Pages: [1]
[BOINCstats] Willy
 
Forum moderator - Administrator - Developer - Tester - Translator
BAM!ID: 1
Joined: 2006-01-09
Posts: 9285
Credits: 349,822,518
World-rank: 3,849

2006-09-08 17:21:29

The text below is transferred from the shoutbox. It’s a very interesting discussion which would be a shame to let it disappear in the black hole of the shoutbox.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PovAddict:
SETI is the most popular and least useful project, imho

Ringold:
Useful? Could be; if by random chance it succeeded, it'd be huge. But even if it doesn't, without S@H, BOINC would'nt have nearly as many members at the moment I dont think

Pumpo:
SETI started the whole thing. Moreover I know that Berkeley uses data collected for other *scientific* purposes even if I am not able to understand what they are doing but that is something related to Hydrogen into the outer space

Frank Jahn:
Without SAH there would be no BOINC

venox7:
So SAH is/was usefull in developing the software, but is the science of SAH usefull?

PovAddict:
I never said Seti@Home should have never existed. . .

borandi:
Usefulness can not be empirically quantified - it is, after all, up to personal preference. Ask yourself whether short term or long term goals are important? etc.

Saenger:
Usefulness is mostly personal taste, and is as such not disputable. Even the crunching of random numbers may be useful if done to further develop some science app. or even just the server setup. Also, past usefulness does not warrant for eternal.

Valery Zablotsky:
Saenger, we are slowly engaging in phylosophical discussion over that matter But the real problem is: if assumptions made (radio signals, tpye of them, a way to measure and predict them) are correct? If not - then we are crunching data for nothing

Ringold:
Zablotsky: True, but considering we can't ask aliens what frequency they're blowing their horns at, we just have to make educated guesses and run with it. Regarding crunching random numbers, I get a feeling thats what these alpha projects do now

Ringold:
Not that random data is bad though, like Saenger said. Develops the application for the future

Valery Zablotsky:
Moreover, if signal would be found and confirmed: do we have assurance that SETI staff will not silently report that to US government? and it will be hidden for long time to get a "competitive advantage" over other nations?

Dan Untied:
When another app is developed that tries searching for eti in another "fishing hole", I will support that as well. As Edison said loosely quoted "I am mor a discoverer than an an inventor. "

Ringold:
I'd hope they'd release it publicly after confirmation right away. I'd hate to wait 20 more yrs to see religious nuts try to factor that in to the bible

WyerByter:
@Ringold You assume they will find a signal, and be able to prove that it came from intelligent life. And that it would destroy some foundation of Christianity, or Judaism.

Ringold:
@ WyerByter: The fanatics in my country that cant even accept evolution, yes, it would shatter their world. Or they'd ignore it. One or the other

WyerByter:
@Ringold: In your mind, is it possible that evolution might not be correct? If your answer is 'No', then the fanatic appears to be you.

smurph:
Oh Brother! Evolution makes much more sense than " let there be light. " The age of magic was a long time ago.

Ringold:
Fanatic? Educated, perhaps. I'd say "no" to that just the same as I'd say "no" to gravity not existing. Both can be seen and observed right before our eyes. At least a dozen cases of observed speciation in the news this year.

Ringold:
Lol, not to mention the discovery of a species that grew out of cancer in dogs in Asia 2000yrs ago. That was a fascinating read. No citation of 'Genesis' in the research papers.

markschulz:
Evolution doubt?!? On this site?!? BOINC is a science-oriented activity. What's your next issue? Sun revolving around the Earth? Come on WyerByter. . . this one is settled.

WyerByter:
So "Let there be Light" makes less sense then, "Oh, it was an accident". Beyond that it is not settled except in the public schools where they teach the religon of secular humanism in the guise of not teaching religon.

smurph:
Religon has nothing to do with God, It has to do with Money and Power.

Saenger:
@WyerByter: "let ther be light" or "Touched by his noodly apendage" makes less sense then scientific facts or theories without the need for magic for me. The inclusion of magic in the process lessens the value imho.

student_:
@WyerByter: "the religon of secular humanism" -- secular means "indifferent to religion". By definition, secular humanism is not religious. If you'd like to discuss theology, then start a thread in the forum and I'll join.

Lady Klaatuborada:
If you cant see the Divine in the complexity of the Human Geome, in the structure and laws of nature and the universe, in the power of subatomic particles, then you're just not going to see it.

venox7:
If you can't explain or answer, call it a Big Bang!! Where did the matter/energy for the Big Bang come from? And before that? Our "intelligence" is too primitive to understand all this! Imho.

WyerByter:
I sorry there are so many dogmatic evolutionists. Is there no room in your belief's for you to be wrong? But, as per request, I will say no more.
Though it is good to see some come to my support.

Saenger:
Science is not a religion. There is no "dogmatic evolutionist", as it's a theory, that can be challenged like all science with new facts, but old prose is no fact, it's fiction. It's nice to read, a lot of philosophical content, but just fiction.

Biggles:
@Saenger: Can you prove that holy books are fiction? What evidence is there that disproves a God? Not evidence for evolution, but evidence against a God. Your claims are as baseless as anybody else's.

Saenger:
I don't need any proof, those who claim they're no fiction have to prove it. And prove means facts, not believe. Believe=Religion, Fact=Science. And facts have to be proven in the real world.
Please do not PM, IM or email me for support (they will go unread/ignored). Use the forum for support.
KWSN-Sir Papa Smurph
 
BAM!ID: 1471
Joined: 2006-06-03
Posts: 32
Credits: 288,590,983
World-rank: 4,411

2006-09-08 18:16:17

As the Beautiful and Wise Lady Klaatuborada points out, I have and do see signs of Intelligent design in science. The problem is that the term "Intelligent Design" has been hijacked by xenophobes to promote their brand of religion. btw. if God himself came down and told you all the answers to Life the Universe and Everything, We as humans do not have the cognitive ability to understand it. NI!
Saenger
 
Tester - Translator
BAM!ID: 5
Joined: 2006-01-10
Posts: 1735
Credits: 138,764,375
World-rank: 7,386

2006-09-08 18:17:40

This is a bit like archeology, I didn't even remembered the start of all this, as it's very quick out of sight in the shoutbox. Thanks Willy.

Now for some facts (and without the restriction of so few letters)

Evolution is a scientific theory, and as any of such it can be wrong. It's the best for now to fit the facts, but such was them newtonian mechanics up to Einstein, or the earth revolving around the sun up to Galilei. A new theory has to fit the facts (or new discovered facts) better then the old one, so if you have a better explanation for fossils, development of the species, natural mutation and such, just put it in the open of the scientific community and wait for it's approval (or it's destruction ).

Big bang and evolution are 2 distinct things. Big bang is possible without any live, evolution is about the development of live.
bjango
 
Translator
BAM!ID: 7
Joined: 2006-01-11
Posts: 197
Credits: 598,676
World-rank: 273,825

2006-09-08 18:23:17
last modified: 2006-09-08 18:28:37

deleted
WyerByter
 
BAM!ID: 3895
Joined: 2006-08-10
Posts: 377
Credits: 123,210,100
World-rank: 7,972

2006-09-08 18:52:50

The big problem with your assertion that science = fact, Saenger is that a couple hundred years ago the fact was bacteria spontaneously generated out of the foods that they infested. Today that idea is laughable. So, are you sure that evolution will not be thought laughable in a couple hundred years?

Besides, when did you ever see a law come about by accident? The basis of evolution is random chance or accident, and the basis of science is laws or predicting the future based on the past. So, where did life come from? Was it created, seeded, happen by quirk or accident of chemistry? Evolution implies the third at some point in time, but has not been able to explain why it happened once and not ever again. The first requires a creator. And the middle one answers the question only for one planet and not the big question of where life came from.

You insist that your view is correct and that any other view is incorrect, that by definition is dogmatic. And the fact that Evolution is a Theory means it is not settled. If it was settled, then it would be a law.
Flummi
BAM!ID: 3805
Joined: 2006-08-08
Posts: 4
Credits: 1,062,557,485
World-rank: 1,707

