NationStates Jolt Archive

Is there a topic on this? There probably was before, but I see it not. So, I start a new one. Keep in mind that I'm talking macro-evolution, not micro-evolution, which we can all see in any dog, cat, horse, some birds, etc.

WTF

don't ask about it. POST YOUR OPINION.

Well, I don't know if there's "a" topic on this.

There are about 100+ topics on this, though. :wink:

Did you have a specific thing you wanted to discuss or just a general "Evolution: who be fer it and who be aggin it?"

whatever the case, I believe in it and not even God can make me change my mind.

whatever the case, I believe in it and not even God can make me change my mind.

Interesting comments, Elvandair.

I did not post my opinion right away because if I had it would have been like:

"HI! I know three ways of disproving evolution! Which should I do first, the Religious (weak) the Science or the Logic (strong)?"

Personally, I have very few "opinions" on evolution. Facts only for me. 8)

Interesting comments, Elvandair.

I did not post my opinion right away because if I had it would have been like:

"HI! I know three ways of disproving evolution! Which should I do first, the Religious (weak) the Science or the Logic (strong)?"

Personally, I have very few "opinions" on evolution. Facts only for me. 8)

Well, let's hear them, then. :lol:

Keep in mind that I'm talking macro-evolution, not micro-evolution, which we can all see in any dog, cat, horse, some birds, etc.

Macro evolution is micro evolution. Specifically, the results of micro-evolution over long periods. The term was made up by creationists, to somehow suggest that it is something different. There is no need to distinguish them; they are the same process.

A chain with a missing link is not a chain at all.

A chain with a missing link is not a chain at all.
It is if you find the missing link!

Interesting comments, Elvandair.

I did not post my opinion right away because if I had it would have been like:

"HI! I know three ways of disproving evolution! Which should I do first, the Religious (weak) the Science or the Logic (strong)?"

Personally, I have very few "opinions" on evolution. Facts only for me. 8)

Well, let's hear them, then. :lol:
Yes, let's!
*sits down to listen*

Isn't a chain with a missing link actually two small chains? :shock:

Isn't a chain with a missing link actually two small chains? :shock:

Yeh tha's what happened to the timing belt in my car.
Good example: just like a theory with a gap in it, ny vehicle couldn't get anywhere.
I personally think evolution is an attractive theory which needs to be more flexible to allow for sudden system-wide changes (Loren Eisley taught me that); but it makes a lousy ideology.

:o . for anyone who is framiliar with the human genome project and the process of bio engineering it is not very difficult to understand how the human being is transformed throught the ages on a molecular level resulting in different cellular structures that gives us eye color, skin pigment, hight, etc, etc. in layman's terms genetics has alot to do with the selective process of who survives the long winters, the hot desserts, other competitive predators. Thank you for your time.

Keep in mind that I'm talking macro-evolution, not micro-evolution, which we can all see in any dog, cat, horse, some birds, etc.

Macro evolution is micro evolution. Specifically, the results of micro-evolution over long periods. The term was made up by creationists, to somehow suggest that it is something different. There is no need to distinguish them; they are the same process.

*sigh* Don't make me pull my old-whoopstoolate. "By evolution we mean a naturally occurring, eneficial change which produces increasing complexity. When referring to the evolution of life, this increasing complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life hhad a different, improved, and reproducible set of vital organs that its ancestors did not have. This is sometimes called organic evolution, the molecules-to-man theory, or macroevolution. Microevolution, on the other hand, involves only such changes as different shapes, colors, sizes, or minor chemical alterations-changes which both creationists and evolutionists agree are relatively trivial and easily observed. It is macroevolution, then, that is being so hotly contested today, and this is what we will mean by the term evolution." -footnote to "The Scientific Cases for Creation"

Call me stupid, but it sure doesn't sound like the same thing to me. On with the debating, now that we know just what we're debating.

I have said I know three ways to disprove evolution. I will state two here, because the science one is really long and involved and I don't want to type it up if unnecessary.

Religion: If there had ever once been nothing there would be nothing still and thus being has no beginning and no end. This leads to the conclusion that there is a Supreme God who is being itself. At least, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas thought so. This arguement is weak, as I've said, because one could still say "God created the world by evolution." (Theistic evolution)

Logic: If everything is random, then so is thought. If thought is random, then evolution was a random thought and is thus discredited. It disproves itself.

Thanks for listening, and if you didn't bother to read my whole post, please at least read that last paragraph. :wink:

Keep in mind that I'm talking macro-evolution, not micro-evolution, which we can all see in any dog, cat, horse, some birds, etc.

Macro evolution is micro evolution. Specifically, the results of micro-evolution over long periods. The term was made up by creationists, to somehow suggest that it is something different. There is no need to distinguish them; they are the same process.

*sigh* Don't make me pull my old-whoopstoolate. "By evolution we mean a naturally occurring, eneficial change which produces increasing complexity. When referring to the evolution of life, this increasing complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life hhad a different, improved, and reproducible set of vital organs that its ancestors did not have. This is sometimes called organic evolution, the molecules-to-man theory, or macroevolution. Microevolution, on the other hand, involves only such changes as different shapes, colors, sizes, or minor chemical alterations-changes which both creationists and evolutionists agree are relatively trivial and easily observed. It is macroevolution, then, that is being so hotly contested today, and this is what we will mean by the term evolution." -footnote to "The Scientific Cases for Creation"

Call me stupid, but it sure doesn't sound like the same thing to me. On with the debating, now that we know just what we're debating.

