Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews

[TerranC]

11. If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

1. Religions don't concern themselves with the brain; it concern themselves with the heart, and emotions of the person. A heavily battered person could find solace in a religion, but could follow that religion to it's strictest letter, not outgrowing the emotional support it gives.

2. There are many religions in the world. Christianity, Islam, Buddism, Shintoism, Daoism, Zoroastrinism, Paganism, Judaism, and others. Then you have sects/churches. Catholics and Protestants, Shiia and Sunni, Confusicians and buddhists, to name a few. Which one are you going to choose to teach? You can't teach all of them. If you teach one, you might offend the other.

3. Examples of the effects: Al Queda, Hazballah, Fatah, The Children's Crusade, Et cetera.

4. Similar case: Japan's education ministry publishing a textbook that were written by nationalists that has almost no mention of Japan's atrocities during WW2.

These are my 2 cents.

Edit: Post number 110.

[ December 12, 2002, 02:58: Message edited by: TerranC ]

[KirbyEF]

I have the answer:

Sh*t happens...

KirbyEF

[Krsqk]

Lots more to reply to...

Terran C: Let's not get into the results of religion or evolution. I think you'd say Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler weren't true followers of evolution, just as I'd say your examples aren't true followers of their religion. Unless you want to go there, too.

No one, even religious people, can know where matter came from. There are many theories on this, of course.

No one claims to be able to know. Creationists believe it was created; evolutionists (in general) believe it is eternal.

(re: scientific laws) They did not come from anywhere. They are not some entity floating out there that had to be created/generated. Well actually, the laws were written by various scientists over the years. But, the forces behind those laws have always been in existence.

Now forces sound more like the Force. I get the idea that the answer for anything dealing with stellar evolution, etc, is "It's always been there." Doesn't sound too scientific (i.e., verifiable) to me. Sounds more like a belief or faith.

The Earth was not completely covered in perpetual storms when life evolved from primordial goo. All it takes is a cliff-face to block the wind, and there is plenty of stable goo for the organci molecules to form. More complex molecules form out of the basic ones, and this has been proven in laboratory experiments.

I defy you to tell me what was in the primordial goo or what the conditions on earth were like. That's unverifiable. To come up with some soup in a laboratory, hook up a spark plug, come out with some amino acids, and then assume that you somehow must have hit on the combination that existed is unscientific. To say, "Well, it must have existed--after all, here we are!" is so far from logic that it's not worth debunking. Also, there is a world of difference between organic molecules and life. The "simplest" cell is orders of magnitudes more complex than the most complex organic molecule. (I know. Given enough time and the random chances of enough of the right molecules landing in the right places in this worldwide primordial goo...)

(re: reproduction)Life never "learned" this. That implies that something taught reproduction to basic carbohydrates and proteins and such,which it didnt. Reproduction involves the formation of complex organic molecules from basic elements. This happened in the puddle of goo, and it simply continued to happen within the basic organisms that evovled.

There is a world of difference between continued production of organic molecules and cellular reproduction.

Itself, of course. Many lifeforms are capable of sexual reproduction with themselves.

Given the random chance that it somehow developed with the ability to reproduce with itself. It's probably just as likely that it randomly evolved in close proximity to another cell with which it could reproduce.

You do realize that the Design Argument has been proven inadequate by people such as Hume, right?

Hume's argument stretches the premises beyond their logical extension, by cleverly wording the design argument. No creationist would say that man's creation and God's creation are like results from like effects. If the universe is without edge and without center (as is commonly said), then God would have created an infinite creation. Man never comes close to infinite creation. In fact, man never comes close to the complexity found in "simple" organisms. Given enough time and chance, though, I'm sure we could come up with something.

"6. How did the intermediate forms live?"
You are assuming there was a magical jump from a Carp to a Frog. Well, there wasn't.

Where did I say this? I'm wondering what allowed intermediate forms to live with partially developed 1) circulatory systems, 2) respiratory systems, 3) transportation systems, 4) digestive systems, etc. For that matter, if the "super-carp" is better, why do we have carp today? If each step up is better by definition, we should have run out of lower forms quite some time ago. The answer, of course, is random chance.

