this isnt on topic but Deviant:Scripter whaen you had your signiture having a link to your site did it make your google standing go up?
WOW Geze! That’s freakin’ ironic!
Just before I came to this forum and read your post, I had just finished reading all about Google’s PageRanking system and how it works. I was researching it to find out how to get my page listed higher. LOL, too weird for me. :P
Anyways, it probably didn’t make my site go any higher. Only six people clicked on that link from my signature. :wink:
I was one of them, and its not how many times u click its how many links u have, isnt it?
Yes, I think it’s the quantity of links, but I also think it’s the quality of them also. If the page that is linking to you has a better ranking than you do, I think it helps your ranking go up.
So…get that link on the front page of Microsoft.com and your site should skyrocket on Google. :P
BTW guys, want to know something really funny? Go to Yahoo.com and do a search for “search engine”. You’d be surprised at what the #1 result is. :lol: (Alright, I guess that isn’t quite fair, because Yahoo isn’t actually a search engine. :) )
@Deviant:Scripter:
So…get that link on the front page of Microsoft.com and your site should skyrocket on Google. :P
Ya, I think for a day or longer last year if you typed in “go to hell” in google the first site on the list was ‘Microsoft.com’
Don’t tell me I get the last word on this one. I thought evolution was so compelling?
Don’t tell me I get the last word on this one. I thought evolution was so compelling?
The evolution vs creation debate is dead, we won’t return to fixism even if integrists are trying very hard. It’s not very interesting…
I do not have to work in science to know that science is not defined by creating the “best” theory.
Yes, you can never be sure of something, the role of science is giving us tool, on the form of laws, to explain how X react. The objective is to make a laws close to reality. You should read Popper. Science have not the truth, it’s the objective, we will always be closer. Evolution is the only theory that can explain why we have a species at time X, and another, with little differences, at time X + 2. Like i said with science like genetics we know new materials can be added, and we have observed the phenomena of micro-evolution. We know it is possible. It’s a very logical theory.
If a theory is untestable, it is not possible to falsify it. See the difference?
If the premisse are true and the inference logical; the conclusion is true. You cannot “test” evolution directly, but you can indirectly; you can test the mecanism of evolution. Mutation does happen. Micro-evolution does happen. We can trace history of species (with precise dating) and Natural Selection does happen, so what is illogical in this theory ? look at the parts, the indirect proof, interpretation, scientific laws (genetics), and the whole, then explain me that please, with a scientific and logical method, why this is not a valid theory, and if you can is there an alternative ? How can we explain that ? (Note that i know you don’t neccesarly need to give a new theory to falsify evolution).
Okay, so if I add up all of your individual indirect proofs which I showed were either neutral proofs or not proofs at all, you have no proof at on the side of evolution. I do not see how looking at them collectively or individually helps the case for evolution. You are trying to impose a synergistic effect on indirect proofs that even individually provide no proof. What am I missing here to create my serious error?
Fin, you keep referring to generalities. How about providing some examples which has shown evolution to correct.
You showed nothing, if i have time and patiente i will answer to your rebuttal…
About “generalities” the theory of complexity state that a system cannot be divide, you have to understand the whole system and the connection between the elements, a system is more than the sum of it’s part you should know that, i can give you good reference if you want.
You said yourself when i spoke of vertigial organs “Vestigial organs - This is an argument created to dispute the theory of creation”. First of all, “god” can be a philosophical theory, but creation is’nt a scientific theory. Second; You said we are finding the use of what we think was vestigal organs, yes, i can take that (note that this time YOU have a theory with incomplete data, i have nothing against that but you do, you should argue with you about that), but the problem is that we know what’s their use, look at the caecum, it’s not that we don’t know what’s the use of it, we do, other herbivore mammals does have it. The horse have vestigial too of ancients fingers in their legs. It’s not like “Hey wow we don’t know what’s that it’s vestigial”
Natural selection is set up either as a tautology, a special definition or even a lame definition. None of these are science
Two words; Historical sciences. For you Lamarck’s “theory” was science (it was base purely on intuition, no real value), but now it seem evolution is not science. Strange. Also a tautology would be; Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive. THAT is tautology, but i really don’t see that in evolution, sorry but tautology is about logic, it’s a circular logical fallacies if you prefer. I really wonder where you take all this stuff like Tautology and Thermodynamics. Anyway…
Fin-
The evolution-creation debate is only dead in your mind. The debate is very much alive. Until evolutionists are able to show some actual evidence for evolution and define evolution in a way that can actually be tested, it is not proven. At this point evolution is more of a dogma.