I have said I know three ways to disprove evolution. I will state two here, because the science one is really long and involved and I don't want to type it up if unnecessary.

Religion: If there had ever once been nothing there would be nothing still and thus being has no beginning and no end. This leads to the conclusion that there is a Supreme God who is being itself. At least, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas thought so. This arguement is weak, as I've said, because one could still say "God created the world by evolution." (Theistic evolution)

Logic: If everything is random, then so is thought. If thought is random, then evolution was a random thought and is thus discredited. It disproves itself.

Thanks for listening, and if you didn't bother to read my whole post, please at least read that last paragraph. :wink:

"If there had ever once been nothing there would be nothing"
who says i accept this premise? this made sense in the classic mechanics of newton, but not in quantummechanical theories, where particles can appear out of nothing, exist for a little while and then disappear into nothing. so something can come forth out of nothing, which leads to my conclusion that your premise is false!

"If everything is random, then so is thought. If thought is random, then evolution was a random thought and is thus discredited. It disproves itself.
"
you just made a fine mistake using modus ponens: you did not prove that everything is random follows out of accepting evolution, which is required to jump to the conclusion. :p

we often hear people speak about "the random hand of evolution". sure, we don't see any logic in it, and it appears to make random changes and has no goal or meaning, but that does not make it random. evolution is caused by:
mutations: genes changing. this is a chemical proces and is not random.
selection: when 2 types of organismes differ a little bit, and one of the types has an advantage in a certain situation, that type has more chance of survival and therefor those genes have more chance of survival.
These processes don't go random, they go by the laws of nature (scientific laws that is, there is no such entity as nature).

"If there had ever once been nothing there would be nothing still"

sadly since einstein became beutiful due to Hawkins theorys and the discovery of universal background radiation it is proven that the universe did in fact come quite literally from nothing... which is interesting a quantum singurlarity in reverse...

however evolution is not random, it is deliberate selection of those traits that allow for survival in a given envionment with occasional mutation which often result in failure however can occasionally result in great success.

note my above comment was a state where people went, thats impossible, wheres the radiation! missing link haha your wrong... and then some americans found it and boom the big bang went from theory with a broken chain to beutiful funny the way two unconnected events can lead to something beutiful isn't it... however the big bang btw does not rule out god... infact nothing can rule out god(s)... also funny in a funny little way... (little g earlier as I wasn't talking about God inparticular....)

however if evolution is incorrect then there must be god(s) or aliens who made the world as a science experiment, or spontanious creation without consious thought... or something else *shrugs*
also the fact that we share about 99% of the same genetic code with apes weighs in evolutions favour becouse if we are 99% genetically identical to chimps then how similer were we to cromag or neandrathal (I'm not really up on the whole evolution debate so feel free to shoot me full of holes) and if we were so similier to to them then where is the madness in assuming an evolutionary leap or an evolutionary chain in an area of the world not yet thoughroughly(ewwww how badly spelt *sigh*) investigated so how can we count out discovering such a link...

"If everything is random, then so is thought. If thought is random, then evolution was a random thought and is thus discredited. It disproves itself."
It depends on the definition of random... the universe is a mass of reaction not random, quantom mechanics is pretty random I'll give you but nothing is really random... *scary thought really* objects move due to physical laws (many of which we only barely understand seen as all we see are the large reactions).

So we are stuck where you can neither prove nor disprove evolution, in much the same way as you can neither prove nor disprove god(s). I also don't see why it is such a horrid thing for Religious types to think of, becouse it makes god(s) beutiful and ingenious, not did they simply wave a wand but they started something and everything from that moment is doomed to end... but it shall be so beutiful... and such a wonderous journey...

Why do we have to fight about it why can't we just get out and enjoy it, and progress and discover and play in the Garden of Eden eh? or whatever you'd like to call it, theres a whole universe out there just for us!!! lets go and play!!!!

Religion: If there had ever once been nothing there would be nothing still and thus being has no beginning and no end. This leads to the conclusion that there is a Supreme God who is being itself. At least, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas thought so. This arguement is weak, as I've said, because one could still say "God created the world by evolution." (Theistic evolution)

Yeah, plus the theory of evolution does not require there to have "once been nothing," so that sounds like a straw man argument to me.


Logic: If everything is random, then so is thought. If thought is random, then evolution was a random thought and is thus discredited. It disproves itself.


Again, evolutionary theory does not require "everything to be random." Mutation is random, but 'everything' is clearly beyond the scope of biology.

So how about the scientific proof then? :wink:

Personally, I think trying to disprove a theory is healthful activity, but in the end futile. If there was a computer to ponder all of these questions, a really really smart one, I think it would still merely answer "there is not enough information."