"3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?"
What perfect mixture of gases? The air we breathe is in constant flux. At no time do we breathe the exact same composition of air as we did before.

First, you missed the point of the question. The entire system needs to be present to function. How did species with one or two parts survive before the rest of the system developed? Random chance saw to it that it all worked out.

"4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?"
From that primordial goo. The simplest lifeforms have much less complex DNA than we do.

How did it happen that DNA and RNA both happened in the same cell (all surviving cells, actually), with DNA in an incredible double-helix, and DNA unwound itself and unzipped, and an RNA molecule snuggled up to it and made a copy, and the DNA then zipped back up and rewound. Random chance?

"8. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?"
What?

Typo. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen becoming human? In other words, life from unlife. What about the experiments of Redi and Pasteur? Are they bogus? Or didn't they have enough time (or just bad chance)?

"2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?"
They show no faith. They show scientific understanding and learning.

Your verifiable, testable, provable scientific explanations included "random" or "chance" at least ten times. In fact, we're to believe that everything in biological evolution (not to mention planetary, stellar, and elemental evolution) is the amazing result of random chances. I believe in a supernatural (i.e., non-verifiable, non-scientific) miraculous creation of the universe and everything in it. You believe in a materialistic, statistical miracle of such proportions based on so many unverifiable, unsubstantiated assumptions that I'd be ashamed to admit it.
[edit for clarity]

[ December 12, 2002, 03:51: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Krsqk]

Two links here. This one about probability is quite interesting. It gives an idea of the long-odds chances of spontaneous generation. This one gives several quotes by well-known scientists about evolution. If they don't know what there is to know, then who does?

[Krsqk]

The decay and production of C-14 should reach an equilibrium after ~30,000 years. However, recent research indicates that it hasn't yet reached that point yet. Why?

Because of the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, objects thrown off from a spinning mass will retain the direction of their parent in orbit and revolution (i.e., clockwise objects result in clockwise spinning and orbiting objects). Why then do several moons in our solar system alone rotate "backwards" and one moon orbit its planet backwards, if the Big Bang threw off all the matter originally?

Why are the oldest living organisms (trees) found in the world only ~5,000 years old?

Why isn't the ocean saltier? At the current rate of "salting," it would have been fresh water only a few thousand years ago.

Why isn't the earth's magnetic field weaker? It's steadily decreasing in strength. Or on the other hand, how did life survive when it was so much stronger? Too strong, and it would prohibit life.

Why do many moons in our solar system still have magnetic fields? They should have cooled off inside after several billion years, and the molten core is necessary for a magnetic field?

How accurate can interstellar measurements be? The base of our triangle used for parallax is 16 light-minutes, and we're somehow accurate out to millions or billions of light-years? The angle at the tip of the triangle for a star 1 light-year away is .017. For 100 light-years away, it's .00017, and so on. 100 light-years is like two people 16 inches apart trying to measure ~800 miles away--the room for error is immense.

[Phoenix-D]

I really shouldn't read threads I said I'm not going to participate in.

"Because of the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, objects thrown off from a spinning mass will retain the direction of their parent in orbit and revolution (i.e., clockwise objects result in clockwise spinning and orbiting objects). Why then do several moons in our solar system alone rotate "backwards" and one moon orbit its planet backwards, if the Big Bang threw off all the matter originally?"

Because the monentum and angle didn't come from that explosion. It came from a -later- event. If the moon in question is a captured one, that is simply the orbit it stablized in.

"Why are the oldest living organisms (trees) found in the world only ~5,000 years old?"

Because surviving for that long is extremely difficult. Why do humans live less than that? Because before that they get killed by something.

"Why isn't the earth's magnetic field weaker? It's steadily decreasing in strength. Or on the other hand, how did life survive when it was so much stronger? Too strong, and it would prohibit life."

IIRC exactly how the field is generated isn't understood. However when rocks solidify they take on properties of any field they are exposed to (it's strength and direction). Rocks have been found with a weaker magnetic field and a stronger one, as well as a completely reversed one. The field apparently weakens gradually, then flips directions and strengthens again.