It is interesting that you bring up Popper. He was the one who said that in order for something to be considered science, it muse be falsifiable. Evolution is not science by his standards.
Evolution is not the only means of explaining why we have variations between species. Biblical creationists expect to see variations as well. Natural selection and mutations fit very well (are actually required) in the biblical creation model. However, there are major differences in how evolution and creation use them.
Evolution as you correctly state, says that natural selection and mutations add information.
Biblical creation states that natural selection and mutations result in either a loss of information or no change in information present.
The key is that only one of these models is consistent with what has been found through other scientific fields; specifically population genetics and biology. I find it troubling that you make the following claim:
Like i said with science like genetics we know new materials can be added, and we have observed the phenomena of micro-evolution.
In all of the research that has been done with population genetics, there is not instance noted that a mutation has created new genetic information. I would appreciate it if you could provide a source which contradicts this.
Before I agree on micro-evolution, we must first agree on the definition. Micro-evolution is really only variation within a species. It is not the addition of new information. It is the re-arrangement or loss of existing genetic information. All the examples that evolutions provide as proofs for evolution are really only examples of these variations (moths, finches, dogs, flies, bacteria, etc.). That being said, yes micro-evoultion does occur. However, there is no evidence available that shows macro-evolution is possible. If evolution is defined as the creation of new genetic information (which it must), in a sense, the term micro-evolution is really a misnomer.
If the premisse are true and the inference logical; the conclusion is true. You cannot “test” evolution directly, but you can indirectly; you can test the mecanism of evolution. Mutation does happen. Micro-evolution does happen. We can trace history of species (with precise dating) and Natural Selection does happen, so what is illogical in this theory ? look at the parts, the indirect proof, interpretation, scientific laws (genetics), and the whole, then explain me that please, with a scientific and logical method, why this is not a valid theory, and if you can is there an alternative ? How can we explain that ?
Nowhere have I written that natural selection and mutations do not happen. As I have shown you above, evolution requires the addition of new genetic information. Since natural selection and mutations do not do this, how are these indirect proofs? Micro-evolution does not show evolution. It only shows variation between species. Where are the irrefutable intermediates?
I am very curious on your take of the exact history of species. Scientists are hard pressed to show any lineage. The fossil record shows species showing up, fully formed without intermediates. Which dating methods are you referring to? Many of the dating methods scientists have found actually show the age of the earth to have a maximum life much shorter than the billions of years proposed by evolutionists.
Something to keep in mind here is that the evidence that evolutionists are trying to use does not speak for itself. It has to be interpreted. Evolutionists attempt to interpret the data with a naturalistic, if not atheistic mindset. This in itself puts a bias on any work done. The same data can also be interpreted by a creation scientist in a way that makes logical sense. However, in many of the instances I have read about, including the ones mentioned above regarding natural selection and mutations, creation science actually makes more sense. Please re-read the part on mutations if you disagree.
About “generalities” the theory of complexity state that a system cannot be divide, you have to understand the whole system and the connection between the elements, a system is more than the sum of it’s part you should know that, i can give you good reference if you want.
I am sorry, when I referred to generalities, I was trying to address you point on natural selection and mutations. I was looking for examples. I agree that the theory of evolution is very complex.
First of all, “god” can be a philosophical theory, but creation is’nt a scientific theory
Why is creation-science not scientific? Are you going to tell me it is not because it is not falsifiable? Remember, evolutionists claim that their theory is better because it is science and creation-science is not. I think they both stand on the same grounds – interpretation of data through a dogma.