*sigh* Don't make me pull my old-whoopstoolate. "By evolution we mean a naturally occurring, eneficial change which produces increasing complexity. When referring to the evolution of life, this increasing complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life hhad a different, improved, and reproducible set of vital organs that its ancestors did not have. This is sometimes called organic evolution, the molecules-to-man theory, or macroevolution. Microevolution, on the other hand, involves only such changes as different shapes, colors, sizes, or minor chemical alterations-changes which both creationists and evolutionists agree are relatively trivial and easily observed. It is macroevolution, then, that is being so hotly contested today, and this is what we will mean by the term evolution." -footnote to "The Scientific Cases for Creation"

Excellent. Although that definition of "macroevolution" describes an idea not actually proposed by anyone except creationists, it actually shows a very decent case for evolution. Evolution proposes the gradual change of a specific population accumulating over a long period of time until a population is quite different from its predecessors. Grandiose spontaneous changes from two individual animals to their offspring on a regular basis would disprove a rather hefty part of this theory. As the source argues, this simply isn't the case.

Call me stupid, but it sure doesn't sound like the same thing to me.

You may not be stupid, however the author of that book certainly should know better if they go ahead and publish an actual bona fide book on the matter.

Religion: If there had ever once been nothing there would be nothing still

That's not necessarily true, and it's a problem that theism doesn't bother answering either. If God can start from nothing, if God is the start, then why couldn't the same be true for the universe itself?

However, this doesn't disprove evolution, which concerns itself with how animals have developed. Abiogenesis isn't necessarily a part of evolution, and evolution does not in the slightest concern itself with the creation of the universe. Hence why many biologists (in the US anyway) are also theists.

Logic: If everything is random,

Now whoever said that? Evolution for instance is not a random process, although, arguably, mutation is to some extent. Natural selection is not a random process. Some variations within a population are going to be more advantageous to said population in a particular environment than others are, and thus are more likely to survive.

Isn't a chain with a missing link actually two small chains? :shock:

Actually, a chain with a missing ling is a chance for me to escape! *scampers off*

"If there had ever once been nothing there would be nothing"
who says i accept this premise? this made sense in the classic mechanics of newton, but not in quantummechanical theories, where particles can appear out of nothing, exist for a little while and then disappear into nothing.

Could you name your source for this bit of tomfoolery please?

"If there had ever once been nothing there would be nothing"
who says i accept this premise? this made sense in the classic mechanics of newton, but not in quantummechanical theories, where particles can appear out of nothing, exist for a little while and then disappear into nothing.

Could you name your source for this bit of tomfoolery please?

not very up on quantom mechanics are we... do a search on google and watch classic mechanics melt away... well in a way anyway, classic mechanics deals very nicely with big objects but has no baring on the quantum world...

So I take this opportunity to laugh in your face at your comment about tomfoolery...

opps dp

*sigh* Don't make me pull my old-whoopstoolate. "By evolution we mean a naturally occurring, eneficial change which produces increasing complexity. When referring to the evolution of life, this increasing complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life hhad a different, improved, and reproducible set of vital organs that its ancestors did not have. This is sometimes called organic evolution, the molecules-to-man theory, or macroevolution. Microevolution, on the other hand, involves only such changes as different shapes, colors, sizes, or minor chemical alterations-changes which both creationists and evolutionists agree are relatively trivial and easily observed. It is macroevolution, then, that is being so hotly contested today, and this is what we will mean by the term evolution." -footnote to "The Scientific Cases for Creation"

Call me stupid, but it sure doesn't sound like the same thing to me. On with the debating, now that we know just what we're debating.

Well, I won't call you stupid, but it is the same thing. Those whole organic systems originate out of those micro changes. Miscoding of cellular DNA, for example, may give rise to a more effective protein which perhaps opens up a new route of energy manufacture (or a more efficient one). Over time, these changes accumulate and entire organic systems are the result.

Plus, I'm not at all sure I would trust anything from a book titled "The Scientific Cases for Creation." :lol:



I have said I know three ways to disprove evolution. I will state two here, because the science one is really long and involved and I don't want to type it up if unnecessary.

Well, as evolution is a scientific theory, it would seem more sensible to actually state the scientific proof backing up your claims as religion has nothing to do with proof and therefore can not be used to prove or disprove a theory in scientific terms and logic, by the same token, should go hand in hand with the scientific proof.


Religion: If there had ever once been nothing there would be nothing still and thus being has no beginning and no end. This leads to the conclusion that there is a Supreme God who is being itself. At least, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas thought so. This arguement is weak, as I've said, because one could still say "God created the world by evolution." (Theistic evolution)

No one has claimed there was ever nothing. Big Bang Theory doesn't even make the claim that from nothing comes everything. Instead, it says from a very, very condensed everything comes a much bigger and more spacious everything which, quite possibly, will once again come back to a very, very condensed everything at some point in the future. Thus, the universe, like time itself, is cyclical with no official beginning and no official end. Additionally, this argument speaks to the existance of God, not a specific God, mind you, just some sort of divinity. It does not speak to Creation science or the disproof of Evolution theory and completely does not apply.


Logic: If everything is random, then so is thought. If thought is random, then evolution was a random thought and is thus discredited. It disproves itself.

Um, no. The argument you're trying to use here is:

If A=B
and B=C
then A=C.