Phoenix-D

[Fyron]

Now forces sound more like the Force. I get the idea that the answer for anything dealing with stellar evolution, etc, is "It's always been there." Doesn't sound too scientific (i.e., verifiable) to me. Sounds more like a belief or faith.

No, they sound nothing like the Force. The Force sounds more like religious mumbo-jumbo than any natural laws. Again, give me a time machine, and then we can go back in time until we see if there was a beginning, or if it is continuous. That is really the only way to prove beyond a doubt what happened that long ago in the past.

I defy you to tell me what was in the primordial goo or what the conditions on earth were like. That's unverifiable. To come up with some soup in a laboratory, hook up a spark plug, come out with some amino acids, and then assume that you somehow must have hit on the combination that existed is unscientific. To say, "Well, it must have existed--after all, here we are!" is so far from logic that it's not worth debunking. Also, there is a world of difference between organic molecules and life. The "simplest" cell is orders of magnitudes more complex than the most complex organic molecule. (I know. Given enough time and the random chances of enough of the right molecules landing in the right places in this worldwide primordial goo...)

The "simplest cell" is made of organic molecules. But, the first organism-like things were not full cells.

There is a world of difference between continued production of organic molecules and cellular reproduction.

Not that much of one.

Hume's argument stretches the premises beyond their logical extension, by cleverly wording the design argument. No creationist would say that man's creation and God's creation are like results from like effects. If the universe is without edge and without center (as is commonly said), then God would have created an infinite creation. Man never comes close to infinite creation. In fact, man never comes close to the complexity found in "simple" organisms. Given enough time and chance, though, I'm sure we could come up with something.

A number of your arguments sure sound like the Design Argument to me.

Where did I say this? I'm wondering what allowed intermediate forms to live with partially developed 1) circulatory systems, 2) respiratory systems, 3) transportation systems, 4) digestive systems, etc. For that matter, if the "super-carp" is better, why do we have carp today? If each step up is better by definition, we should have run out of lower forms quite some time ago. The answer, of course, is random chance.

You said it continuously. Not explicitly, but implicitly.

All 4 of those systems exist in ALL LIFEFORMS. Single-celled organisms have all of them. They are not as complex as in animals and such, but they are there. As organisms started becoming multicellular, the cells started to become more specialized. Then, you eventually got macroscopic organisms that have what you would call "1) circulatory systems, 2) respiratory systems, 3) transportation systems, 4) digestive systems". There was never such a thing as a lion with no circulatory system. That is just absurd. All of those became more complex as the organisms became more complex.

Not all carp evolve into other creatures. Only some do. Each step up is not necessarily absolutely better, it is different. Sometimes it is better, sometimes equal, sometimes worse.

First, you missed the point of the question. The entire system needs to be present to function. How did species with one or two parts survive before the rest of the system developed? Random chance saw to it that it all worked out.

THEY DIDNT! All parts evolved simultaneously.

How did it happen that DNA and RNA both happened in the same cell (all surviving cells, actually), with DNA in an incredible double-helix, and DNA unwound itself and unzipped, and an RNA molecule snuggled up to it and made a copy, and the DNA then zipped back up and rewound. Random chance?

The first organisms did not have as complex DNA as exists in the modern day.

Typo. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen becoming human? In other words, life from unlife. What about the experiments of Redi and Pasteur? Are they bogus? Or didn't they have enough time (or just bad chance)?

I have already explained how life comes from "unlife", as you put it.

Your verifiable, testable, provable scientific explanations included "random" or "chance" at least ten times. In fact, we're to believe that everything in biological evolution (not to mention planetary, stellar, and elemental evolution) is the amazing result of random chances. I believe in a supernatural (i.e., non-verifiable, non-scientific) miraculous creation of the universe and everything in it. You believe in a materialistic, statistical miracle of such proportions based on so many unverifiable, unsubstantiated assumptions that I'd be ashamed to admit it.

Sigh...