2006-09-08 19:22:58
last modified: 2006-09-08 19:31:17

Centauries ago people think that Earth is in the middle of the universe. Today even religious people know (or should now) that the sun is in the middle of our solar system and part of the Milky Way. So with Intelligent Design isn’t Earth in the middle of the universe but humans, chosen and made from an omnipotent god. And some people had problems with the fact humans are “advanced monkeys”. With Intelligent Design God made all animals, plants and humans so we aren’t “advanced monkeys”.
The different between Intelligent Design and Darwin’s Theory is that Intelligent Design explains nothing. God made this so and discussion over --> no scientific theory!
Today the necessary conditions for a “chemistry accident”, which possibly leads to life, aren’t available. Oxygen, for example, kills anaerobe bacteriums, one of the first life forms on earth.
The different between Theory and Hypothesis is, that theorys verifyed with datas, other theorys before they print. Centauries ago, people didn't work scientific and some of this "theorys" are hypothesis.
(Ignore orthographic mistakes, because I speak English very well, bröckleweis und gar net schnell *g*)
Alphageek
BAM!ID: 4966
Joined: 2006-08-31
Posts: 1
Credits: 522,312
World-rank: 294,884

2006-09-08 23:12:34

This is a very interesting discussion. Thank you Willy for moving it so we can continue.

First let me say I believe in intelligent design, actually I believe in creation by God. Having said that, I see the problem here not in the argument of creation vs evolution but more in the definition of evolution. In my experience, most people believe that evolution = one species transforming into another. Well I do not believe that exists and there is no scientific proof of that ever happening. Oh yes there have been reports of "the missing link" but have always turn out to be false. Time Magazine even ran one of these as a cover story, latter they printed a retraction. Now, I do believe evolution does exist because there is proof of it. People get taller; some birds in a tropical environment get thicker beaks during decade long droughts, etc. But there is no proof that one species has ever transformed into another. Darwin himself said his theory would be proven false if something were to be discovered that could not have evolved on its own. Basically what he said was for evolution to exists there must be a reason for that part of the species to "spontaneously come into existence” I (and many others) present to you the Eye. Pond scum which we all came from according to evolution, did not have eyes nor was there ever a reason for it or anything that cam from it to develop eyes.

I have stated that the problem is in the definition and I also said I believe evolution exists. I believe MICRO evolution exists.

Micro evolution = evolution within a species
Macro evolution = one species transforming to another species

Don't believe that God (an omnipotent being) could have created us? That’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it. Think of it this way the Bible tells us that God spoke everything into existence, no one was there to see that happen, so no one can say when he spoke that things that are in the big bang theory did not happen. An explosion? Rocks flying everywhere creating planets? What if God said Let there be light and our “big bang” explosion happened! Just a thought.

I run Seti (and have been since 1999) because it is fun. Did you ever think that maybe all this number crunching wont turn out to prove that ETI exist, but will eventually prove it does not exist?

I would like to talk more on this but I have to go to work. I will continue this discussion with you later.
Keck_Komputers
 
BAM!ID: 571
Joined: 2006-05-22
Posts: 178
Credits: 25,170,667
World-rank: 24,851

2006-09-09 11:15:52

Pond scum may not need eyes, however as soon as something develops that allows the scum to move then an "eye" does become a desirable addition. Even if all it can do is rotate the "eye" will help it rotate the more efficient side towards the light sorce.

My personal belief is that if God created life he created something a bit less complex than pond scum and then let it evolve.

BTW there are 2 species between us and any missing links.
BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8
Flummi
BAM!ID: 3805
Joined: 2006-08-08
Posts: 4
Credits: 1,062,557,485
World-rank: 1,707

2006-09-09 17:00:50

Every scientific theory includes limits in which his statements are correct. For example Hooks’ Limit. F = D * x. F = strength, D = Feather constant, x = expansion of the feather if the strength act. But the results are only correct, if the feather goes to the beginning position after strengths act. If the strength to heavy, the feather deformed and the results are false because the condition has changed. Maybe there is another theory which include such deformation but with F = D * x it isn’t possible to get the right result of a deformed feather.
Back to evolution. The necessary condition, the limit, is, that there is the first life form on earth or maybe the first life forms when this “accident” happens at the same time on several places on earth. The mystery, how death material get alive isn’t within the limits and so that can’t be an argument against the evolution. That would be an argument against an advanced evolution theory which include the mystery, like the deformed feather.
But this mystery is the most interested question of evolution if the word “evolution” not used scientific. Humans are searching for that long time ago but found no solution. Either we aren’t intelligent enough and don’t have the necessary knowledge yet (so think I) or god create the first life form. Then there is nothing to found. But after the first life form exists, the theory of evolution is a correct theory and so Intelligent Design (God made all plants and animals and set them on earth) is false. There are interesting results of experiments. So in labs amino acids originate in a chemistry soup - which is similar to primeval earth - when a flash of lightning during a simulated thunderstorm hit the soup. Amino acids are very important for life. Such results aren’t a proof. But why shouldn’t it possibly that when a, b, c, d, e and f at a location come together life and not only amino acids originate?