Unfortunately, you initial premise is flawed and you are also comparing apples and oranges. If you are going to classify thought as random then this argument itself is useless because it relies on thought and, due to the random nature of...well, everything, logic is a meaningless term as you can not say, "If A, Then B." Also, who said everything was random? To assume a certain chance factor is one thing, but to then extend that to everything denies the obvious reality of cause and effect (at least for the purposes of this discussion).

Now, what was the science one?

not very up on quantom mechanics are we... do a search on google and watch classic mechanics melt away... well in a way anyway, classic mechanics deals very nicely with big objects but has no baring on the quantum world...

So I take this opportunity to laugh in your face at your comment about tomfoolery...

So you're essentially laughing because you can't name your source?

Einstein's E=mc^2 equation demonstrates that energy and matter are two aspects of the same phenomena. It also showed that energy and matter can not be created from literally nothing. This does not invalidate the fact that a "vaccuum" is still subject to quantum irregularities since the laws of space-time still apply to it.

not very up on quantom mechanics are we... do a search on google and watch classic mechanics melt away... well in a way anyway, classic mechanics deals very nicely with big objects but has no baring on the quantum world...

So I take this opportunity to laugh in your face at your comment about tomfoolery...

So you're essentially laughing because you can't name your source?

Einstein's E=mc^2 equation demonstrates that energy and matter are two aspects of the same phenomena. It also showed that energy and matter can not be created from literally nothing. This does not invalidate the fact that a "vaccuum" is still subject to quantum irregularities since the laws of space-time still apply to it.

(note the existence of the big bang proved by background radiation, the existence of quantum singlearities proved by black holes)

No I'm laughing at you becouse you havn't investigated quantum physics and talk about tomfoolery when you are obviously dealing with pre-60's physics background which although functioning at a large scale falls over at the quantum level, but if we want sources...

http://www.jracademy.com/~jtucek/science/what.html
http://www.cakes.mcmail.com/StarTrek/quantum.htm
http://www.quantum-physics.polytechnique.fr/en/index.html
http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/quantum.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/

so now with a tiny handful of sources and in the face of your laziness I laugh harder!!!! hahahahahahaha

Go out and read some new material, Einstein was scared of being a laughing stock and so kept away from singularities, a shame really coz we could be decades further ahead if it weren't for traditionalists

not very up on quantom mechanics are we... do a search on google and watch classic mechanics melt away... well in a way anyway, classic mechanics deals very nicely with big objects but has no baring on the quantum world...

So I take this opportunity to laugh in your face at your comment about tomfoolery...

So you're essentially laughing because you can't name your source?

Einstein's E=mc^2 equation demonstrates that energy and matter are two aspects of the same phenomena. It also showed that energy and matter can not be created from literally nothing. This does not invalidate the fact that a "vaccuum" is still subject to quantum irregularities since the laws of space-time still apply to it.

We did not even have to state another source as we had allready stated the theories about quantummechanics as our source.

And about Einstein's formula: it is (believed to be) true, but that does not prevent little bit's of energy/mass from come out of nothing, as long as they eventually disappear again. in fact, the universe itself can be seen as a quantumfluctuation.

"By evolution we mean a naturally occurring, eneficial change which produces increasing complexity. When referring to the evolution of life, this increasing complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life hhad a different, improved, and reproducible set of vital organs that its ancestors did not have. This is sometimes called organic evolution, the molecules-to-man theory, or macroevolution. Microevolution, on the other hand, involves only such changes as different shapes, colors, sizes, or minor chemical alterations-changes which both creationists and evolutionists agree are relatively trivial and easily observed. It is macroevolution, then, that is being so hotly contested today, and this is what we will mean by the term evolution." -footnote to "The Scientific Cases for Creation"

This seems to be the only way that creationists can 'refute' evolution; by defining it incorrectly. Evolution does not claim that speciation occurs when the offspring of one life form has a radically different physiology to its parent; that would be strong evidence against evolution. Macro-evolution is nothing more than micro-evolution over an extended period of time; since small changes accumulate, and there is no known barrier to large change through accumulation except time (which there has been plenty of), microevolution implies macroevolution. Believing in microevolution, but denying macroevolution, is essentially like believing in the existence of minutes, but refusing to believe that they accumulate into days.

If you want to debate evolution, first of all try getting a definition of evolution from a reputable scientific source.

By the way, anyone quoting from something called "The scientific cases for creation" has to be either a troll, or monumentally gullible. 'Creation science' is about the most pure example of oxymoron in existence.

Call me stupid, but it sure doesn't sound like the same thing to me.

That's because it's rather a poor definition.

I have said I know three ways to disprove evolution. I will state two here, because the science one is really long and involved and I don't want to type it up if unnecessary.

Evolution is a science. Therefore, a scientific disproof is necessary.

Religion: If there had ever once been nothing there would be nothing still and thus being has no beginning and no end. This leads to the conclusion that there is a Supreme God who is being itself.

That's rather a non-sequitur. "There was nothing in the beginning, therefore... God!" That doesn't logically follow at all.

This arguement is weak, as I've said, because one could still say "God created the world by evolution." (Theistic evolution)

Yes, it is. Very weak.

Logic: If everything is random, then so is thought. If thought is random, then evolution was a random thought and is thus discredited. It disproves itself.

I won't bother to answer this one, because I don't see where the assertion 'everything is random' fits into the equation. This is the same kind of 'play on words' logic, as Descartes used in his silly 'God is perfect' proof.

No I'm laughing at you becouse you havn't investigated quantum physics and talk about tomfoolery when you are obviously dealing with pre-60's physics background which although functioning at a large scale falls over at the quantum level, but if we want sources...

http://www.jracademy.com/~jtucek/science/what.html
http://www.cakes.mcmail.com/StarTrek/quantum.htm
http://www.quantum-physics.polytechnique.fr/en/index.html
http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/quantum.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/

I like how none of these links actually do validate your claim. The relevent bit of the GUI site (http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/creation.htm) establishes what we know after space-time had already become apparent and we already had energy. It misses out where this energy comes from. The theorems I have quoted thus far may be 60 years old, but yours are still, unfortunately, either as hot topic as most contemporary ones (including the one I'm about to post) are, or is outdated :)

The phenomenon you seem to be alluding to (spontaneously appearing virtual particles, aka quantum fluctuation) does not spring from nothing, but takes its energy from gravitational energy which exerts a force upon literally every single part of this universe. The concepts of space and time are blurred at the beginning of the universe by quantum uncertainty; there is no definitive beginning, no singularity that started it all; and it springs not from nothing, but from an imaginary time that acts perpendicular to real time; the sum of all the possibility waves a particle may take. Measuring time using special numbers to account for this sum of histories equivolates space and time, creating a complete curved space-time.

This in turn creates a possibility that does not contradict general relativity - time would have no boundary, but would still be of finite size, and can be compared in concept to a planet, with the North and South poles being the "beginning" and "end", but clearly space-time would have no boundary or edge.

Hypothetically. And I'll be damned if I'm anywhere near educated or smart enough to prove Mr. Hawkings wrong. :D You might prefer the later links since they're from lectures that were made later on.

http://www.voidspace.org.uk/science/g.shtml
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae332.cfm
http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/resources/origin_univ.html
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

Furthermore,

"In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy." (Morris, 1990, 25)

"In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe.

The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.

As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang.

The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design." (Stenger, 1996)

No I'm laughing at you becouse you havn't investigated quantum physics and talk about tomfoolery when you are obviously dealing with pre-60's physics background which although functioning at a large scale falls over at the quantum level, but if we want sources...

http://www.jracademy.com/~jtucek/science/what.html
http://www.cakes.mcmail.com/StarTrek/quantum.htm
http://www.quantum-physics.polytechnique.fr/en/index.html
http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/quantum.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/

I like how none of these links actually do validate your claim. The relevent bit of the GUI site (http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/creation.htm) establishes what we know after space-time had already become apparent and we already had energy. It misses out where this energy comes from. The theorems I have quoted thus far may be 60 years old, but yours are still, unfortunately, either as hot topic as most contemporary ones (including the one I'm about to post) are, or is outdated :)

The phenomenon you seem to be alluding to (spontaneously appearing virtual particles, aka quantum fluctuation) does not spring from nothing, but takes its energy from gravitational energy which exerts a force upon literally every single part of this universe. The concepts of space and time are blurred at the beginning of the universe by quantum uncertainty; there is no definitive beginning, no singularity that started it all; and it springs not from nothing, but from an imaginary time that acts perpendicular to real time; the sum of all the possibility waves a particle may take. Measuring time using special numbers to account for this sum of histories equivolates space and time, creating a complete curved space-time.

This in turn creates a possibility that does not contradict general relativity - time would have no boundary, but would still be of finite size, and can be compared in concept to a planet, with the North and South poles being the "beginning" and "end", but clearly space-time would have no boundary or edge.

Hypothetically. And I'll be damned if I'm anywhere near educated or smart enough to prove Mr. Hawkings wrong. :D You might prefer the later links since they're from lectures that were made later on.

http://www.voidspace.org.uk/science/g.shtml
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae332.cfm
http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/resources/origin_univ.html
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

Furthermore,

"In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy." (Morris, 1990, 25)

"In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe.

The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.

As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang.

The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design." (Stenger, 1996)


http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Meta/MetaSuch.htm

a few parts:

"It could be interpreted as the rise of matter, time and space out of "nothing", therefore, as "a beginning of the world and at the same time the beginning of time". In this interpretation the world does not arise in time, but together with time (which recalls St. Augustine's conception). However, since the general theory of relativity could not give any "mechanism" of transition from "the state of nothingness" to "the state of existence" of the Universe, further conceptions of creation out of "nothing" began to adduce quantum mechanics. This theory describes at least two processes which may compete for the name of "creative processes" which rouse the interest of cosmologists. These are phenomena of "quantum tunnelling" and of "quantum fluctuation" which occur due to quantum effects; consequently are impossible from the point of view of classical physics."

There are others I need to reply to, but I decided to pick on you. Why? Because a) I'm short of time and b) you made it easy.

"By evolution we mean a naturally occurring, eneficial change which produces increasing complexity. When referring to the evolution of life, this increasing complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different, improved, and reproducible set of vital organs that its ancestors did not have. This is sometimes called organic evolution, the molecules-to-man theory, or macroevolution. Microevolution, on the other hand, involves only such changes as different shapes, colors, sizes, or minor chemical alterations-changes which both creationists and evolutionists agree are relatively trivial and easily observed. It is macroevolution, then, that is being so hotly contested today, and this is what we will mean by the term evolution." -footnote to "The Scientific Cases for Creation"

This seems to be the only way that creationists can 'refute' evolution; by defining it incorrectly. Evolution does not claim that speciation occurs when the offspring of one life form has a radically different physiology to its parent; that would be strong evidence against evolution. Macro-evolution is nothing more than micro-evolution over an extended period of time; since small changes accumulate, and there is no known barrier to large change through accumulation except time (which there has been plenty of), microevolution implies macroevolution. Believing in microevolution, but denying macroevolution, is essentially like believing in the existence of minutes, but refusing to believe that they accumulate into days.

If you want to debate evolution, first of all try getting a definition of evolution from a reputable scientific source.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought a section from my Biology course was a scientific source.

By the way, anyone quoting from something called "The scientific cases for creation" has to be either a troll, or monumentally gullible. 'Creation science' is about the most pure example of oxymoron in existence.

That is your opinion. In my opinion, because I have seen the film The Young Age of the Earth, there is much scientific evidence for creation. I could site a lot more than you could for evolution.

Call me stupid, but it sure doesn't sound like the same thing to me.

That's because it's rather a poor definition.

You went to public school, didn't you? The stuff they teach... :roll:

I have said I know three ways to disprove evolution. I will state two here, because the science one is really long and involved and I don't want to type it up if unnecessary.

Evolution is a science. Therefore, a scientific disproof is necessary.

Evolution is not a science, it is a philosophy. Therefore, philosophical disproof is necessary. :D I took logic, you won't slip that over on me. Where is scientific proof? I still haven't seen any, and doubt I ever will.

Religion: If there had ever once been nothing there would be nothing still and thus being has no beginning and no end. This leads to the conclusion that there is a Supreme God who is being itself.

That's rather a non-sequitur. "There was nothing in the beginning, therefore... God!" That doesn't logically follow at all.

You know, I'd love to hear what Aristotle would say to that. Not that I would understand him necessarily. First off, that is not what I said. Secondly, "If there had ever once been nothing there would be nothing still" is the foundation of Metaphysics in the West, which if you'd had the History course I'm taking you would already know.

This arguement is weak, as I've said, because one could still say "God created the world by evolution." (Theistic evolution)

Yes, it is. Very weak.

*dump look*

Logic: If everything is random, then so is thought. If thought is random, then evolution was a random thought and is thus discredited. It disproves itself.

I won't bother to answer this one, because I don't see where the assertion 'everything is random' fits into the equation. This is the same kind of 'play on words' logic, as Descartes used in his silly 'God is perfect' proof.

Well, if not A, then not C. But I was taught A.

Okay, to those of you who said "evolution doesn't claim nothing it claims something" tell me: Where did that come from? Was it Being itself? And if so, why don't you worship it?

To those of you who are still dying to hear an entire chapter from my Biology book and all the other material I've accumulated (spelled wrong) about evolution, I'll be back as soon as I can find it on the web. If I can find it on the web. I don't really want to type it up, but I will if I have to.

And it looks as if I'll have to. But it's a dozen syllabus pages, so it'll have to wait.

First of all, I think I can speak for everyone when I say:

DIE THREAD DIE!!!

*ahem*

Now, to perpetuate the madness.


Oh, I'm sorry, I thought a section from my Biology course was a scientific source.

Er, your biology textbook is The Science Of Creationisim? Exactly which school system do you attend?


By the way, anyone quoting from something called "The scientific cases for creation" has to be either a troll, or monumentally gullible. 'Creation science' is about the most pure example of oxymoron in existence.

That is your opinion. In my opinion, because I have seen the film The Young Age of the Earth, there is much scientific evidence for creation. I could site a lot more than you could for evolution.

You keep saying this and yet you never do it. So bring it on. Let's see how much "evidence" for creationism you can come up with, making sure that is satisfies the scientific method. The trouble is, Creation Science itself is an oxymoron. You can not call Creation Theory science because you can not test it. You can not set up a repeatable experimental test to either confirm or deny the hypothesis. At least, not unless you can get God to create new Universes and species on demand. If you can do that, there are a few other things I think we should get Him to see to first, however.


Call me stupid, but it sure doesn't sound like the same thing to me.

That's because it's rather a poor definition.

You went to public school, didn't you? The stuff they teach... :roll:

So I'm assuming you're home schooled by some religious whacko outfit or something? See, we can all make assumptions. Sort of like Creation Science. Twice the Assumption, None of the Proof!


I have said I know three ways to disprove evolution. I will state two here, because the science one is really long and involved and I don't want to type it up if unnecessary.

Evolution is a science. Therefore, a scientific disproof is necessary.

Evolution is not a science, it is a philosophy. Therefore, philosophical disproof is necessary. :D I took logic, you won't slip that over on me. Where is scientific proof? I still haven't seen any, and doubt I ever will.