Second; You said we are finding the use of what we think was vestigal organs, yes, i can take that (note that this time YOU have a theory with incomplete data, i have nothing against that but you do, you should argue with you about that), but the problem is that we know what’s their use, look at the caecum, it’s not that we don’t know what’s the use of it, we do, other herbivore mammals does have it. The horse have vestigial too of ancients fingers in their legs. It’s not like “Hey wow we don’t know what’s that it’s vestigial”
The whole reason that evolutionists used the vestigal organ argument was to try and show imperfect design. You listed it as an indirect proof for evolution. I stated why it is not. Vestigal organs are a good example of an evolutionary claim shown to be incorrect. I am not sure where you are going with the complete and incomplete data thing. I never said that vestigal organs make the theory of evolution incomplete.
Two words; Historical sciences. For you Lamarck’s “theory” was science (it was base purely on intuition, no real value), but now it seem evolution is not science. Strange.
I am not sure why this thing with Lamarck keeps coming up. I said that Lamarck’s theory and research was science at the time because his theory was based on ideas that could be tested and potentially proven false. It was subsequently proven false and is thus today, not considered science. I do not think that the theory of evolution is testable like the Lamarck’s theory. You are trying to compare apples and oranges in terms of falsibility.
Also a tautology would be; Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive. THAT is tautology, but i really don’t see that in evolution, sorry but tautology is about logic, it’s a circular logical fallacies if you prefer. I really wonder where you take all this stuff like Tautology and Thermodynamics.
First of all, I have never used Thermodynamics in any of my arguments. I am still reading into the law(s) and how it relates to the evolution-creation debate. F_alk was the one who injected it into this thread.
Thank you for giving everyone the definition of a tautology. I agree with your definition. What I said in a previous post about natural selection is:
Natural selection is set up either as a tautology, a special definition or even a lame definition. None of these are science.
I said it is usually set up as one of those three things. I did not say it was always set up as a tautology. I have read many quotes by leading evolutionists that state natural selection as a tautology. Also, I never said that a tautology is not logical. It is logical by definition. A great example of a tautology is: A table is a table. Evolution needs logic that explains something, not self-defining.
What I was trying to get at in the previous post was that it is nearly impossible to state the mechanism of natural selection in a way that is science. Any of those three makes the explanation non-science.
It is interesting that you bring up Popper. He was the one who said that in order for something to be considered science, it muse be falsifiable. Evolution is not science by his standards.
Popper was a great mind. It’s true that somewhere in his live he believe evolution was not science but he change his mind. He said in a letter to New Scientist;
“… some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested”
“I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological.”
Evolution is not the only means of explaining why we have variations between species. Biblical creationists expect to see variations as well. Natural selection and mutations fit very well (are actually required) in the biblical creation model. However, there are major differences in how evolution and creation use them.
Evolution as you correctly state, says that natural selection and mutations add information.
Biblical creation states that natural selection and mutations result in either a loss of information or no change in information present.
The key is that only one of these models is consistent with what has been found through other scientific fields; specifically population genetics and biology. I find it troubling that you make the following claim:
The bible does’nt speak of evolution, it speak of myth and creation, there’s a big difference, and if you start making reference to god and the bible i think there’s no need to debate, you see you are at a point where you can kill for god, i really doupt anything can change your mind. And you dodge my question; why there’s a species at X, and an other at X + 2 with some difference, i gave you the exemple of the horse.
About my claim; it’s false that new material cannot be added, you forget about duplication and polyploïdy, where the genome get larger. And that we can sequenced DNA we can look before and after to see if there’s new material.
Something to keep in mind here is that the evidence that evolutionists are trying to use does not speak for itself. It has to be interpreted. Evolutionists attempt to interpret the data with a naturalistic, if not atheistic mindset. This in itself puts a bias on any work done.
There is sure a naturalistic mindset. Evolution in science was made when we remplace “god did this” by “this is how it work”. Religion has no place in science, sure it’s naturalistic, we won’t try to speak to all schizophreniac, shaman, priest and monk before making a theory. And the bias in science exist (socio-cultural), but not as much as religion. Because scientist look for facts to make a theory, creationist have the “truth”, they only search for facts to consolidate their theory, and you call the naturalistic approach biased ? It’s not you that brign up the thermodynamic argument in the first place ?
The same data can also be interpreted by a creation scientist in a way that makes logical sense. However, in many of the instances I have read about, including the ones mentioned above regarding natural selection and mutations, creation science actually makes more sense. Please re-read the part on mutations if you disagree.
And it could be taken by any theory involving an all-powerfull being. I can invent a theory about a drunk god and it will be at least as much accurate as the bible and as much plausible. Like the finn believe it was from the blood of a trool, when it involve super-power it’s impossible to say who is right. Seriously i don’t care about creation “scientist”, the oxymoron is so big.
Why is creation-science not scientific? Are you going to tell me it is not because it is not falsifiable? Remember, evolutionists claim that their theory is better because it is science and creation-science is not. I think they both stand on the same grounds interpretation of data through a dogma.
Creation-science is not scientific because THEY HAVE THE “ANSWER”, they just look for facts. It’s not how it is supposed to work. About “dogma”… No, dogma does not make people change their theory, evolution change a lots ! Creation-science did not change, this is why creation-science is dogma, and evolution is not, scientist look for facts and they make their theory a little more accurate, creation-scientific does not care about science, they’ll come with any kind of escuse, thermodynamic, the light is getting slower, carbone 14 does not work out et cetera…
The whole reason that evolutionists used the vestigal organ argument was to try and show imperfect design. You listed it as an indirect proof for evolution. I stated why it is not. Vestigal organs are a good example of an evolutionary claim shown to be incorrect. I am not sure where you are going with the complete and incomplete data thing. I never said that vestigal organs make the theory of evolution incomplete.
Incomplete because you said we found out new use of these vestigial. But we did’nt for some, and you are making abstraction of the facts that some vertigial are on some other species where we know their use, and that vestigial when we speak of bone is even more credible.
Also, I never said that a tautology is not logical. It is logical by definition.
Tautology is about “logic”, but it’s an illogical argument/definition.
Ahem…
The evolution-creation debate is only dead in your mind. The debate is very much alive. Until evolutionists are able to show some actual evidence for evolution and define evolution in a way that can actually be tested, it is not proven. At this point evolution is more of a dogma.
It is alive in America, dead in europe.
Second: you want proof for evolution all the time, at the same time you deny proof for creation….
Evolution as you correctly state, says that natural selection and mutations add information.
Did Fin mention “add information”? Doesn’t sound like him at all.
Biblical creation states that natural selection and mutations result in either a loss of information or no change in information present.
Which means that the most complex organism had to be existing from the start? Or how can they appear later?
In all of the research that has been done with population genetics, there is not instance noted that a mutation has created new genetic information. I would appreciate it if you could provide a source which contradicts this.
multi-resistant bacteriae
Before I agree on micro-evolution, we must first agree on the definition. Micro-evolution is really only variation within a species. It is not the addition of new information. It is the re-arrangement or loss of existing genetic information. All the examples that evolutions provide as proofs for evolution are really only examples of these variations (moths, finches, dogs, flies, bacteria, etc.). That being said, yes micro-evoultion does occur. However, there is no evidence available that shows macro-evolution is possible. If evolution is defined as the creation of new genetic information (which it must), in a sense, the term micro-evolution is really a misnomer.
I can agree with the above. But: re-arrangement of genetic material can lead to a gain in “information”. That is simple statistics.
I do not agree on your “evolution is defined as the creation of new genetic information”… in an older post you said:
Natural selection as defined by Darwin is not the same thing as survival differential and gene frequencies. … The theory of evolution does not use population genetics as a major foundational stone.
If you say that “evolution is about creating new genetic information”, then i say “multi-resistant bacteria are proof of evolution, even if i don’t create a new species i can add information”. If you then say “evolution does not use population genetics” then i ask you how it then can require new genetic information?
Nowhere have I written that natural selection and mutations do not happen. As I have shown you above, evolution requires the addition of new genetic information.
“show” and “claim”/“state”/“define” are two totally unrelated things.
Since natural selection and mutations do not do this, how are these indirect proofs? Micro-evolution does not show evolution. It only shows variation between species. Where are the irrefutable intermediates?
mutations and micro evolutions testibly add new information: you can add the information of “how to survive in a hostile environment” or the likes.
When are you allowed to talk of two different species anyway? Are all bacteriae belonging to the same species?
Something to keep in mind here is that the evidence that evolutionists are trying to use does not speak for itself. It has to be interpreted.
But the bible, the basis for all creationists, does not have to be interpreted?
Evolutionists attempt to interpret the data with a naturalistic, if not atheistic mindset. This in itself puts a bias on any work done. The same data can also be interpreted by a creation scientist in a way that makes logical sense.
At least the evolutionists need to interprete one set of data less (which is the bible of course). Should i mention Occam’s Razor for a change? And why does the interpretation done by creationists not add any bias?
If you accuse one side of being something, you should look wether this counts for the other side as well.
About creation and evolution as such you said:
I think they both stand on the same grounds – interpretation of data through a dogma.
I can agree on that. My dogma is “Science”, yours is “Faith”, so to say. I just hate to mix them up. One has nothing to do with the other. Unfortunately, may people of the “faith”-side claim they are a “fact”-side, and come up with things they call “science” as well. If they are then proven wrong (conditional sentence), they will usually claim the others missed a point and are “more wrong”.
First of all, I have never used Thermodynamics in any of my arguments. I am still reading into the law(s) and how it relates to the evolution-creation debate. F_alk was the one who injected it into this thread.
I apologize for that. But it was done to take out that argument before it would inevitably have come up. Read the other threads about this topic and you will see that it does come up.
What I was trying to get at in the previous post was that it is nearly impossible to state the mechanism of natural selection in a way that is science.
How i understood you:
Well, you don’t accept micro-genetics to add information, you define “micro-genetics” by “inside one species” and"new information is created" by “a new species appears” (or something close to that, that’s how i understood you anyway), therefore you do not allow the mechanisms of micro-genetics to play a role in evolution. Above you even denied that evolution is about genetics at all.
That i disagree with that should be obvious.
Fin already did answer most of this, and i already used a quote from here, but anyway:
I do not have to work in science to know that science is not defined by creating the “best” theory. Science is about truth.
Is mathematics a science?
Did you know that by Gödels Incompleteness theorem there are things that are “true” but cannot be proven?
What does that make of mathematics?
There are many criteria to define science – and just obtaining the “best” theory is not one of them. There is no “hope” in science either. In order for something to be science – you must “know” something is correct. If it is not “known” it is somewhere outside of science. A hypothesis at best.
To “know” the “truth”……
That is what people not related to science think it is. Science is improving our kowledge of the world. To “know” would mean to be absolutely sure, that is 100%. But we cannot check everything to a 100%. We can come close, but never be sure. (That’s one more of the differences between “Science” and “Faith”, as i see it.)
In order for something to be science (and i think we agree on that), we must be able to check it. But then, the process of checking is science regardless of the outcome (which i think).
So, do you consider a theory, that has not been checked yet science or not?
If Newtonian Mechanics is wrong, then it is not science. I never said that would not make Newton a scientist. We are debating what defines science, not what defines a scientist.
So, something that seemed to right (like Newtonian Mechanics) at some time (until early 20th century) can change it’s status from “science” to “not science”? The only thing that changed was our ability to measure, can that define what is science?
My point of view: Newtonian Mechanics is part of science. It is valid in a certain range as a good approximation. Knowing these limitations i cannot call it “wrong”
@F_alk:
I’ll give you a gedankenexperiment:
Put some bacteria in a hostile environment (like heat, antibiotics etc). wait till 95% have died, note that time. Then put them back into a “better” environment and wait till they have reached the same strength in numbers as you had at the start.
Repeat this process a 100 times.
If you do not note a dramatic increase in the time you need to put them down to 5% survivors, then evolution is wrong.First of all this does not prove or disprove evolution – if your experiment happens this way or not. Before and after the experiment (if any bacteria survives) – you still have bacteria. In order to prove evolution you must show the creation of a new genetic materail. This experiment does no such thing.
You define evolution by creation of new genetic material, not new genetic “information”. As humans share the same genetic material as any living being (just four different bases in the DNA), you (with your opinion) have inevitably come to the conclusion that there is no evolution… Unless we find a living being that uses only two of the four that is…
You also differentiate “new information” and “new species”. Where does one stop and the other begin?
The great thing about species like bacteria is that they reproduce so quickly. Still after all of these types of experiments, we still get bacteria. You would think that after millions and millions of experiments and many mutations, that these scientists would be able to finally show evolution occurs. However, even they cannot make a new species.
If we cannot create a new species in a controlled environment, how do we expect nature to do it randomly?
Time and Statistics play a crucial role. How many specimens does the scientist have, and over what time? How many specimen does nature have and over what time?
One thing both have in common though: they kill part of the newly “born” specimen depending of their abilities.
Still, i don’t see what the notion of “controlled” and “randomly” is there.
Science just and barely has direct “control” over genetic material. Everything i mentioned above is happening the way nature does it, just the background is different. Maybe, whatever bacteriae i “create” with my experiments, they lack something so that they would never live another generation “outside” the lab (something that happens to mankind at the moment…. people wearing glasses would not have survived long in the stone age). So, i don’t see any meaning in that notion of “randomness” and “control”.
@F_alk:
Genetics is supporting Evolution, as it gives evolution the mechanism of how change can occur. Without it, evolution would stand weaker. If genetics opposed it, evolution would have failed (so, it is falsifiable, just was not).
Why is this so hard to understand? Natural selection as defined by Darwin is not the same thing as survival differential and gene frequencies. If all of a sudden our understanding of population genetics would change 180 degrees, evolution would adapt to it. The theory of evolution does not use population genetics as a major foundational stone.
I feel you contradict yourself there. Could you please explain where i seem to misunderstand you?
See as well:
The theory of evolution is not an upward climb. You yourself claim that whales have remnants of past legs. This is the type of de-evolution that I was referring to. I do not agree that whales once had legs. I do think it is possible for a species to lose features. Once again I will state, in order to show evolution, you must show the creation of NEW genetic material.
Do you say that evolution and natural selection are the same or a different thing?
If evolution is only about new information, then definition has to be flawed, as you do not allow for anything to degenerate.
On the other hand, if we both agree that degeneration is covered by any of the two “theories” of “how life came into being and developed afterwards” discussed here… then i would like to know how it is covered and explained by creationists.
Falk, what types of jumps are you suggesting? There are many evolutionists who disagree with this.
Fin called it catastrophic evolution i think. What i mean is that a sudden change in the environment leads either to extinction of a species or adaption to it in very few generations. Adaption usually happens through re-arrangement of genetic material.
Regarding marsupials:
@Wild2000:
@F_alk:
No, but why do they thrive in this isolated area, plus one(!) other area in the world (amazon rain forest), but nowhere else? Why did they die out everywhere else (remember that i already said that they once where the “ruling” mammals). What did not happen in Australia that happened in the rest of the world?
From what I have read, marsupials are in major trouble in Australia due to the introduction of dogs and some other animals. Since you agree that marsupials living in Australia does not explain evolution – it seems like discussion on this group of species is a moot point.
Hmmm…. some marsupials are in trouble, indeed. And it surely does not explain evolution. But we see evolution at work: Species are put under pressure by there environment (here man created, but anyway, they didn’t have the stress before). This all happens/ed in a very short time scale, even for human history. Let’s see wether we can manage to extinct some species, and what happens to those who survive… How they adapt to the chagne of the environment…
That is “natural selection”, and a part of evolution. If we started to poison rivers and nuitrition, it probably would be more obvious to see it wat work (by resistances etc).
I apologize for that. But it was done to take out that argument before it would inevitably have come up. Read the other threads about this topic and you will see that it does come up.
City on a Hill, Moose (as a question not an affirmation) and dIfrent does bring up the Thermodynamic “argument”. And Wild2000 i suggest you just go to an university, search in their books something about thermodynamic, and make up your mind. I doupt reading creations book will guide you, it’s totally biased and those who write book about thermodynamic does not think about killing the creationist. But you’ll see thermodynamic is lots of mathematic, it’s differential equation and statistical manipulation.
It is alive in America, dead in europe.