BTW Scientists want to create a thing consists of death molecules which is able to reproduce itself only with quantum physics laws and without the breathe of god who gives this ability to them. Have they succeeded in maybe ten years we’ll have all ingredients for life.
Saenger
 
Tester - Translator
BAM!ID: 5
Joined: 2006-01-10
Posts: 1735
Credits: 138,764,375
World-rank: 7,386

2006-09-10 16:59:08

The big problem with your assertion that science = fact, Saenger is that a couple hundred years ago the fact was bacteria spontaneously generated out of the foods that they infested. Today that idea is laughable. So, are you sure that evolution will not be thought laughable in a couple hundred years?

No, and I said just that!
A scientific theorie is only as good as it can be proven by the available facts. Probably the theory of spontaneously generated bacteria was good at it's time, but got shelved with more advanced studies. So it had to go for something better. Same can happen with evolution as we know it now asap if any new facts show up.
BUT: I will immediately discard every anthropocentric or even "our-solar-system-centric" argumentation, like: "Look at the marvel of the eye, that can see just the rays the sun does best" or similar rubbish. It's evolved this way because of the sun spectrum, or it would have been weeded out in the billions of years. The human being is not the end of evolution, it's just the current top in this small part of the universe, and as such it has to fit best in it's environment. We were not meant to be here, we are just here.

So-called theories like intelligent design, or intelligent falling are non such, but believe systems, not challengable by facts or new cognitions. They pretend to be science to get their goal of introducing theocratic dogma in the schools.
Ikra
BAM!ID: 18474
Joined: 2007-02-03
Posts: 3
Credits: 0
World-rank: 0

2007-02-03 10:55:31

The big problem with your assertion that science = fact, Saenger is that a couple hundred years ago the fact was bacteria spontaneously generated out of the foods that they infested. Today that idea is laughable. So, are you sure that evolution will not be thought laughable in a couple hundred years?

World-renowned British writer and philosopher Malcolm Muggeridge stated this:

I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsly and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has. (Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, p. 59)
larry1186
 
BAM!ID: 6734
Joined: 2006-09-21
Posts: 92
Credits: 1,209,598
World-rank: 187,223

2007-02-08 18:45:12

World-renowned British writer and philosopher Malcolm Muggeridge stated this:

I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsly and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has. (Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, p. 59)


World renowned or not, a lot has changed since then. The understanding at the time (back in 1980) might have led him to such a conclusion, but 27 years later it is hard for me to accept it as a supporting reference. Especially when talking about such a scientific subject since the information and technology used has drastically improved the understanding and knowledge of genetics in the past 30 years. Evolution is no longer flimsy or dubious.

The following comments are not directed towards any individual, but merely are my thoughts and opinions
I would like to add that the fact that religious people (Muggeridge was Christian and later Roman Catholic) tend to deny evolution is no surprise, and expected, since, fundamentally, religions are not capable of evolving themselves. They rely heavily on their own religious texts and regard altering them as completely wrong. Science, on the other hand, evolves to best explain what is known at the moment; that you cannot deny since at one time scientific thought was that the world was flat and the Earth was the center of the universe. Now it is known that we have a spherical planet revolving around a star spinning around in a galaxy somewhere in the universe. Science will say "Oops, sorry I thought I was right, but now I know I'm not. My mistake, thanks for proving me wrong." Religions say "I am right, DO NOT defy me!!"

How do you explain that certain weeds have managed to "learn" how to defend against certain herbicides? Certain incects are immune to certain pesticides that used to work great on them? Viruses immune to vaccines? That's evolution in a time frame we can comprehend. Evolution cannot be applied to an individual organism and it's offspring, it applies to entire populations over many many generations.

My apologies, but I have to bite my tongue when people tell me the Earth is only 10,000 years old. Carbon dating does not lie. The existence of a god or gods is another debate.

If I have offended anyone or their religion, I did not mean to.
Tommy910
 
BAM!ID: 3124
Joined: 2006-07-14
Posts: 1
Credits: 3,140,527
World-rank: 106,806

2007-03-07 09:40:11
last modified: 2007-03-07 09:59:34

Basically what he said was for evolution to exists there must be a reason for that part of the species to "spontaneously come into existence” I (and many others) present to you the Eye.


For all of the people that find the eye as a profound example of evolutionary theory's weakness let me give you Darwin's own words. It can be read in its entirety, for free, at http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk

I beg forgiveness from all the members of the forum. I feel the need to post this section in it's entirety since I have personally heard the eye argument numerous times. I am always suprised that people still use this argument, since it was answered over 148years ago.

*note - I am leaving the <quote> tags out so it is easy to read.*

///////////////////////////////////////////////

"ORGANS OF EXTREME PERFECTION AND COMPLICATION.

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition.
Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected.

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens-shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class."

///////////////////////////////////////////////

Here is a little blurb about the eye evolution argument from PBS of all places. www.pbs.org

...."
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."
Reed Young
 
BAM!ID: 46623
Joined: 2008-02-23
Posts: 14
Credits: 6,420,429
World-rank: 66,689

2008-04-20 18:43:03

Every scientific theory includes limits in which his statements are correct.


...in sharp contrast to the Bible.

For example Hooks Limit. F = D * x. F = strength, D = Feather constant, x = expansion of the feather if the strength act. But the results are only correct, if the feather goes to the beginning position after strengths act. If the strength to heavy, the feather deformed and the results are false because the condition has changed. Maybe there is another theory which include such deformation but with F = D * x it isn't possible to get the right result of a deformed feather.


Curious example. I'll use a more common one because I'm more familiar with it. Newtonian physics was considered the last word on the force of gravity for a couple centuries, but in the 20th century was proven not to be exactly accurate under certain conditions, such as high enough velocity (relative to the reference frame in which the measurement is taken) that relativity "changes" mass and length substantially compared to the dimensions we normally measure. These effects have to be taken into account for GPS devices to function accurately, so we have fairly direct evidence that the theory was previously incorrect (to such a small degree that we couldn't measure until ~100 years ago).

But, despite the occasional need to adapt scientific theories to accommodate new discoveries like that, we don't have anything comparable to the problem of the Bible's blatant, irreconcilable contradictions with common knowledge & common sense. We don't have to try to explain, for example, how every species on Earth got to be within walking distance of Noah's house at the time of The Flood, although only a tiny fraction of those species can now be found in the same region. Where science is inaccurate, we make minor modifications. Where religion is inaccurate, we have no honest options but to call the stories allegory, or rubbish.

People use both religion and science are help understand the world, but those who don't admit that science judges its work by consistency with observation and religion judges its work only by popularity, is a liar.
WyerByter
 
BAM!ID: 3895
Joined: 2006-08-10
Posts: 377
Credits: 123,210,100
World-rank: 7,972

2008-04-21 17:11:41

People use both religion and science are help understand the world, but those who don't admit that science judges its work by consistency with observation and religion judges its work only by popularity, is a liar.


I'm not going to address the religion part, but as to the science part, if science judges by consistency, then why hasn't evolution been judged by the consistent lack of any evolution of new species?

The only thing that evolutionist can point to is changes within a species, but not any actual proof of one species becoming another.

My view on that is anyone who claims that science is unbiased by the people who do science, is fooling themselves. And any who can view evolution as a supported theory, either don't have enough science background, are fooling themselves, or are believing it (like a religion).

As for that last option, if you can't admit that evolution has flaws, perhaps even fatal flaws, then your science is a religion. Thus by the quote above you are a liar.

Now one thing that often gets missed, is when I say evolution is fatally flawed, I am not saying that there is a God. All I am saying is that there are fundamental laws of science that say evolution can not happen. Some of these conflicts are avoided by not discussing certain fundamental questions like "Where did life come from?"

So as to the question of "Where did life come from?" Evolution's answer is "random chemical reactions". Chemistry's answer "The chemicals that are required for a cell to function react violently and destroy themselves when they come in contact outside a cell." Biology's answer "The law of biogenesis - life comes from life, or put another way life cannot come from non-life (random chemical reactions)." For those that put forth the theory of pansporia(sp?), life falling to Earth from space only answers where life on Earth came from and not where life came from.