Actually, Evolution is science. As for proof, why don't you look in that biology book. Or, if that doesn't sway you, here are some object lessons in evolution:

1. The finches in Darwin's Origin of Species.

2. The fossil record.

3. Antibacterial resistance in viruses.

4. Emergence of new viruses.

5. Genetic drift in isolated communities, such as Eskimo, Hawaii and Maori.

I could go on. Where's the proof for Creation Science? Like you said, I still haven't seen any and I doubt I ever will.


You know, I'd love to hear what Aristotle would say to that. Not that I would understand him necessarily. First off, that is not what I said. Secondly, "If there had ever once been nothing there would be nothing still" is the foundation of Metaphysics in the West, which if you'd had the History course I'm taking you would already know.

No, that's exactly what you said. You said in the beginning there was nothing and there would still be nothing today if not for God. However, you offered no rationale for this and at no time disproved alternate theories, or even addressed them. As for what Aristotle would say, he'd probably go with something like A is A and then laugh at you for making an unsupported supposition about something you have absolutely no a priori knowledge of.


Logic: If everything is random, then so is thought. If thought is random, then evolution was a random thought and is thus discredited. It disproves itself.

I won't bother to answer this one, because I don't see where the assertion 'everything is random' fits into the equation. This is the same kind of 'play on words' logic, as Descartes used in his silly 'God is perfect' proof.

Well, if not A, then not C. But I was taught A.

Well, you may have been taught what wasn't the case. What's your point? This sophistry is still a nonsense argument.


Okay, to those of you who said "evolution doesn't claim nothing it claims something" tell me: Where did that come from? Was it Being itself? And if so, why don't you worship it?

Here we stray out of the realm of Evolution and enter Big Bang Theory. Which one are you wanting to critique again? And why is either one of them worthy of worship? Are you so desperate to be subservient to something that your world simply doesn't make sense without something to give adulation to and debase yourself in front of? If so, this is a very poor excuse for faith.


To those of you who are still dying to hear an entire chapter from my Biology book and all the other material I've accumulated (spelled wrong) about evolution, I'll be back as soon as I can find it on the web.

Um, great, we'll be waiting. Try not to take several weeks this time?


If I can find it on the web. I don't really want to type it up, but I will if I have to.

Fine. Whatever. Suffer for your proof.

There are others I need to reply to, but I decided to pick on you. Why? Because a) I'm short of time and b) you made it easy.

Made what easy? Made it easy for you to make a fool of yourself? Be my guest. :lol:

I would take apart your rant, but Berkylvania just did it for me.

If you want anyone to take you seriously, provide your 'scientific' argument.

"Have you ever stood and stared at it, Morpheus? Marveled at its beauty. Its genius. Billions of people just living out their lives... oblivious. Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was re-designed to this: the peak of your civilization. [He turns from the window]. I say 'your civilization' because as soon as we start thinking for you, it really becomes our civilization, which is, of course, what this is all about. Evolution, Morpheus. Evolution. Like the dinosaur. Look out that window. You had your time. The future is our world, Morpheus. The future is our time."


Humans will eventually be taken over by machines.

It seems Writing and Reading needs to read some Richard Dawkins *yay*.
And some Stephen Jay Gould, for the less extreme.

I think he's stuck in humano-centric attitude of 'us' being something special.


I think that the importance of evolution in human thought is best captured ina famous statement by Sigmund Freud, who observed, with wry and telling irony, that all great scientific revolutions have but one feature in common: the casting of human arrogance off one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our ruling centrality in the universe. Freud mentions three such revolutions: the Copernican, for moving our home from centre stage in a small universe to a tiny peripheral hunk of rock amid inconcievable vastness; the Darwinian, for 'relegating us to descent from an animal world'; and (in one of the least modest statements of intellectual history) his own, for discovering the unconscious amd illustrating the nonrationality of the human mind. What can be more humbling, and therefore more liberating, than a transition from viewing ourselves as 'just a little lower than the angels,' the created rulers of nature, made in God's image to shape and subdue the earth- to the knowledge that we are not only natural products of a universal process of descent with modification (and thus kin to all other creatures), but also a small, late-blooming, and ultimately transient twig on the copiously arborescent tree of life, and the the foreordained summit of a ladder of progress. Shake complacent certainty, and kindle the fires of intellect.

It seems Writing and Reading needs to read some Richard Dawkins *yay*.
And some Stephen Jay Gould, for the less extreme.

I think he's stuck in humano-centric attitude of 'us' being something special.


I think that the importance of evolution in human thought is best captured ina famous statement by Sigmund Freud, who observed, with wry and telling irony, that all great scientific revolutions have but one feature in common: the casting of human arrogance off one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our ruling centrality in the universe. Freud mentions three such revolutions: the Copernican, for moving our home from centre stage in a small universe to a tiny peripheral hunk of rock amid inconcievable vastness; the Darwinian, for 'relegating us to descent from an animal world'; and (in one of the least modest statements of intellectual history) his own, for discovering the unconscious amd illustrating the nonrationality of the human mind. What can be more humbling, and therefore more liberating, than a transition from viewing ourselves as 'just a little lower than the angels,' the created rulers of nature, made in God's image to shape and subdue the earth- to the knowledge that we are not only natural products of a universal process of descent with modification (and thus kin to all other creatures), but also a small, late-blooming, and ultimately transient twig on the copiously arborescent tree of life, and the the foreordained summit of a ladder of progress. Shake complacent certainty, and kindle the fires of intellect.


