idea of an extended thing sitting in a three-dimensional space, waiting for us to discover it, is revealed as another human projection, a limited image of reality, more of an echo of the way our minds work than of reality itself. According to Bohr, nature reveals this to us by showing that we can have only complementary views of reality. If we set up an experimental arrangement to view subatomic phenomena as particles, then that is what we will observe. According to Heisenberg, another major contributor to the Copenhagen Interpretation, what we observe in our experiments is not nature itself but nature exposed to our methods of questioning nature. In short, an electron is not a thing until we observe it!

http://personal.tcu.edu/~dingram/edu/pine3.html

Bohr's view was decidedly mystical: according to him,the mathematics of quantum theory implied that particles of light and matter have no real existence until they are observed.

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/worldfuz.html#Bohr

The astronomers choice of how to observe photons from the quasar here in the present apparently determines whether each photon took both paths or just one path around the gravitational lens-billions of years ago. As they approached the galactic beam splitter the photons must have had something like a premonition telling them how to behave in order to satisfy a choice to be made by unborn beings on a still nonexistent planet.
The fallacy giving rise to such speculations,Wheeler explains, is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomer observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the quasar or only one way. Actually Wheeler says quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured.

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html

Also, I would agree that it is not clear that consciousness or just the ability for something to be observed is what causes or leads to the wave collapsing.

Instead their goal is to lay bare the curious reality of the quantum realm. "For me, the main purpose of doing experiments is to show people how strange quantum physics is," says Anton Zeilinger of the University of Innsbruck, who is both a theorist and experimentalist ."Most physicists are very naive; most still believe in real waves or particles."

Yet even this deliberately abstract language contains some misleading implications. One is that measurement requires direct physical intervention. Physicists often explain the uncertainty principle in this way:in measuring the position of a quantum entity, one inevitably blocks it off its course, losing information about its direction and about its phase, the relative position of its crests and troughs.

Most experiments do in fact involve intrusive measurements. For example, blocking one path or the other or moving detectors close to the slits obviously disturbs the photons passage in the two-slit experiment as does placing a detector along one route of the delayed-choice experiment. But an experiment done last year by Mandel's team at the University of Rochester shows that a photon can be forced to switch from wavelike to particlelike behaviour by something much more subtle than direct intervention.

...
Now comes the odd part. The signal photons and the idler photons, once emitted by the down-converters, never again cross paths; they proceed to their respective detectors independently of each other. Nevertheless, simply by blocking the path of one set of idler photons, the researchers destroy the interference pattern of the signal photons. What has changed?
The answer is that the observer's potential knowledge has changed. He can now determine which route the signal photons took to their detector by comparing their arrival times with those of the remaining, unblocked idlers. The original photon can no longer go both ways at the beam splitter, like a wave, but must either bounce off or pass through like a particle.

The comparison of arrival times need not actually be performed to destroy the interference pattern. The mere "threat" of obtaining information about which way the photon travelled, Mandel explains, forces it to travel only one route. "The quantum state reflects not only what we know about the system but what is in principle knowable," Mandel says.

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html

Clearly the two slit experiments, for the first time in physics, indicates that there is a much deeper relationship between the observer and the phenomenon, at least at the subatomic level. This is an extreme break from the idea of an objective reality or one where the laws of Nature have a special, Platonic existence.

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec08.html

It appears to me the form of the physical world we call reality does not actually exist without conscious observation of it, and that this a basic fundamental principle in quantum physics, at least for most of the 20th century.

Now, I know the avoidance attitude sometimes expressed as "shut up and calculate" may predominate most physicists, but certainly not all, and it doesn't appear those that avoid the issue have really challenged it, except those advocating the transverse waves, multi-worlds, and other hypotheses, but most physicists don't work on this side of things probably.

This message has been edited by randman, 07-04-2005 02:47 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 07-03-2005 8:18 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by CK, posted 07-04-2005 7:19 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Brad McFall, posted 07-05-2005 8:59 AM randman has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 3068 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 29 of 30 (221612)
07-04-2005 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by randman
07-04-2005 2:45 AM


Re: in response to the 1st post
You have linked to one site that is a bloke selling what appears to be a self-published book and two that think "new Scientist" is a magazine worth citing.

Got any sources with anything approaching credibility? Something meaty from anyone actually considered an expert in the area?

This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 04-Jul-2005 07:20 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 07-04-2005 2:45 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3973 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 30 of 30 (221867)
07-05-2005 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by randman
07-04-2005 2:45 AM


observed pluivocally
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=487&m=135#135 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=487&m=135#135">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=487&m=135#135

The octopus need not be conscious of all of this. I have not developed ideas on "two slits" back to a prior EVC ID disscussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 07-04-2005 2:45 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021