I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Prime Factor
-
Even if it had a cause (probable), there is no reason to believe it was an intelligent cause, but a lot of reason to believe there was no intelligence behind it…
-
The “goal” of evolution is survival. Hopefully the mutations that occur in species are beneficial to the ever changing environmental conditions. If not they go extinct. The current evolutionary theory is still flawed. Certain mutations occur at quicker rates than others. Adaptive radiations are sporadic. Science often commits the crime of refusing to alter current theories. What they believe now is set in stone. As long as new discoveries do not contradict long held theories, they’re OK with them. Egyptology is a good suspect. Don’t rock the boat and your good to go.
I don’t believe Creationists voicing their opinion’s and/or beliefs is a reason to “hate” them. As long as, of course, their using words and not weapons. If you feel that threatened by someone’s “dogma”, I’d say your not too secure on your own beliefs. Freedom of Speech also means you have to listen to the guy you don’t want to…
-
@Field:
The “goal” of evolution is survival.
That is what i think, but it does not seem to be a goal enough noble…
Science often commits the crime of refusing to alter current theories. What they believe now is set in stone.
Again, that is perfectly true….
I don’t believe Creationists voicing their opinion’s and/or beliefs is a reason to “hate” them.
That is even not a scientitic theory, read about their “theory”, they are just trying to proove evolutionism is wrong. Their theory just come out from religious belief, there is nothing to support them; exept people in general. And somewhat that is frustrating, if evolutionist were not trying to convince the masses, nobody would care about them. But no, they want creationism to be in school, there is a museum of creationism and bla bla bla…
Again, i don’t say evolutionist explain everything… they simply don’t. But at least their theory evolve :). Evolution is very comple.
As long as, of course, their using words and not weapons. If you feel that threatened by someone’s “dogma”, I’d say your not too secure on your own beliefs. Freedom of Speech also means you have to listen to the guy you don’t want to…
I did’t say i will go out and start a revolution against them; still what they are doing is still something… not very ethic. I don’t see a lot of difference between those modern creationist, and the ancient geocentrist.
You will not find a lot of creationist in Japan, just because they are not christian.
-
“they are just trying to proove evolutionism is wrong”
Science is based on finding “facts.” That is why it is essential to have creationist scientists (among other scientists) that have the guts to challenge Evolutionary Theory. In science, no stone must be left unturned. If Evolutionary Theory can stand up under the weight of such attacks (dogmatic or not), even by the most ardent Creationists, then there’s a probability that it’s more than just a theory. Evolution isn’t the only theory or law tested and retested by scientists. For a long time, it was widely thought that the Law of Conservation of Mass was bulletproof. However, with the advent of Nuclear chemistry and Einstein’s E = MC Hammer [j/k], this was not always proven true. That is why we need such scientists to test Evolutionary theories and determine whether they are true or not, and I respect that (though maybe not their Creationist Theory).
“Evolution is very comple.”
When I was taught evolution, it was held that it occured over a long period of time (millions of years). Yet as Rommel (sorry Field Marshal, is too long for me) said, “certain mutations occur at quicker rates than others. Adaptive radiations are sporadic.” It is true that change does occur in a previously short amount of time, where no change (or showings of change) had occured before. What would be the answer to this?
“The “goal” of evolution is survival.”
If this is true among species, how come in the human population, the population hovers around 50% male and 50% female (at median age – at older ages there is a much higher % of females due to lifespan). Shouldn’t there be more females than males?
“Even if it had a cause (probable), there is no reason to believe it was an intelligent cause,”
Lets assume that the universe had a cause, though we are unsure whether it is intelligent or not. Now assuming we use the “Big Bang” (the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe), which states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a “big bang” explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing “information”, order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?
-
@TG:
"“The “goal” of evolution is survival.”
If this is true among species, how come in the human population, the population hovers around 50% male and 50% female (at median age – at older ages there is a much higher % of females due to lifespan). Shouldn’t there be more females than males?
At birth, the ratio is higher for females, about 1.06 on 1. And it seems that for the survival of the race, this 50/50 ratio proved quite successful. Assume the following: stone age, more females. Each female gives birth about once a year, she probably will not be able to support the community for half a year late pregancy and first time with the child). So, the the average male has to feed more mouthes (mothers who can’t work, more kids up to the age of say 6-10ish, after which they can “work”).
Maybe this 50/50 proved to be the ratio for having a the tribe grow and prosper, maybe more females => more kids => less workers, but more work needed => more famines, less surviving tribemembers ( probably kids). Why “produce” kids, when they die anyway?“Even if it had a cause (probable), there is no reason to believe it was an intelligent cause,”
Lets assume that the universe had a cause, though we are unsure whether it is intelligent or not. Now assuming we use the “Big Bang” (the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe), which states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a “big bang” explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing “information”, order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?
You do not understand the basic concepts of the big bang.
“the cloud of subatomic particles” filled the whole universe! It was highly ordered. The “explosion” was the expansion of space and time, not of particles into that. The universe at the start of the big bang was tiny, so to say. Expanding the space led to disorder.