Thanks, Pyr. :D

Does anyone actually read the really long posts? Here's my summary.

I'm pretty sure we all accept micro evolution and i would have thought from this follows that if the world has been around for a long time then we would definately have macro evolution. Am i wrong so far?

The key word there of course is "IF the world has been around for such a long time". There is a lot of evidence to say it has been, but as far as i know, no-one has a widely accepted theory as to how the big bang happened.

So the only argument here is whether the universe has been around for 15 or so billion years. If you believe not, perhaps you had better learn the science first used to demonstrate the big bang, then get back to us. If you still dont believe, then that would be even more interesting. That's why i still want to see reading and writing's scientific argument.

Does anyone actually read the really long posts? Here's my summary.

I'm pretty sure we all accept micro evolution and i would have thought from this follows that if the world has been around for a long time then we would definately have macro evolution. Am i wrong so far?

I hate to do this, but I think that kind of depends on your definition of macro-evolution. Many different ones have sprung forward over the course of this and other threads.


The key word there of course is "IF the world has been around for such a long time". There is a lot of evidence to say it has been, but as far as i know, no-one has a widely accepted theory as to how the big bang happened.

Again, though, this is mixing evolutionary theory with big bang cosmetology, although I think I understand your point.


So the only argument here is whether the universe has been around for 15 or so billion years. If you believe not, perhaps you had better learn the science first used to demonstrate the big bang, then get back to us. If you still dont believe, then that would be even more interesting. That's why i still want to see reading and writing's scientific argument.

I don't think we ever will. We've asked him to post it here and he hasn't as of yet. I too would like to see this argument, but I think it's about as likely as any vaporware you care to name.

Does anyone actually read the really long posts? Here's my summary.

I'm pretty sure we all accept micro evolution and i would have thought from this follows that if the world has been around for a long time then we would definately have macro evolution. Am i wrong so far?

I hate to do this, but I think that kind of depends on your definition of macro-evolution. Many different ones have sprung forward over the course of this and other threads.

Damn, i thought i had that bit down, could you give (or direct me to) a few definitions?

Does anyone actually read the really long posts? Here's my summary.

I'm pretty sure we all accept micro evolution and i would have thought from this follows that if the world has been around for a long time then we would definately have macro evolution. Am i wrong so far?

I hate to do this, but I think that kind of depends on your definition of macro-evolution. Many different ones have sprung forward over the course of this and other threads.

Damn, i thought i had that bit down, could you give (or direct me to) a few definitions?

Oh, who knows anymore.

It's been posited that macro-evolution refers to large scale speciation over time. It has also been put forth that macro-evolution is a directed series of changes with the goal, presumably, being some sort of divinely constructed superbeing.

Frankly, I think it behooves us all to look at micro-evolution as a regular sized value meal from McDonalds and macro-evolution is a Super Sized value meal, which we should all run out and order immediately because they are going to be phased out by the end of this year and we will all want to be able to tell our grandchildren that we remember when you could get a huge honking order of fries and a cola bigger than your head for just 40 cents more!

I'm pretty sure we all accept micro evolution and i would have thought from this follows that if the world has been around for a long time then we would definately have macro evolution. Am i wrong so far?

The key word there of course is "IF the world has been around for such a long time". There is a lot of evidence to say it has been, but as far as i know, no-one has a widely accepted theory as to how the big bang happened.

So the only argument here is whether the universe has been around for 15 or so billion years. If you believe not, perhaps you had better learn the science first used to demonstrate the big bang, then get back to us. If you still dont believe, then that would be even more interesting. That's why i still want to see reading and writing's scientific argument.

the age of the universe is only indirectly relevant to evolution. and the existence of the big bang is completely irrelevant. all we need is an old earth. and, quite amazingly, we have one.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

It seems Writing and Reading needs to read some Richard Dawkins *yay*.
And some Stephen Jay Gould, for the less extreme.

I think he's stuck in humano-centric attitude of 'us' being something special.


I think that the importance of evolution in human thought is best captured ina famous statement by Sigmund Freud, who observed, with wry and telling irony, that all great scientific revolutions have but one feature in common: the casting of human arrogance off one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our ruling centrality in the universe. Freud mentions three such revolutions: the Copernican, for moving our home from centre stage in a small universe to a tiny peripheral hunk of rock amid inconcievable vastness; the Darwinian, for 'relegating us to descent from an animal world'; and (in one of the least modest statements of intellectual history) his own, for discovering the unconscious amd illustrating the nonrationality of the human mind. What can be more humbling, and therefore more liberating, than a transition from viewing ourselves as 'just a little lower than the angels,' the created rulers of nature, made in God's image to shape and subdue the earth- to the knowledge that we are not only natural products of a universal process of descent with modification (and thus kin to all other creatures), but also a small, late-blooming, and ultimately transient twig on the copiously arborescent tree of life, and the the foreordained summit of a ladder of progress. Shake complacent certainty, and kindle the fires of intellect.


Thanks, Pyr. :D


You got it, Baby. Of course, I feel its missing something....

Dawkinized S. Gould....

Shake complacent certainty, and kindle the fires of intellect. Then burn all religious people on those fires.