Ha, good, i am not completly fool.
i dont want to get in the middle of this discussion, since i have little to contribute. i do, however want to address the ‘owner’ of this post: reading darwin making you an evolutionist is like listening to elton john making you gay. especially since current theories are BASED upon darwin, but are far, far from it. and judging from the numerous grammatical errors in your post, i have a hard time believing you gained much from it (yes, i know, i type in all lowercase, thats not because i dont know better, i just like it that way). its a difficlut book. so is the bible, and i think that reading it would benefit you far more than reading darwin, even if you arent a christian. taken just for its allegorical content it is a valuable book. my $.02
What about the philosophy of evolution? Isn’t the main idea of Natural Selection about things progressing from chaos to order, an upward climb, if you will? Now, if this is so, than it is inconsistant with reality. In reality, things are going from ORder to chaos, an downward motion. For example, the sun is slowly burning out, the earth’s rotation is slowing (hence leap-year), the moon is about 1" farther from the earth ever year, etc. So, it seems to me that the philosophy of Natural Selection is not compatible with the real world.
Now I have a question for the atheist evolutionists: if there is no supernatural, and only the natural order exists, then everything is a product of chance, chaos, and chemical reactions. Indeed, to be an athiest, one must believe that there is no mind due to the fact that science has yet to locate “the mind” or “thoughts” in the brain. So, if all of our actions are the result of envirometal stimuli, then how can there be such a thing as Natural Selection?
Jacob
ps: if everthing is evolving, than how can there be such a thing as Truth? Truth cannot change, yet if evolution is true, it isn’t. If everything changes, then evolution cannot be true, because that would be an absolute, which contradicts the very nature of evolution, which is constant change.
What about the philosophy of evolution? Isn’t the main idea of Natural Selection about things progressing from chaos to order, an upward climb, if you will? Now, if this is so, than it is inconsistant with reality. In reality, things are going from ORder to chaos, an downward motion. For example, the sun is slowly burning out, the earth’s rotation is slowing (hence leap-year), the moon is about 1" farther from the earth ever year, etc. So, it seems to me that the philosophy of Natural Selection is not compatible with the real world.
Now I have a question for the atheist evolutionists: if there is no supernatural, and only the natural order exists, then everything is a product of chance, chaos, and chemical reactions. Indeed, to be an athiest, one must believe that there is no mind due to the fact that science has yet to locate “the mind” or “thoughts” in the brain. So, if all of our actions are the result of envirometal stimuli, then how can there be such a thing as Natural Selection?
Jacob
ps: if everthing is evolving, than how can there be such a thing as Truth? Truth cannot change, yet if evolution is true, it isn’t. If everything changes, then evolution cannot be true, because that would be an absolute, which contradicts the very nature of evolution, which is constant change.
despite being a absolute creationist (i.e. i believe that "in the beginning God created . . . ")
I have to concede that Natural selection has little relation to the chaos-order theory that you are suggesting. By this i mean that it is inappropriate to make one fit the other.
For one - although there is chaos in the universe, this drive to entropy might be well mitigated by the energy produced by various stars, and other energy forms (momentous, etc.).
Another is that natural selection takes advantage of a certain amount of chaos. The chaotic random change in DNA sequences allowed for by viruses as well as mechanistic faults etc.
I am not trying to shoot your argument full of holes, however as a scientist i do need to accept at the least my interpretation of scientific laws etc. The fact is that creation needs no creative logical defense anymore than God does. Jesus does not go back into the grave if logic can not prove creationism immediately and easily.
This is a good way of thinking however.
Isn’t the main idea of Natural Selection about things progressing from chaos to order, an upward climb, if you will?
No.
For example, the sun is slowly burning out, the earth’s rotation is slowing (hence leap-year), the moon is about 1" farther from the earth ever year, etc. So, it seems to me that the philosophy of Natural Selection is not compatible with the real world.
(1) the leap year is not due to the earth’s rotation slowing down, it is because of the mismatch between the yearly rotation of the earth around the sun and the daily rotation of the earth around itself.
(2)Your definition of order and chaos are pretty weird, you mix up physical and general meaning: a burned out sun would have much more order (in the general unphysical sense). The moon drifting away from the earth… disorder? Would that mean that the moon crashing into the earth would be order?
Is “order” that things stay the same all the time (general meaning), or is order a state of higher propability (like in classical statistical dynamics)… this would allow change, it would call for change once you are not in an equilibrium state. (be aware, the above is quite oversimplified physics, but nonetheless correct to a certain degree)
Now I have a question for the atheist evolutionists: if there is no supernatural, and only the natural order exists, then everything is a product of chance, chaos, and chemical reactions. Indeed, to be an athiest, one must believe that there is no mind due to the fact that science has yet to locate “the mind” or “thoughts” in the brain. So, if all of our actions are the result of envirometal stimuli, then how can there be such a thing as Natural Selection?
What has “mind”/“thoughts” to do with natural selection? And, please notice that “thoughts” have been located. We know which parts of the brains make us speak, remember on different time-scales etc.
And just because you don’t understand an extremely complex and maybe unsolvable (in the IT sense) mathematical equation does not mean it does not exist or has no answer.
ps: if everthing is evolving, than how can there be such a thing as Truth? Truth cannot change, yet if evolution is true, it isn’t. If everything changes, then evolution cannot be true, because that would be an absolute, which contradicts the very nature of evolution, which is constant change.
How do you define truth? Any definition you give, i can tear apart your argument.
Don’t assume what all atheists may consider truth or supernatural. An atheist simply does not believe in the existence of any diety. We must leave it at that. As for evolution, we’ve known for some time that Darwin’s and other’s theories are full of holes. Our acceptance and understanding of that theory (or science) must also EVOLVE with better and newer information. As for truth, this can easily be manipulated to fit one’s belief’s. What I believe is true may not agree with your truth. Who’s right? Who knows…
I know.
I AM.
:P
:D
Imagine this hypothetical: A 15 year old boy decides to sit in front of a mirror for the rest of his life to “watch” himself grow old.He NEVER looks away from his reflection…75 years later,he concludes that aging is a theory because he didnt “see” it happen,even though he is old and gray…Fortunately,his mom took a picture of him at each of his birthdays…Some pictures are lost (missing links),but the old man sees this “fossil record” of himself and comes to the conclusion that he did indeed age…Evolution is too slow to be perceptible.and without it,biology makes no sense…Why would a Creator make parasites? Or let animals go extinct? Creation science is an oxymoron.Its proponents try to overwhelm a person into thinking they know what they are talking about by mixing scientific and philosophical jargon into a mush that makes zero sense…BTW the 2 LOT is not violated by evolution…More offspring of ANY animal die in far greater numbers than those that survive,so entropy is not violated
Imagine this hypothetical: A 15 year old boy decides to sit in front of a mirror for the rest of his life to “watch” himself grow old.He NEVER looks away from his reflection…75 years later,he concludes that aging is a theory because he didnt “see” it happen,even though he is old and gray…Fortunately,his mom took a picture of him at each of his birthdays…Some pictures are lost (missing links),but the old man sees this “fossil record” of himself and comes to the conclusion that he did indeed age. .Evolution is too slow to be perceptible.and without it,biology makes no sense…Why would a Creator make parasites? Or let animals go extinct?
these are good questions and need to be addressed, particularly by those of us claiming to be scientists and Christians. As i’ve stated many times, i have no problem with God taking time to create the world, using an evolutionary/genetic mutation mechanism to form the creation. Still biology may make much sense without it, and evolution is hard pressed to describe mechanisms for sight, clotting, the vasculature, and many other basic physiological systems that would make no sense without an all-or-nothing event. This is where God may determine the direction of his evolutionary process. Still you raise some good points. Why do we have this fossil record of apparent intermediates? (i have a 400Billion+ year old fossil of a mesosaur on my bookshelf). Parasites - an evolutionary or a creational “oops?”. Good question - not enough for us Christians to shrug our shoulders and refer to Genesis (God cursing man and the land for sinning).
Creation science is an oxymoron.Its proponents try to overwhelm a person into thinking they know what they are talking about by mixing scientific and philosophical jargon into a mush that makes zero sense.
i’ll take this as your personal bias and not be offended by it.
.BTW the 2 LOT is not violated by evolution…More offspring of ANY animal die in far greater numbers than those that survive,so entropy is not violated
entropy is a red herring in the whole debate as far as i’m concerned. And this statement is only true under certain circumstances. If you are talking about after age of reproduction, well obviously this is a nobrainer, but not related to entropy, i don’t believe. And if this happened prior to reproduction, it would still be irrelevant.