It is your misconception of the big bang, which makes you need an “orderer”. And having “useful” structures is not necessarily a sign of “order”. The most order happens at Temperature absolute zero. That is highly ordered, but not at all useful, it’s even lethal for any living being.
And wether ppl are useful is a totally different thing :) -
“Why “produce” kids, when they die anyway?”
Plenty of animal species produce lots of offspring to insure that at least some survive. Also, half a year is a long time for a female not to be working. Even pregant females today still have to work. Also the tribe and nurseries have to be taken accounted for (one surrogate mother taking care of several kids, which many tribes and animal species practiced). More work is needed though the advantages offset this (less work in the future). Even then the deathrates among births were quite high (as compared today). There are no assurances that once a women becomes pregnant, it will lead to a successful birth.
Here’s another question on order and disorder. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. However, evolutionists say that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?
-
@TG:
“Why “produce” kids, when they die anyway?”
Plenty of animal species produce lots of offspring to insure that at least some survive. Also, half a year is a long time for a female not to be working. Even pregant females today still have to work. Also the tribe and nurseries have to be taken accounted for (one surrogate mother taking care of several kids, which many tribes and animal species practiced). More work is needed though the advantages offset this (less work in the future). Even then the deathrates among births were quite high (as compared today). There are no assurances that once a women becomes pregnant, it will lead to a successful birth.
I didn’t claim that i was right, it was just a “could be”, just as your reply is mainly a “could have been”. The point is: we have a more or less 50/50 ratio. So, i expect that this has proven to be the “most successful” ratio for whatever reasons. Maybe the one i gave is part of that, maybe not. I think it is, but have not enough knowledge about the stone age tribal structure, survival ratios etc.
[quote
Here’s another question on order and disorder. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. However, evolutionists say that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?Because one is physics, and the other one is “macroscopic” biology (meaning not molecular biology). I your question really serious? The average macro-biologist does not have a clue about physics, he doesn’t need it. He is “counting legs”, but does not care wether the earth has a continual energy input from the sun or not. As this (for him) just “is” it is not taken into account. If you asked him the above question, he’d probably say, “well, the sun is providing that energy of course”. And he is right with that. But: it’s not needed for the theory (as it is obvious that without the energy input it wouldn’t work).
-
“I didn’t claim that i was right, it was just a “could be”, just as your reply is mainly a “could have been”. The point is: we have a more or less 50/50 ratio. So, i expect that this has proven to be the “most successful” ratio for whatever reasons. Maybe the one i gave is part of that, maybe not. I think it is, but have not enough knowledge about the stone age tribal structure, survival ratios etc.”
Fair enough
“The average macro-biologist does not have a clue about physics, he doesn’t need it.”
Our universe (as we know it) is based on the principles of physics, therefore if evolution conflicts with physics, then there is some need to question the it. So what is your answer to the question I gave above?
-
@TG:
“The average macro-biologist does not have a clue about physics, he doesn’t need it.”
Our universe (as we know it) is based on the principles of physics, therefore if evolution conflicts with physics, then there is some need to question the it. So what is your answer to the question I gave above?
There is no conflict.
The energy needed for the change (and not mentioned by the biologists) comes from the sun, as all life on this earth only exists because of the sun as an energy source.
That’s it.(and i said that already in the post above :) )
-
@F_alk:
There is no conflict.
The energy needed for the change (and not mentioned by the biologists) comes from the sun, as all life on this earth only exists because of the sun as an energy source.
That’s it.
(and i said that already in the post above :) )You point out that the Second Law is posses no conflict since the sun provides energy, which is also gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, making the earth an open system. However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. It should also be pointed out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur - only the application of directed energy will. The presence of energy from the Sun does not solve the evolutionist’s problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.
-
@TG:
@F_alk:
There is no conflict.
The energy needed for the change (and not mentioned by the biologists) comes from the sun, as all life on this earth only exists because of the sun as an energy source.
That’s it.
(and i said that already in the post above :) )You point out that the Second Law is posses no conflict since the sun provides energy, which is also gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, making the earth an open system. However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. It should also be pointed out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur - only the application of directed energy will.
The presence of energy from the Sun does not solve the evolutionist’s problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.
What has the first to do with the second? You are right: THe earth is an open system, the universe is not. Having energy is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for reducing entropy.
Therefore, we only have to show that the suns energy plus the metabolism of living beings provide the sufficient condition.
Knowing a little bit of physics and molecular biology (not having my book for the later at hand though), i can’t see any problem there.
Please specify the problem you have with it a bit, maybe i can reply more specifically on that then :) -
The 2nd Law states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionist say that order increases with time? Granted, there is energy (from the sun), however, without energy being directed, wouldn’t this violate the 2nd Law?
-
Well, the metabolism uses the energy to create order.
I think to explain that in total (a) my knowledge is not really sufficient and (b) it would take too much time and space here :), and © i am too lazy :D -
Well, in a way, the sun is directed. Chloroplasts, reflecting light in the green spectrum, absorb light at other wavelengths. This is the right amount of energy to set off a reaction causing CO2 to ultimately be built into glucose.
The glucose is the next part of the equation - use of it through various metabolic pathways (glycolysis, pyruvate dehydrogenase, the Kreb’s cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation amoung others) provides the ATP (a high energy intermediate) required for DNA replication/transcription, translation (i.e. protein production) etc.
There is a kind of elegance to it.
For better or worse, no matter what you say, no matter what “evidence” you produce, there is absolutely no way that FinsterniS will consider it possible that there is any intelligence to creation.quote: Woooooo…. That is very arrogant, very dogmatic. Like your religion was the good one, the other religion cannot answer thing your religion can…
That is not historicly valid. Polytheist was very strong, it answer all the things christianism was answering, it was only less superficial, there was a lot of gods, and people were praying for the gods they think was appopriate for them.
it was just not as beautiful as christianism, not as rigid, and they do not menace people. Also polytheist do not make such promise as eternal love, eternal happiness and thing like that. You clearly lack objectivity… Like i ask, if this is just a question of faith, without any logic, then why X religion is better than Y ?
Um FinsterniS, i thought we already clarified this. I am arrogant. My sisters have known that for years.
Also my point was that for Christians, Christianity has answered the most important of their questions. None of the religions i mentioned has provided a text like the Bible, or a relationship with a creator that compares to the one that Christianity offers (and describes). Historically Polytheism might appear valid, but it has nothing that would satisfy a Christian. And any chance you could give this whole “menacing people” a rest? I really don’t get that at all. Maybe you have met some weird people, but i don’t know anyone like that.
And yes, i clearly lack objectivity. So do you. So does everyone in the world, each according to his/her ideology.
The reason why X religion is better than Y might be answered by “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. Christianity answers the questions we ask late at night. It relates to many things that we feel, and it describes what we know inside in a way that is impossible to communicate with someone who can not relate.
Sure, i don’t know all of the answers, but my most important questions have been answered - in a personal way. -
obviously the above was me.
-
CC, brought up chloroplasts and the like.
So here’s another question to see if you can solve:
The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability? -
@Anonymous:
Well, in a way, the sun is directed. Chloroplasts, reflecting light in the green spectrum, absorb light at other wavelengths. This is the right amount of energy to set off a reaction causing CO2 to ultimately be built into glucose.
The glucose is the next part of the equation - use of it through various metabolic pathways (glycolysis, pyruvate dehydrogenase, the Kreb’s cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation amoung others) provides the ATP (a high energy intermediate) required for DNA replication/transcription, translation (i.e. protein production) etc.
There is a kind of elegance to it.Not directed; just perfect for the apparition of protein and ultimatly life… Anyway we don,t even know how life exatly start out; maybe from ashe, maybe from our sun, maybe it is just inherent to planets like ours…
For better or worse, no matter what you say, no matter what “evidence” you produce, there is absolutely no way that FinsterniS will consider it possible that there is any intelligence to creation.
That is an easy one, and i can say exactly the same thing…
And any chance you could give this whole “menacing people” a rest?
No because, it is too, historicly valid…
And yes, i clearly lack objectivity. So do you. So does everyone in the world, each according to his/her ideology.
Agreed, and i already tell that.
The reason why X religion is better than Y might be answered by “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. Christianity answers the questions we ask late at night.
The fact it answer the good question is an argument for it ?
Sure, i don’t know all of the answers, but my most important questions have been answered - in a personal way.
Keep that personnal, that way everything is ok.
-
@TG:
CC, brought up chloroplasts and the like.
So here’s another question to see if you can solve:
The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?The first bacteria actually did not have an aerob metabolism, oxygen was poisonious to them, they produced that as their kind of “waste” and changed the atmosphere. Then, at some stage, a step in evolution has happened, and a bacteria started an aerob metabolism, which is much more efficient. Then later, an organism (probably a bacteria) joined a symbiosis with a chloroplast (the things in plants that do the photosynthesis, they actually have an own DNA like the mitochondria, which means they have been sole living beings before). THis was the birth of the first plant, so to say (except that plants of course have a different cell “outer layer” than bacteria and animals, but i don’t know where to place that chronologically).
-
You mentioned symbiosis and there are many examples of plants and animals which have a “symbiotic” relationship (they need each other to survive). How does evolution explain this?
-
@TG:
You mentioned symbiosis and there are many examples of plants and animals which have a “symbiotic” relationship (they need each other to survive). How does evolution explain this?
supposedly as two beings come together they are more productive than the individual units were (for example, an aerobic prokaryote - mitochondrion, merging with another, possibly more advanced, anaerobic prokaryote, resulting in a eukaryotic cell). You get increased efficiency by using Oxygen to reduce hydrogen in aerobic energy production this way. Maybe some environmental or competative change might occur, causing increasing dependence on each other. This could might lead to attenuation of genetic material causing increased reliance on each other.
Nothing scientifically proven, but it is a possible explanation to your question (if we take intelligent design out of the equation, of course).and FinsterniS - the fact that something answers questions demonstrates its utility, which just might in some people’s consideration, give it some validity.
Suggested Topics
