Evolution, Creation, Faith, Science and Civility (I hope...)

[Defrag]

Well, I have an inclination that they will just post a Big Lebowski-esque rebuttal of "Yeah well, that's just like.. his opinion... man"
I.e. it's not proof in their eyes, just unproven theory.

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by SoulCutter

There's actually a computer program that has been made that simulates evolution. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but it's downloadable for anyone to use. It was featured in either Popular Science or Discover magazine a couple of months ago. Avida the program is called.

The point of it is, they've found a way to make little programs learn and are rewarded for doing specific tasks. Virtual organisms basically. They setup an experiment where the goal was the organisms to learn how to add, through different processes, and something like 17 different species eventually got there...but they all used different processes to do it.

Rewards were something like slightly faster reproduction for doing things that got it closer to it's goal.

I left the magazine at home when I came back to college but here's a link to some of the story online: http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-05/cover/

Here's avida:
http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/

Doesn't explain the gaps in fossil records, but evolution isn't based on the same thing happening everytime even with the same conditions. That's never been part of the theory. The theory is just that things evolve by chance mutations, it's not because it couldn't exactly be reproduced that evolution isn't a law.

The researcher at MSU in charge of the Digital Evolution Group (Dr. Charles Ofria) is actually my current Prof for my Translation of Programming Languages class. He's a really cool/smart guy.

[o_ekim]

Tackling Law vs Theory... In order to become Law you have to be able to take the same starting conditions for a certain species, add the same influences and changes and then see the same alteration and modification. This is also what prevents acceptance as Law. This has not happened either. The research that Rick Shine has been doing is promising to that extent but I believe it took something like 70 generations to accomplish and has not been reproducible thus far.

For the record, Creationism is also a theory if viewd from the scientific perspective. The quantifiable proof that science requires will, forever, relegate it to theory.

Forgive me for not having read this thread in detail. I'm not sure why evolution being a very well backed theory that is impeccable logically and backed up by massive evidence is a "relegation" from being a law. Scientific laws by definition have to be narrow and proscriptive. You can't fully dictate something as emergent and unpredictable as evolution in terms of a law.

So what? Does being a theory rather than a law in some way invalidate evolution? No. It's still an accepted theory, and with good reason.

[o_rebo]

The Scientific Method doesnt differentiate betweeen law and theory Its false to suppose that law is in someway more true than theory no comparitive can be formed.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The National Academy of Sciences defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...49809EC588EEDF

[o_d3pth charge]

actually we can watch evolution. look at any collection of mosquitos and how quickly they adapt to repellant. Look at bacteria and how they can adapt to anti-biotics if you don't use them correctly and become resistant. Evolution is all around us tbh.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

I did something that I chide other people for. I attempted to "discuss" this subject via the internet. I am now done guys. Carry on...you will figure out that truth yourself or you won't. In either case, the responsibility for discussing it with you falls to someone who lives in close proximity to you.

Just one parting note. The difference between Theory and Law is significant and when you have to add additional theories to explain another theory you are eventually going to have to reach the conclusion that the initial supposition lacks all of the elements to tie it together. So long as we cannot agree on even this there is no point in further discussion as you won't even adhere the the tenets of your own faith....science...

[o_rebo]

Just one parting note. The difference between Theory and Law is significant and when you have to add additional theories to explain another theory you are eventually going to have to reach the conclusion that the initial supposition lacks all of the elements to tie it together. So long as we cannot agree on even this there is no point in further discussion as you won't even adhere the the tenets of your own faith....science...

Lol, did you even read the article from Scientific American, there is no falsibility difference between Theory and Law. Scientists do not use these terms in the way you suggest.

Your arguments have been fully and completely refuted with logic, fact, and rigour but you refuse to address any of the points raised. Someones got his head in the sand, is that called blind faith?.

[o_otiz]

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

you won't even adhere the the tenets of your own faith....science...

Isn't that what you're doing?.. Guess I won't get an answer
Anyway, good luck to you Innoc it was a good and interesting discussion.

[o_sinister]

This has been in interesting thread. :P
The truth is this : That God exists. Whether or not he made us through evolution or creation is something only God knows,I cannot say how we came to be technically, I only know that God was behind it. The Bible was written to tell man what God had done, whether taken literally or not.
I believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God and came to cleanse us from our sins. His coming and death were both prophesied in Isaiah 400 years before his birth. There are 333 prophecies in the old testament that talk about Jesus, and every single one of them came true in his lifetime. You want scientific proof? This statistic was enough for me. The chances of 8 prophecies being fulfilled in one man is 1 x 10(to the 17th power).
If you don't think God exists, try seeking Him out. Read the Bible, but also try to talk to Him. He's there. I promise.

Every book in the Bible was written by God through a man. If you would take the time, seek God, and draw close to Him, you could be so close to experience Him speeking through you also.
People say that miracles don't exist anymore, while I have seen people be healed right in front of my eyes. I've prayed over people with cancer to see them be healed from it. Many people from my church have been set free from addiction because of God's power being manifested through people. Many have been miraculously healed from broken bones and back problems. My neighbor had a leg problem, and God healed him from it right in front of His eyes.
God bless you all, and I can't wait for Fortress forever! :P

[o_travis dane]

Originally Posted by Sinister

This has been in interesting thread. :P
The truth is this : That God exists. Whether or not he made us through evolution or creation is something only God knows,I cannot say how we came to be technically, I only know that God was behind it. The Bible was written to tell man what God had done, whether taken literally or not.
I believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God and came to cleanse us from our sins. His coming and death were both prophesied in Isaiah 400 years before his birth. There are 333 prophecies in the old testament that talk about Jesus, and every single one of them came true in his lifetime. You want scientific proof? This statistic was enough for me. The chances of 8 prophecies being fulfilled in one man is 1 x 10(to the 17th power).
If you don't think God exists, try seeking Him out. Read the Bible, but also try to talk to Him. He's there. I promise.

Every book in the Bible was written by God through a man. If you would take the time, seek God, and draw close to Him, you could be so close to experience Him speeking through you also.
People say that miracles don't exist anymore, while I have seen people be healed right in front of my eyes. I've prayed over people with cancer to see them be healed from it. Many people from my church have been set free from addiction because of God's power being manifested through people. Many have been miraculously healed from broken bones and back problems. My neighbor had a leg problem, and God healed him from it right in front of His eyes.
God bless you all, and I can't wait for Fortress forever! :P

How do people come up with this? Really, I'm asking you, HOW do people come up with this?

Why are people posting something that just throws back everything which had already previously been discussed, and act like they haven't read a single word in this thread?

[o_sinister]

I came up with most of that through the Bible. And the rest I have come up with through personal experience.

[Jiggles]

Religion and Politics threads are bad, mmmkay?

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Originally Posted by rebo

Lol, did you even read the article from Scientific American, there is no falsibility difference between Theory and Law. Scientists do not use these terms in the way you suggest.

Your arguments have been fully and completely refuted with logic, fact, and rigour but you refuse to address any of the points raised. Someones got his head in the sand, is that called blind faith?.

I did read the article after I made my last post. I concede that Laws and Theories no longer follow a tiered order with Law being placed above Theory. It has not always been taught that way. Not sure if I can find when that changed as the American Academy of Sciences website is woefully barren of such information.

I do not concede that my arguments have been "fully and completely refuted with logic, fact, and rigour but you refuse to address any of the points raised." Vigor and enthusiasm sure, but not fact. Of the posts that have been made in reply only a couple included "facts". Fact of the matter is that we're never going to see eye to eye on many things. I do believe that there is certainly evidence to support Evolution as a Theory...always have. I see it as a process of God's creation though. Spend some time looking around at the magnificent variety that exists in this world. I can see the patterns and intelligence behind it. To simply believe it to be the work of randomness doesn't fit.

And Dos...to compare me to those that persecuted Copernicus? That's a bit of a stretch don't you think? I don't burn, ban, shun people for what some would define as heresy. I do, however, shun and ignore those who are rude or willfully ignorant as discussion with them will not amount to anything.

[o_otiz]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

Religion and Politics threads are bad, mmmkay?

Not if their kept at a intelligent level.

Sinister, out of curioisity, where are you from? I'm guessing America as it seems god is only there.

[o_binarylife]

I wanted to stay out of this, however there are a few conclusions I feel must be made. I will only type the conlcusions themselves and for the most part they are merely rhretoricle and just meant for people to think. I personaly don't completely agree with everything, but I feel they must be said, by someone.

Evolution is backed up with a tremendous about of factual, scientific research.

Creationism is not. However, to believe that wholy in God is to give up on science anyway since by nature you cannot prove God with science. God defies science in beliefe.

The Church itself has repeatadly demonstrated its own incompetence despite the good things it may do. It's charity work is commendable, but it serves not to spread the word of god (convert) not only to help those in need.

Evolution involves the growth and change of life's design through out history.

Design implies a designer.

Religeon is limited to Earth in its own space time and boundries. The univers is real, you can see it every second of every day and it is vastly greater than our ability to understand. Religeon does not explain, nor try to, the unkown variables of space.

[o_sinister]

Sure it does, God created it. :P And yes Otiz I am from America.

[o_travis dane]

Originally Posted by Sinister

I came up with most of that through the Bible. And the rest I have come up with through personal experience.

You know what I think? I think people with beliefs are mostly affraid of death, and invent themselfs some kind of veil to shield them from the obvious and inevitable.

[o_otiz]

Originally Posted by Travis Dane

You know what I think? I think people with beliefs are mostly affraid of death, and invent themselfs some kind of veil to shield them from the obvious and inevitable.

Yeah I often refer to people of belief as 'weak' because they're so afraid to die that they must hope that there is something 'better' after death so they don't have to fear it.

But of course I realize calling them weak is offense so I usually don't. Unless I want to offend

[o_binarylife]

Sure it does, God created it.

That may be your beliefe, however, the point of that was that no where in the bible does it mention the universe. Every reference, metaphore, analogy and story all refer to, involve and pertain to earth. That's a fact, not a conclusion. They mention Heaven, and they mention hell, but neither are tangible and neither are defined. Other than the 3 primary existences, there are no more. This is because the concept was foreign and un-practiced to these people. If you proposed it to them, they would have had you excommunicated...and did by the way, many scientists and philosophers were excommunicated because of their beliefes.

The romans looked to and speculated to the skies, as did almost every human of the time, but religeon had never taken account to it. I believe some Egyptian religeons referred to it, as did most poly-theistic religeons.

Again, the point is to make you think, about what? That's up to you. It isn't meant to prove anything I just want you to think about what those facts mean to you. They can really mean anything you want, but I do encourage that the way you think and base your beliefe on is founded. It's important to have your feet in front of you and know where they are. Not simply have faith that they are there. You must know, what they are for. Mine, are for walking.

[Dospac]

Not at all, Noc. Of course there is a difference between acting on your own faith's interpretation of the universe and merely discussing it.

The difference comes down to whether or not you're willing to accept different views given evidence to support them. Christians have made many claims about the universe throughout history, as have many scientists. The difference is how these claims were made, and why, and what occured when a better theory was presented.

On the whole heirarchy of whateverness of hypothesis--theory--law, many science teachers I had growing up were upset that kids were still taught that way. To my knowledge it never changed, it was just simplified that way when taught in grade school.