And of course there is the second law of thermodynamics, but I will save that discussion for another day.
This signature was stolen from somewhere.


Stefan Ver3
 
BAM!ID: 37507
Joined: 2007-10-28
Posts: 102
Credits: 0
World-rank: 0

2008-04-22 03:53:37
last modified: 2008-04-22 04:00:18

Evolution or Creation theory??
Just one problem, man created both theories.

Reminds me of this wonderful Chestnut-> PEARL JAM - DO THE EVOLUTION - VIDEO

"And remember, wherever you go there you are."

GPittman
BAM!ID: 74299
Joined: 2009-08-17
Posts: 9
Credits: 37,042,703
World-rank: 18,633

2009-08-24 07:28:57

Stefan Ver3 wrote:
Evolution or Creation theory??
Just one problem, man created both theories.

Reminds me of this wonderful Chestnut-> PEARL JAM - DO THE EVOLUTION - VIDEO

"And remember, wherever you go there you are."



But only ONE (evolution) is a scientific theory. A "scientific theory" is not just a guess or hypothesis. A scientific theory is a detailed explanation of observed natural phenomenon that is developed and modified over time as new evidence, information, observations, and reproduceable expermentation is gathered and which can also make predictions about what will be discovered, observed, or verified by experiment down the road. A scientific theory is the HIGHEST level of scientific explanation. Higher than a scientific law, which is merely a single observed always repeatable phenonmenon, a law doesn't explain anything. (E.g. 2 + 2 = 4 is equivalent to a law, we always see that 2 + 2 = 4. The theory would be a detailed explanation, to the best of our current understanding, observation, experimentation, and mathematical models, of WHY 2 + 2 equals 4.)

Creation "theory" is NOT a scientific theory. It can only use the word 'theory' in the colloquial sense of the word meaning guess or hypothesis, NOT the scientific term 'well tested, continually refined, detailed explanation'.

Scientific theories take observation and experimentation and forumulate the conclusions. So far, none of those have led to the conclusion 'God did it'. Creationism (or Intelligent Design) take their pre-concieved conclusion 'an intelligent agent (God) created all life forms as we know them on this planet' and then try to fit the observations to that conclusion. While a scientific theory is something that is ALWAYS tested and challenged and then modified as needed based on new data and information, the creationist 'theory' reaches their pre-concieved conclusion and then stops.... 'The Eye is irreducibly complex, therefore is was Intelligently Designed. End of story, no need to look for any further explanations". (Of course, the idea of irreducible complexity has already been shown to be flawed, and the evolution of the eye has a very detailed scientific theory behind it, which is our best natural explanation, and is continually being improved upon and gaps in our understanding being filled in).

Yes man created both the scientific theory of evolution, and the religious hypotheis of 'creation', but only one method of inquiry, SCIENCE, has brought us this computer you are now reading this on, BOINC, and every other technological, medical, and other scientific advancement that each and every one of us rely on every day. Religion, despite what good things it may do on occasion, still by its rabidly dogmatic nature, has brought humanity a WHOLE lot of ignorance, not to mention pain, misery, hatred, anger, conflict, war, violence, death, and destruction (including the destruction of science - which has survived and come about to dominate our world despite religion's best efforts to squelch the anti-dogmatic anti-theistic-explanations nature of science.)



- Crocoduck Slayer

Please help us slay the mythical Crocoduck and advance the amazing scientific endeavors of humanity by joining the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science team. Thanks!
GPittman
BAM!ID: 74299
Joined: 2009-08-17
Posts: 9
Credits: 37,042,703
World-rank: 18,633

2009-08-24 08:18:09

WyerByter wrote:


I'm not going to address the religion part, but as to the science part, if science judges by consistency, then why hasn't evolution been judged by the consistent lack of any evolution of new species?


You WyerByter have a profound lack of understanding of evolution, which comes as no surprise as you are coming from a theistic (presumably Biblical) stand-point, where you have a vested self interest in your beliefs not being determined false, and by the very nature of relgion, you are instructed NOT to challenge or question what you are told.

While the vast scientific community (and essentially all serious biologists) who accept the scientific theory of evolution may have a vested interest in their life's work not being shown completely bogus (which is extrememly unlikely), nearly all the scientists when given adequate proof to the contrary would accept the theory as being wrong. So far, no such proof as been presented, and where a small part of a theory may have been determined inaccurate or incomplete, the proper explanation has fit well into the whole of the evolutionary theory.

As to speciation, one species evoloving into another, I can't say whether this has been observed yet within the short time frame of human observation, it's possible in some very lower ordered species it has been already, however keep in mind that speciation is a process that occurs over MANY 10's and 100's of thousands of years and longer. ALL scientific evidence to date, from numerous sources, and fields of inquiry, indicate that our planet is 4.5 BILLION years old. Life has been evolving for at least 3.5 Billion years of that.

You said you believe in (the clearly observed) "Micro" evolution, being very minute changes in a species over time, yet you don't believe in "Macro" evolution of one species changing enough to become another species. That's like saying you believe in walking to your next door neighbor, but you couldn't possibly believe in walking across the continent. Each little 'step' in Micro Evolution, carried out over 10's of thousands and millions of years, results in enough changes to form entirely different species. Does that make any more sense to you?

Of course if you absolutely believe that the Biblical time frame of a 6,000 year old earth is the be-all-end-all of perfectly accurate information, then clearly you can't believe in species changes that take many more thousands and millions of years.

WyerByter wrote:

As for that last option, if you can't admit that evolution has flaws, perhaps even fatal flaws, then your science is a religion. Thus by the quote above you are a liar.

Now one thing that often gets missed, is when I say evolution is fatally flawed, I am not saying that there is a God. All I am saying is that there are fundamental laws of science that say evolution can not happen. Some of these conflicts are avoided by not discussing certain fundamental questions like "Where did life come from?"


Evolutionary theory is not perfect or complete, like any theory it is constantly being challenged and refined, and the gaps filled in. As a scientific theory it DOES NOT purport to make ANY claims which have clearly been demonstrated as inaccurate or false. That is not how science works. I challenge you to give us a SINGLE claim made by evolutionary theory that has been definatively demonstrated to be inacurate, and which the theory continues to maintain despite such proof.

As for "where did life come from" that is NOT a question of evolution. Evolution only deals with existing (and historical) life as we know it, and explains how is it that we have such an incredible diversity of life on this planet. How - if at all - are the tiniest, simplest single celled life forms related to the most complex ones, and how did the complex organisms arise; could they have arrisen from the simpelist life forms (which are easier to concieve of forming from non-life)? Evolution is not abiogensis; life from non-life. Evolution explains how existing DNA based life changes over time.

WyerByter wrote:
So as to the question of "Where did life come from?" Evolution's answer is "random chemical reactions". Chemistry's answer "The chemicals that are required for a cell to function react violently and destroy themselves when they come in contact outside a cell." Biology's answer "The law of biogenesis - life comes from life, or put another way life cannot come from non-life (random chemical reactions)." For those that put forth the theory of pansporia(sp?), life falling to Earth from space only answers where life on Earth came from and not where life came from.


As explained above, evolution HAS NO answer for "where did life come from". That is abiogensis theory, a related but seperate field of study, which so far is considerably less advanced than evolutionary theory; though it is advancing rapidly as well. Neither evolution or abiogensis make any claims to RANDOM chemical reactions. Atoms and molecules behave according to their nature in our universe and in their respective enviornments. Given appropriate conditions and circumstances the building blocks of life as we know it can and DO form. Somewhere along the line the most rudimentary of self-replicatiing molecules developed, along with the most basic, fundamental form of what could be considered a membrane, and while still FAR from even the most basic life forms as we know them today, the rest is history (evolution can kick in from that point on). Why don't we observe this still happening today? Well a) Every nook and cranny we can find on this planet has life as we know it, and that life quickly destroys (consumes) any attemps at some other form of life developing, and b ) For all we know somewhere, perhaps deep in the planet, untouched by present life forms, new life forms have or are developing.


WyerByter wrote:

And of course there is the second law of thermodynamics, but I will save that discussion for another day.


Today's that day. Please expalin how the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. I bet it's the same old ill-informed theistic misuderstanding of the 2nd law creationists ALWAYS give.


- Crocoduck Slayer

Please help us slay the mythical Crocoduck and advance the amazing scientific endeavors of humanity by joining the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science team. Thanks!
Pages: [1]

Index :: BOINCstats Cafe :: Evolution or Creation theory??
Reason: