Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 21

Thread: Evolution

  1. #9
    Grouchy Old Anime Otaku LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Silicon Valley, California
    Posts
    5,477
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 172 Times in 147 Posts
    Grumble Grumble Grumble
    Quote Originally Posted by BBoyPHoeNiX1337
    ... As far as I recall from high school, the second law of thermodynamics says completely the opposite... I don't know, I may be wrong here. Evolution should be taught as what it is: a theory. And as far as God not being provable, I've always wondered how scientists worked their way around the law of biogenesis... Life can only come from preexisting life. I donno...
    The reality is that the presence of life acts as a 'catalyst' where the presence of a localized concentration of order (life) greatly increases the rate of disorder. As an example, a rock can last tens of thousand of years on it's own, but add the effects of lichens, plants and trees, the rock will be reduced to dust in only a few hundred years...

    Philosophers and Religious Scholars have been trying to logical prove or disprove the existence of God for thousands of years, ever since the introduction of logic by the early Greeks. So far, the only safe position with a logical basis is the Agnostic one. (Note that the inability to prove the existence of God is not logical proof for the nonexistence of God...) The reality of the logic of Science is that Science can not make a statement about God because God cannot be observed and measured in a reliable fashion...

    Also, the origins of life is a completely different field from Evolution, where the concepts are much more immature, and are still generally considered at the 'Hypothesis' stage of development and not 'Theory'
    FAVOURITE THREADS EXPLAIN why, or risk an infraction.
    Rantings of a Grouchy Old Anime Otaku

  2. #10
    Newbie BBoyPHoeNiX1337 may be famous one day BBoyPHoeNiX1337 may be famous one day BBoyPHoeNiX1337's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Currently... Lanham MD
    Posts
    88
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by LenMiyata
    Also, the origins of life is a completely different field from Evolution, where the concepts are much more immature, and are still generally considered at the 'Hypothesis' stage of development and not 'Theory'
    So they're trying to prove evolution first, before they prove how evolution started life?

    Problem is, as soon as you say anything towards a divine creation in high school, you get in trouble, but if you stand on a soap box and scream out evolution till you start spitting up blood, you're completely fine. People may try to say that all evolution is is a theory, but considering the amount of people who say they believe in it, personally I think it takes much more faith to believe in fossils and missing links nonexistant, than to believe in a God that is powerful enough to create it all. Personally, I find agnostics to be that much wiser than an evolutionist (no offence to any evolutionists).
    ~|*BBoy|*|PHoeNiX*|~
    Unless I grip the sword, I can not protect you. While gripping the sword, I can not embrace you.

  3. #11
    Grouchy Old Anime Otaku LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Silicon Valley, California
    Posts
    5,477
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 172 Times in 147 Posts
    Grumble Grumble Grumble
    Quote Originally Posted by BBoyPHoeNiX1337
    So they're trying to prove evolution first, before they prove how evolution started life?

    Problem is, as soon as you say anything towards a divine creation in high school, you get in trouble, but if you stand on a soap box and scream out evolution till you start spitting up blood, you're completely fine. People may try to say that all evolution is is a theory, but considering the amount of people who say they believe in it, personally I think it takes much more faith to believe in fossils and missing links nonexistant, than to believe in a God that is powerful enough to create it all. Personally, I find agnostics to be that much wiser than an evolutionist (no offence to any evolutionists).
    So your saying that a 'belief' in Evolution is equivalent to believing that God does not exist?!?! Don't you think that it takes a leap of 'Faith' to make such a poor logical conclusion?!?! The Theory of Evolution makes no statement on the existence or non existence of God. And Darwin himself claimed to have a strong Christian belief.

    And yes the study of Evolution Theory is much more advanced then the 'Origins of Life', simple because Evolution Theory has been around much longer, with ideas that predated Darwin dating back to the early 1800s, then the studies on the 'Origins of Life', (which really didn't start until the late 1950s)

    And yes, it is harder to understand the fossil evidence for Evolution, as it takes a good understanding biology and anatomy to understand the logical evidence of the fossil record. In addition, they is now considerable DNA analysis from the living descendents that backs up the fossil evidence...
    FAVOURITE THREADS EXPLAIN why, or risk an infraction.
    Rantings of a Grouchy Old Anime Otaku

  4. #12
    new piks in mem gallery animechick may be famous one day animechick may be famous one day animechick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    813
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Exclamation

    i am a creationist! but i think that evolutionism AND creationism should be taught BOTH as theories!! so noone piont fingers...if you agree and in ur science books it only teaches one GO TO UR SCECE TEACHER AND TRY TO GET THE BOOKS CHANGED thats wat i did i bitched about it till i got my way!! hehe im vry persuasive!!
    im really doin this!! start making money today! <a href="http://www.fusioncash.net/?ref=ke101544"><img src="http://www.fusioncash.net/sig.php/0e40e75b752dx3.png" alt="Free Money at FusionCash!" title="Free Money at FusionCash!" border="0"></a>

  5. #13
    Otaku frozen_mercury may be famous one day frozen_mercury may be famous one day frozen_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Kansas (no, I do not know what happened to Dorothy and Toto)
    Posts
    103
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrianna
    Of course it should, it's an important part of the history of science. I just prefer that they teach it as a THEORY and not an immutable fact.




    *v If you want a detailed explaination v*
    Post # 18
    The funny thing about science- under definition, all science is theoretical, even if it is proven to be true. I don't exactly know why it is labeled as that.
    En la tierra de los ciegos, el torto es rey.

    In the end, Darwin is right. The strongest do survive.
    Hail Malthus!

  6. #14
    Grouchy Old Anime Otaku LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Silicon Valley, California
    Posts
    5,477
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 172 Times in 147 Posts
    Grumble Grumble Grumble
    Quote Originally Posted by frozen_mercury
    The funny thing about science- under definition, all science is theoretical, even if it is proven to be true. I don't exactly know why it is labeled as that.
    'Proven to be True' really means 'Proven to be true with known evidence'. As an example, This may not be included in the newer High School Physic texts, but will be in the older ones..

    The First Law of Physics: Matter can neither be created nor destroyed...

    (And what did the publication of Einstien's Matter/Energy Conversion Theorem E=MC^2 and the development of the Atomic Bomb do to this widely accepted Scientific Law?!?!)

    This was required rote memorization up to the late 1950s, but... If new evidence is uncovered that indicates a Hypothesis, Theory, or Scientific Law is wrong, then ITS WRONG!
    FAVOURITE THREADS EXPLAIN why, or risk an infraction.
    Rantings of a Grouchy Old Anime Otaku

  7. #15
    Newbie BBoyPHoeNiX1337 may be famous one day BBoyPHoeNiX1337 may be famous one day BBoyPHoeNiX1337's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Currently... Lanham MD
    Posts
    88
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by LenMiyata
    Grumble Grumble Grumble
    And yes, it is harder to understand the fossil evidence for Evolution, as it takes a good understanding biology and anatomy to understand the logical evidence of the fossil record. In addition, they is now considerable DNA analysis from the living descendents that backs up the fossil evidence...
    If you wanna go by DNA analysis, we as humans are biologically more closely related to chickens than to our supposed evolutionary ancestor, the ape. Also, it doesn't take a genius to know that the fossil record is filled with gaping holes, and that many mistakes by scientists have been made regarding man's evolutionary descendants, such as Neanderthal, Lucy, cro-magnon, etc... And as far as Creationism goes, there is no viable way of putting evolution and God creating the world together.

    And also, here are some mathematical probabilities of evolution happening:

    "Evolutionists insist that highly complex systems consisting of numerous inter-relating components can arise through purely random and aimless processes. .. [C]onsider the likelihood of just spelling the word evolution by randomly selecting nine letters from the alphabet. The probability of success is only 1 chance in 26^9 trials. This is equivalent to one chance in five trillion, four hundred and twenty-nine billion, five hundred and three million, six hundred and seventy-nine thousand.

    Let us consider the chance development of a very simple system composed of only 200 integrated parts (simple compared with living systems). [The most basic protein required for life consists of 400 linked amino acids.] The probability of forming such an ordered system is 1 in 200 factorial, or 1 chance in [big number coming] 788,657,867,364,790,503,552,363,213,932,185,062,29 5,135,977,687,173,263,294,742,533,244,359,449,963, 403,342,920,304,284,011,984,623,904,177,212,138,91 9,638,830,257,642,790,242,637,105,061,926,624,952, 829,931,113,462,857,270,763,317,237,396,988,943,92 2,445,621,451,664,240,254,033,291,864,131,227,428, 294,853,277,524,242,407,573,903,240,321,257,405,57 9,568,660,226,031,904,170,324,062,351,700,858,796, 178,922,222,789,623,703,897,374,720,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000.
    This colossal number can be written more simply as approximately 10^375. Thus, there is only 1 chance out of 10^375 of selecting the proper arrangement for a 200-part integrated system on the first trial. But what if we keep on trying different combinations over and over again? won't we eventually achieve the desired result? Well, to begin with, there are only 10^80 electrons in the universe. Assuming this to be the maximum number of parts available to work with, only 1 X 10^80/2 X 10^2 = 5 X 10^77 groups of 200 parts each could be formed at any one given time. But we have to form 10^375 such groups to be certain of getting the correct one. Assuming that none of the first trial groups work, let us continue trying over and over again at a generous rate of 1 billion (10^9) trials per second. Furthermore, to give the evolutionists every possible advantage, let us keep on trying for a period of 30 billion years (10^18 seconds) since this is the presumed age of the universe. But even granting such liberal concessions, we find that the maximum number of trial combinations which could be attempted is still only (5 X 10^77)(10^9)(10^18) = 5 X 10^375 X 10^104 = 2 X 10^270. Simply stated, the chance that a system composed of 200 integrated parts could develop by mere chance is for all practical purposes, non-existent.
    Given the exceedingly small probabilities of the preceding discussion, it is very significant to note that mathematicians generally consider any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 10^50 as having a zero probability, i.e., it is impossible."

    I donno, last I studied evolution was a long time ago...
    ~|*BBoy|*|PHoeNiX*|~
    Unless I grip the sword, I can not protect you. While gripping the sword, I can not embrace you.

  8. #16
    Newbie BBoyPHoeNiX1337 may be famous one day BBoyPHoeNiX1337 may be famous one day BBoyPHoeNiX1337's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Currently... Lanham MD
    Posts
    88
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Oh yeah, and to illustrate what this has to do with biology, the chance probability of an eye forming is 1 in 10^266, again, by mathematicians, considered impossible.
    ~|*BBoy|*|PHoeNiX*|~
    Unless I grip the sword, I can not protect you. While gripping the sword, I can not embrace you.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts