evolutionary science - Page 4 - Home Theater Forum and Systems - HomeTheaterShack.com

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 59 Old 10-13-07, 10:08 AM
Plain ole user
 
lcaillo's Avatar
Tech Guru
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gainesville, FL, USA
Posts: 11,121
Send a message via AIM to lcaillo
Re: evolutionary science

Well said. If you look at most of the great scientists of the past, and many from our time, most do not reject either perspective, but look for the value in both. Starting with the assumption that any particular perspective is wrong, without looking at all of the evidence available and considering what we may not know is inherently unscientific. Faith does not require scientific inquiry, but if one wants to engage in a rational discussion or debate, it is necessary to be willing to challenge one's own assumptions. If you are not willing to do so, you are not having a rational discussion at all, just preaching. There are far too many preachers on all sides, IMO.




Looking for me, just google my username. I have used the same one for most sites for many years.
lcaillo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 59 Old 10-13-07, 11:49 PM
Elite Shackster
 
SteveCallas's Avatar
Steve
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,398
Re: evolutionary science

Quote:
Chrisbee wrote:
You can prove evolution in just a few days.
Subject flies to a stressor and the surviving offspring will have changed.
Mice and other mammals take longer for changes to manifest themselves because reproduction rates are much slower than for flies.
Without a stressor or change in their environment some species can remain unchanged for very long periods indeed.
All it needs is a trigger to set off a genetic reaction.
Or do you have some other explanation for genetic changes?
Look around you: Cats and dogs are an excellent example of evolution.
Farm animals have been bred to massively increase milk supplies over just a few decades. That's evolution.
Pigs now produce larger litters and gain weight very rapidly compared with the past.
You want further proof: The Aids virus. This virus changes constantly to survive the attacks made on it by medicine.
Don't ask a layman to prove evolution. Ask a geneticist
Exactly, I agree with everything you just stated, that is all fact. But that is evolution on a "smaller" scale, microevolution if you will. Darwin's theory of evolution takes it further by suggesting every existing organism today is the descendant of one or a few original organisms from billions of years ago, essentially macroevolution. It also delves into life springing from non-life, from a primordial soup. Life from non-life has never been observed or recreated, and so it is not a fact, but an assumption that requires faith to be believed in.

Mutations in DNA result in the loss of data, the rearranging of data, data not being activatd, or the activation of dormant data, but never the creation of new, unique data. For life to start as a single celled organism and change over billions of years into creatures with no legs, two legs, four legs, six legs, eight legs, wings, horns, fingers, tails, teeth, hair, eyes, hearts, kidneys, lungs, ears, noses, wiskers, tongues, intestines, skin, etc., new, unique DNA data would have had to have been created, several millions of times over, again and again. But creation of new DNA data has never been observed or recreated, and so that is not a fact either, but also an assumption that requires faith to be believed in.

Science is essentially based on observation - establishing facts based on repeatable events. There are many beliefs that do not fall into the realm of science because they can not be observed or repeated, and Darwin's theory of evolution, or macroevolution, is one of those beliefs. One needs to put faith into that theory, just as much if not more so than they would need to put faith in any other theory that explains the origin of life. Yet that theory of evolution is what scientists push and many people accept as fact. To remain a science, evolution needs to be limited to what can be observed and repeated, it needs to be limited to microevolution.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
SteveCallas is offline  
post #33 of 59 Old 10-15-07, 02:04 AM
Senior Shackster
Will
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Matthews, NC
Posts: 521
Send a message via AIM to WillyD Send a message via Skype™ to WillyD
Re: evolutionary science

Quote:
Life from non-life has never been observed or recreated, and so it is not a fact, but an assumption that requires faith to be believed in.
Biogenesis is certainly an interesting subject.

Quote:
Science is essentially based on observation
Absolutely. The problem with some or the more common types of creationism is that it isn't subject to change based on new observations, right? The scientific community would brush aside evolution for the most part if they discovered or observed something multiple times that was contrary to it. Would creationists do the same?

Quote:
One needs to put faith into that theory, just as much if not more so than they would need to put faith in any other theory that explains the origin of life. Yet that theory of evolution is what scientists push and many people accept as fact.


Too many people aren't thinking critically about what they believe.

Quote:
There is proof for creation... there in no proof for evolution.


This thread isn't about Creation and the Bible, but that is definitely been proven over and over again. It has never been dis-proven while evolution has been, over and over again by numerous people.
WillyD is offline  
 
post #34 of 59 Old 10-15-07, 04:55 AM Thread Starter
drf
drf
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere else.
Posts: 1,249
Re: evolutionary science

Quote:
WillyD wrote: View Post
Absolutely. The problem with some or the more common types of creationism is that it isn't subject to change based on new observations, right? The scientific community would brush aside evolution for the most part if they discovered or observed something multiple times that was contrary to it. Would creationists do the same?
Yes, I believe most of them would, If we look back at the history of the church over the past 4000 years, there is a significant change in the understanding of scriptures everytime we discover new things, e.g the shape of the earth. The thing is, even with modern science, there is still nothing that flies in the face of the core context of the bible.

One thing I would like to know (just to take back to topic) is, what is the exact significance of a 58% match in protein sequences between two species? One of the things Macro evolutionist seem to claim is that this is conclusive proof that one speacies evolved from another.

Another interesting question: Why, if chimps have 98% identical DNA to us, do they still swing in trees?
Is it possible that the 2% that is different is coincdentally the bit that makes us modest?
drf is offline  
post #35 of 59 Old 10-15-07, 06:09 AM
Senior Shackster
terry
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bathurst nsw australia
Posts: 509
Re: evolutionary science

Quote:
drf wrote: View Post
The thing is, even with modern science, there is still nothing that flies in the face of the core context of the bible.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

A more truthful statement is that there is nothing intrinsically in the core bible text that we can use to predict or explain, and I actually do question the readiness to re-interpret the bible based on new scientific discoveries.

Umm, I can quite easily point you to strongly held creationist belief that the universe IS in fact only 6000 years old (which incidentally is not in the bible) and now claim that the word 'behemoth' as used in the bible is 'proof' that humanity co-existed with dinosaurs.

I can also point you to conversations in the bible between people and their donkeys, so I wouldn't push that line (it's all explained in the bible anyway) too far.
terry j is offline  
post #36 of 59 Old 10-15-07, 09:14 AM
Senior Shackster
 
tweeksound's Avatar
Matt
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Concord NH
Posts: 218
Re: evolutionary science

Quote:
Umm, I can quite easily point you to strongly held creationist belief that the universe IS in fact only 6000 years old (which incidentally is not in the bible) and now claim that the word 'behemoth' as used in the bible is 'proof' that humanity co-existed with dinosaurs.
Very true.

What proof do we have that our fossil record is anywhere near accurate.

Great Paleontologists have stated that trying to understand the history of life on Earth using the current fossil record would be comparable to understanding Tolstoy's "War and Peace" by just reading a paragraph.

And further more, we have nothing to compare the fossils to to be sure they are as old as we think.
Was anyone around 100 million years ago to document the death of a dinosaur that we carbon date that old?
What vantage point do we have?

There have been 20th century tools that have been found fossilized. A woman left an item in her fridge for too long and it actually fossilized.

As far as the 'behemoth' in the Bible, it speaks about a goat and we have goats. It speaks about a dog and we have dogs, it speaks about a lion and we have lions, it speaks about dragons and we've got what?

Perhaps the arc was too small to facilitate dinosaurs and they they died in the flood?
Perhaps a comet hit the Earth 65 million years ago and they were wiped out then?

Science and faith. It's all based on belief.
According to quantum physics, we shouldn't even exist!
tweeksound is offline  
post #37 of 59 Old 10-15-07, 08:51 PM
Elite Shackster
 
SteveCallas's Avatar
Steve
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,398
Re: evolutionary science

One of the difficulties I see in showing the error in Darwin's theory of evoution or macroevolution is that biblical creationism is immediately brought up as the only other alternative. Many in the scientific community who study paleontology, genetics, geology, etc. are atheists - for many, it is the reason they decided to take that career path - and the mention of biblical creationism as the alternative to the theory they support often causes them to aggressively and perhaps irrationally defend their position, just as those on the other side will often aggressively and irrationally defend their biblical creationist beliefs. Also, if you attempt to show the error in macroevolution, you are immediatey labled as a biblical creationist. If we leave biblical creationism off the table as a potential explanation for the origin of life for the sake of trying to refine Darwin's theory of evolution, and focus primarily on the large, legitimate problems with said theory, we may be able to actually create a better scientific theory to explain the origin of life. That's not to say by any means that biblical creationism isn't or couldn't be the right explanation, just that it needs to be suspended in order to get the right frame of mind from some of the folks who spend their life studying the earth. It's like letting a girl beat you in something in order to better your standing with her

What I find interesting about the concept of Noah's Ark is that since we already know that microevolution is act and does occur, there would not need to be a pair of every species aboard such a vessel as some like to point out to show the absurdity of such an idea. Rather, there would only need to be a pair of animals from each family, as offspring would be able to evolve over time and regions of the world into different genus. Further microevolution would lead to different species. So for example, rather than needing to stow away a pair of lions, tigers, panthers, bobcats, leopards, cougars, cheetahs, lynxs, jaguars, pumas, and the various types of domesticated cats, there would only have needed to be a single pair of animals from the felidae family. They would have then evolved over time into all those types of cats we know today. This greatly simplifies one of the core concepts of the story of Noah's Ark. Does that prove it or mean it doesn't have other weak points? Definitely not, but it is something to consider.

Why don't scientists ever think like this or mention this rather than balking at how silly it would be to have a pair of every single animal on board? Because everybody wants their theory to "win"


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
SteveCallas is offline  
post #38 of 59 Old 10-16-07, 01:45 AM
Senior Shackster
Dan
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 292
Send a message via MSN to Danny
Re: evolutionary science

I'll start off here with a statement

Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal.

Just because some people (even the majority) believe something to be true does not necessarily make it so.

Also it is my belief that Christianity and evolution are incompatible. Ie evolution is death etc was occurring before humans would god therefore classify that as 'good'

my 2 cents
Danny is offline  
post #39 of 59 Old 10-16-07, 02:13 AM
Shackster
 
<^..^>Smokey Joe's Avatar
<^..^>SJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 92
Re: evolutionary science

Quantum physics actually doesnt mean we don't exist, just not as you think you exist. The problem we have is we think from the human perspective of isolation, ie it exists because you and I believe it does.
Where as in the quantum world an object may exist dispite what we believe. We are not the center of the universe. Of course I could be wrong, which case when I push up daisy's Ill return and let you know.

Now a personal view about evolution in this context is Im leaning on the darwin mutant gene survival of the strongest line of thought. For me the evidence weights in that favour. But without slamming folklaw, wivestales, stories of old and biblical manuscripts one must not discount the possibility of a truth mixed within exageration, our stories grow wilder and more dramatic in time to make them more exciting and believable. (how big was that fish)

Although we still as a species suffer from misinterpretation of events, we get fooled by our senses, our brains get things wrong and our fear of the unknown compound upon our belief systems we have been programmed with. The Arc story could be based on reality and just a matter of perspective. It could have been Farmer Bob who happened to have a modest boat for day outings and family occasions. One day a big storm dumped a ton of water, the farmer with no high high ground couldnt save all his stock so choose to save just the breading pairs of his animals. Later Bob told his story to the village, but like the size of ones fish catch the story grew way beyond actual events. The villagers knew the storm was bad, it was very heavy so his story must be true so they document the event in their local history.

In the context of the story the storm was true, the boat existed and animals were saved. Just the sequence of the events, perspective got distorted.

This is not to say all stories could be reconstructed, just possibly those with evidence of an event, ie a storm which has left scares on the earth for example.

Just some ideas to consider.

Light changes what it is doing depending if we are looking or not. Considering we only see this as a reflection of the past....what is it really doing now?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
<^..^>Smokey Joe is offline  
post #40 of 59 Old 10-16-07, 02:26 AM Thread Starter
drf
drf
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere else.
Posts: 1,249
Re: evolutionary science

Quote:
terry j wrote: View Post
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

A more truthful statement is that there is nothing intrinsically in the core bible text that we can use to predict or explain, and I actually do question the readiness to re-interpret the bible based on new scientific discoveries.
I believe that in general the human race is getting smarter with each generation. Which means that there is higher inteligence and historical experience with which to interperate the bible.
I think the bible does explain quite alot, it just does it in simple easy to understand terms. How many people would be christian if the book of genesis read like a quantum physics white paper?

heres a little example:

I could explain the process of quantum tunneling, by illustrating a field barrier that would logically require a particle to have a higher energy state than its own inherent kinetic energy in order to breach said barrier. Yet we can observe particles with the lower energy potential breach the barrier anyway. This is a seemingly illogical possiblility.

Or I could just say: If you switch on the light switch, power will flow to the light.

the later statment wil be understood by majority of people, yet has the potential to be mis-interpreted by those with either below average I.Q or a hidden agenda.

The former statment can't be easily mis-interpreted (except for the fact that I wrote it) but requires a fair amount of knoweldge that is only availiable in the late 20th centurary. So it is not much good to anyone before then. This is why the bible was written the way it was, Imagine trying to explain what a finite potential barrier is to Pontius Pilot!!

Just more food for thought.
drf is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
evolutionary , science

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now




PLEASE COMPLETE ALL REQUIRED FIELDS BELOW... THANKS!

REQUIRED FIELDS ON THIS PAGE
YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL OF THESE

Username
Password
Confirm Password
Email Address
Confirm Email Address
Random Question
Random Question #2




User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
PLEASE READ BELOW PRIOR TO ENTERING AN EMAIL ADDRESS!

ATTENTION!

YOU MUST ACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT!

Activation requires you reply to an email we will send you after you register... if you do not reply to this email, you will not be able to view certain areas of the forum or certain images... nor will you be able download software.

AN INVALID EMAIL ADDRESS WILL CAUSE YOUR ACCOUNT TO BE DELETED!

See our banned email list here: Banned Email List

We DO NOT respond to spamcop, boxtrapper and spamblocker emails... please add @hometheatershack DOT com to your whitelist prior to registering or you will get nowhere on your registration.


Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML is not allowed!
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 


For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome