Challeng for anti-Evolutionists

[Hobbit]

Science can't "prove" anything. It's all theory. But it seems that most people are pretty willing to accept scientific theory when it suits them. Computers, for example, use millions of transistors, every one of which works only because of "quantum tunnelling," which is the very counterintuitive idea that something can pass through a solid wall and appear on the other side. Quantum mechanics is FAR more weird to me than evolution--yet Christians don't go around railing against it.

Incorrect. Transistors have been around since long before quantum tunneling, and they use simple principles of electronics. Namely, semiconductivity and controlled resistance.

Or take the TV set, which depends on the bending of space and time, i.e. relativity, equally counterintuitive. Yet Christians watch this theoretical TV.

Wrong again, the TV set only depends on using optics to project a series of still pictures in an incredibly fast sequence to create the illusion of motion. There's no bending of space and time.

Evolution is about as well-established as a scientific theory can be. The evidence, for anyone who actually looks, is overwhelming. It happens every day in the hospital, when mutant strains of bacteria overwhelm our newest antibiotics. It happens, as I mentioned above, with every human birth.

Calling me an "egghead" won't make you right. It just makes you a name-caller.

I guess one of the great appeals of Christianity, as is so clear in your responses to my post, is that it provides wonderful certainty in the face of the apparent absurdity of life. It must feel great to wake up in the morning KNOWING exactly what is right and wrong. If that works for you, great. But it doesn't make evolution wrong. It just makes you happy.

Incorrect on both counts. Evolution has virtually no supporting evidence, making it far flimsyer than even quantum tunneling, a theory Stephen Hawking is starting to rethink. Christianity is also far more than a source of certainty. It provides a moral yardstick, a sense of purpose, not to mention eternal salvation. Now, you can dress up whatever theories you want to try to prove evolution, but it doesn't change the fact that it's about as flimsy as a straw house and only the protective bubble of political correctness has kept somebody from blowing it down.

 

[MissileMan]

Incorrect on both counts. Evolution has virtually no supporting evidence,

Let me guess...you're a history major, with a minor in totally cluless.

 

[Mariner]

right on this one. Semiconductivity itself is a quantum phenomenon. And the shape of a CRT tube in a TV set is adjusted from classical optics to take into account the relativistic speeds at which the electrons forming the picture are moving. I studied physics long ago (before changing direction and becoming a physician).

As for evolution's support, I suggest reading Darwin, or taking a biology course, to get a sense for the extraordinary breadth of evidence that supports the theory. It's not flimsy at all. Consider that it explains:

--the fossil record, whose age is supported by radiocarbon dating and a variety of other methods from geology,
--the amazing similarity of the DNA of all living creatures (we and fruit flies share vast portions of our DNA),
--the presence of "junk" DNA and useless appendages like our appendix,
--the existence of species that seem to group together into genera, families, etc.,
--the everyday observation that bacteria evolve,
--mutations that cause disease--and the ongoing existence of mutations which seem harmful but have beneficial 'side effects,' such as sickle cell anemia,
--the presence of mitochondria within our cells with DNA of their own, unrelated to ours,
--etc., etc.

Evolution is the current scientific theory of the origin of life on earth. Even if it's flimsy, it's the current working theory, and therefore as 'true' as science ever is. Creationism isn't a scientific theory by definition. If you just say, "God did it that way," you haven't created a testable hypothesis. It's amusing that the leading proponents of I.D. can't even agree how much evolution to accept--but they all acknowledge that at least part of the theory must be true and that the Bible can't be taken literally.

A classic example was the darkening of moth colors after the start of the Industrial Revolution in England. Soot covered the trees, making lighter moths more visible to predators. Since every population of creatures has variation, there were darker moths that were less visible. It's not hard to see that within a short period of time, the average moth would become much darker. A mutation making a moth soot-colored would confer great survival advantage. Such mutations take place in every single creature--DNA is "designed" to mutate easily. Now, a creationist could say, "Wow, see how beautifully the moth is camouflaged. God must have done that." An evolutionist can give the alternate argument I just provided, which was Darwin's.

By the way, after Darwin published, most Western scientists quickly accepted his findings--and they weren't atheists, they were Christians. It's strange that we're repeating what's already happened--Christianity grappling with evolution. T.H. Huxley, Teilhard de Chardin and others already made excellent attempts to reconcile their faith with evolution a century ago.

Mariner.

 

[Hobbit]

right on this one. Semiconductivity itself is a quantum phenomenon. And the shape of a CRT tube in a TV set is adjusted from classical optics to take into account the relativistic speeds at which the electrons forming the picture are moving. I studied physics long ago (before changing direction and becoming a physician).

Nice try. I'm a computer engineering major and have PERSONALLY met Stepehn Hawking. I also have a friend who did his senior thesis on string theory and has done quite a bit of graduate research on quantum physics using his grant money. I also helped a friend of mine build a transistor for his electrical engineering senior design project and have studied the electronic schematics of an actual CRT (which is, itself, obselete). None of them had anything to do with quantum physics. In fact, all of these devices existed decades before quantum theory was even thought of.

Quantum physics is more an explanation of why some other scientific laws are true rather than a base theory required to power devices. In fact, quantum physics is still highly theoretical and is no more credible than atomic theory was a hundred years ago. Now, atomic theory has held true, but quantum physics has yet to be tested.

And relativistic is a fancy little word people like to throw out to make themselves look smart. A relativistic speed is a speed comparable to the speed of light. The photons in a TV move at relativistic speeds because the speed of light is a relativistic speed.

As for evolution's support, I suggest reading Darwin, or taking a biology course, to get a sense for the extraordinary breadth of evidence that supports the theory. It's not flimsy at all. Consider that it explains:

I have, and I'm still convinced it's all conjecture. You mention the fossil record, yet the fossil record has very few "transitional" species, far less than is needed to provide enough support to hold up this thing you seem to take as fact. Also, a "transitional" species isn't necessarily such. A platypus looks like the cross between a beaver and a duck, and is even one of only two egg laying mammals, but it's not an evolutionary link. Species traits that couldn't have been found out through fossils (such as toxicity), plus its present-day location, have proven this.

--the fossil record, whose age is supported by radiocarbon dating and a variety of other methods from geology,

See above.

--the amazing similarity of the DNA of all living creatures (we and fruit flies share vast portions of our DNA),

I say this points to intelligent design. The DNA similarity is like the recycled algorithms in a computer program that are used on vastly different programs to handle common functions. Most of the DNA in common across multiple species is for cellular processes, as opposed to whole body processes.

--the presence of "junk" DNA and useless appendages like our appendix,

Everything thought to be "junk" has later been proven useful. The tonsils were once thought to be junk organs, and the appendix has been proven a backup for the liver's toxic filter, which is why a busted appendix will usually kill you.

--the existence of species that seem to group together into genera, families, etc.,

This evidence also supports an intelligent designer who used some animals as a basis for making others.

--the everyday observation that bacteria evolve,

That's microevolution. No new species have emerged.

--mutations that cause disease--and the ongoing existence of mutations which seem harmful but have beneficial 'side effects,' such as sickle cell anemia,

I honestly don't see how harmful mutations prove evolution when they ensure lack of procreation. Sickle cell anemia is also a case of micro-evolution and has not caused those with sickle cell to become a genetically distinct species. In fact, it's simply a recessive gene on the human genome.

--the presence of mitochondria within our cells with DNA of their own, unrelated to ours,

Once again, I say this supports intelligent design with the concept of not altering something that works. If evolution were true, wouldn't superior mitochondrial DNA evolve along with the superior nuclear DNA?

--etc., etc.

"etc." is not proof. You might as well tell me that you've met Harry Potter, the real wizard, and that he took you back in time to show you that evolution was true.

Evolution is the current scientific theory of the origin of life on earth. Even if it's flimsy, it's the current working theory, and therefore as 'true' as science ever is. Creationism isn't a scientific theory by definition. If you just say, "God did it that way," you haven't created a testable hypothesis. It's amusing that the leading proponents of I.D. can't even agree how much evolution to accept--but they all acknowledge that at least part of the theory must be true and that the Bible can't be taken literally.

We're not talking creationism. It's I.D., another accepted scientific theory with about as much proof as evolution, but without the backing of academia to support it. It's also not supposed to be taught exclusively as a fact, like you seem to want evolution taught as. It's supposed to be presented simply as a less widely accepted, alternate theory to evolution.

A classic example was the darkening of moth colors after the start of the Industrial Revolution in England. Soot covered the trees, making lighter moths more visible to predators. Since every population of creatures has variation, there were darker moths that were less visible. It's not hard to see that within a short period of time, the average moth would become much darker. A mutation making a moth soot-colored would confer great survival advantage. Such mutations take place in every single creature--DNA is "designed" to mutate easily. Now, a creationist could say, "Wow, see how beautifully the moth is camouflaged. God must have done that." An evolutionist can give the alternate argument I just provided, which was Darwin's.

Once again, mirco-evolution. The camouflaged moths were still the same species as the ones that weren't. The idea that the fittest DNA would be what's passed on to the next generation and the fact that there's enough diversity in it to allow adjustments to adverse conditions was really a great design, don't you think.

By the way, after Darwin published, most Western scientists quickly accepted his findings--and they weren't atheists, they were Christians. It's strange that we're repeating what's already happened--Christianity grappling with evolution. T.H. Huxley, Teilhard de Chardin and others already made excellent attempts to reconcile their faith with evolution a century ago.

Christianity is grappling with evolution because there's a lot of evidence to refute it, but that evidence isn't being taught in schools because of the belief that the only possible way to even attempt to refute evolution was with this "religious" stuff. Well, I think evolution's a load of crap. However, I don't expect the scientific community to accept that on faith. However, they shouldn't expect me to accept evolution as fact on faith either, and the whole thing's just a conjecture. I'm just asking that alternative theories be presented and that evolution be presented not as fact, but as a theory.

 

[Gunny]

Science can't "prove" anything. It's all theory. But it seems that most people are pretty willing to accept scientific theory when it suits them. Computers, for example, use millions of transistors, every one of which works only because of "quantum tunnelling," which is the very counterintuitive idea that something can pass through a solid wall and appear on the other side. Quantum mechanics is FAR more weird to me than evolution--yet Christians don't go around railing against it.

Or take the TV set, which depends on the bending of space and time, i.e. relativity, equally counterintuitive. Yet Christians watch this theoretical TV.

Evolution is about as well-established as a scientific theory can be. The evidence, for anyone who actually looks, is overwhelming. It happens every day in the hospital, when mutant strains of bacteria overwhelm our newest antibiotics. It happens, as I mentioned above, with every human birth.

Calling me an "egghead" won't make you right. It just makes you a name-caller.

I guess one of the great appeals of Christianity, as is so clear in your responses to my post, is that it provides wonderful certainty in the face of the apparent absurdity of life. It must feel great to wake up in the morning KNOWING exactly what is right and wrong. If that works for you, great. But it doesn't make evolution wrong. It just makes you happy.

Mariner.

The fallacy in your argument is that I do not reject science, nor evolution. You assume that because I am Christian and do not embrace science's guesswork on origin of life, that I automatically reject all. As I stated, I accept science for what it is, and my religion for what it is. They are not exclusive of one another.

It is the argument that one exludes the other, or that one theory of the origin of life is any more or less valid than another that I object to. People such as yourself, who are EVERY BIT as closed-minded/one-sided/biased in your beliefs as any of the so-called "religious right" whom you and those like you attempt to villify and/or contimually question the intellect of who have created argument where there is none.

And it must really SUCK if you wake up in the morning NOT knowing the difference between right and wrong.

If you think being called an "egghead" is name-calling, fasten your seatbelt.

 

[Mariner]

your dates. Quantum Mechanics was formalized in the 1920s. The transistor was invented in the 1950's, and is a direct result, as is the laser (and therefore the CD player), superconductivity, and a host of other technologies that are now everyday, but depend on the bizarrest scientific theory in existence, far less intuitive than evolution even.

As for I.D. being "well accepted," it's not. There are basically two prominent "scientists" at the Discovery Instititute. Scientific theories are required to be "falsifiable." The only way I.D. could be falsified is if God himself showed up and told us he didn't do it that way. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science, period.

Can you give me an example of an experiment that would help support or knock down I.D.? There's isn't one, because I.D. already supplies a supernatural answer to a natural problem. Documents leaked from the Discovery Institute clearly indicate that its goal is not science--it's the promulgation of Christian creationism in scientific-sounding language. Once more, I submit that a possible reason some Christians feel so compelled to attack a scientific theory is that it threatens the specialness on which Christian ethics is based.

For example, how would I.D. explain the vast amount of "junk" DNA that we carry around? More than half our DNA is useless repetitions, instructions for things from our evolutionary past that we no longer use (e.g. tails, gills), etc. This supports the theory that we evolved, but doesn't seem in any easy way to support the idea of a designer. Why would a designer leave so many flaws in his product, and so much evidence of evolution over time from earlier forms?

"Microevolution" is exactly how evolution happens. And there are several documented cases of speciation in progress. Problem is, we live too short a time to actually watch it, which makes it hard to conceive--like many scientific theories. Besides, if you admit "microevolution," just allow the DNA to continue to drift long enough so that the two creatures no longer can mate. Then you have a new species, done.

GunnyL, I don't wake up in the morning not knowing the difference from right and wrong. I simply base my ethics on something other than the Christian Bible (I'm Hindu), so I don't need to fight the idea of evolution on religious grounds. Hindu cosmology is just as creative and fun as the account of Genesis, as is the Gilgamesh myth from the mideast, the Egyptian myths, the Inuit creation myths and all the rest. The believers of each are just like you--they're sure their way is right and the only way (except perhaps for Buddhists and Hindus, who are more tolerant of other religions than the three monotheistic religions of the Middle East).

I'm not closed-minded about religion and spirituality, but I do believe that for the good of both religion and science, each should stick to its respective domain. Science can't give us ideas about right and wrong action, good or bad values, etc. And religion conviction isn't on the same plane as a testable scientific theory--if it were, its certainty would be reduced, which would be a bad thing.

Mariner.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Kathianne:

1. You are all about 'tear down' with little or no substance.
2. You are beyond fraud.

3. Trojan arguement.

For one of the few times, I'll admit to not reading through a post I'm responding to, for the simple reason that I do read through the posts. In this case, the beginning was enough.

You are tying the Catholic Church; i.e., 'the church'; priests; with what you are saying. Wrong on many points. I'll deal with only the later of what I'm posting about.

4. And on what criteria are you superior?

I'll admit on the other hand of reading your entire post, which in retrospect was not necessary, since you did not convey any relevant information.

To respond to the last part, which is posted in the above quote under 3., I would say congratulations on the first part: trojan. Very nice. Which in itself says nothing other than that you can identify an argument being made. Good for you. However, I was asking a question in my statements, which thus far has not been answered actively, let alone conclusively, save for two people that have given it a go.

As for what you have argued under 1, 2 and 4, well, what can I say.
You have answered that yourself.

 

[Hobbit]

your dates. Quantum Mechanics was formalized in the 1920s. The transistor was invented in the 1950's, and is a direct result, as is the laser (and therefore the CD player), superconductivity, and a host of other technologies that are now everyday, but depend on the bizarrest scientific theory in existence, far less intuitive than evolution even.

I was thinking of something else. Research done, but the quantum mechanics that you refer to are not far-fetched. They have been well-tested and have held true. Quantum tunneling is pretty much just a fancy way of explaining electronic resistance. The object doesn't travel through a solid object, it simply has to have enough charge to pass through the electron cloud of an atom. Evolution, however, has no experimental basis.

As for I.D. being "well accepted," it's not. There are basically two prominent "scientists" at the Discovery Instititute. Scientific theories are required to be "falsifiable." The only way I.D. could be falsified is if God himself showed up and told us he didn't do it that way. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science, period.

There have been dozens of people before you on this board who brought up falsifiability. Evolution isn't falsifiable, either. The only way to prove evolution wrong is to travel through time and observe it directly, which you can't.

Can you give me an example of an experiment that would help support or knock down I.D.? There's isn't one, because I.D. already supplies a supernatural answer to a natural problem. Documents leaked from the Discovery Institute clearly indicate that its goal is not science--it's the promulgation of Christian creationism in scientific-sounding language. Once more, I submit that a possible reason some Christians feel so compelled to attack a scientific theory is that it threatens the specialness on which Christian ethics is based.

The answer to I.D. is not necessarily supernatural, as has been explained many times. Creationism is supernatural and requires a divine being. I.D. is not supernatural, as it only requires and intelligent being capable of creating something so complex as life. I also won't believe these "leaked" documents until I see them confirmed. Remeber the "leaked" National Guard documents about Bush? Some blogger probably just falsified them to prove his point.

Converse to your first question, what kind of experiment can you think of to prove or disprove species jumping evolution? Is there any testing you can do that would either support or disprove it?

For example, how would I.D. explain the vast amount of "junk" DNA that we carry around? More than half our DNA is useless repetitions, instructions for things from our evolutionary past that we no longer use (e.g. tails, gills), etc. This supports the theory that we evolved, but doesn't seem in any easy way to support the idea of a designer. Why would a designer leave so many flaws in his product, and so much evidence of evolution over time from earlier forms?

I contend that there isn't any junk DNA. It all has a purpose. We just haven't found it, yet. I'm also getting quite tired of scientists declaring body parts useless, especially given their track record with the tonsils and appendix. Perhaps an apparent redundancy has a purpose we haven't seen yet, or maybe it's a sort of backup in case the strand is somehow damaged.

"Microevolution" is exactly how evolution happens. And there are several documented cases of speciation in progress. Problem is, we live too short a time to actually watch it, which makes it hard to conceive--like many scientific theories. Besides, if you admit "microevolution," just allow the DNA to continue to drift long enough so that the two creatures no longer can mate. Then you have a new species, done.

The problem is that you're talking of DNA as a fluid, analog thing. It's all digital. Each slot can only have one of 4 chemicals, period. Micro-evolution is a concept that shows how a single species can weed out an undesirable trait. This doesn't cause it to be a different species, it only makes it so that the species normally exhibits a common feature that wasn't always prominent. In humans, many traits have come out, such as hairlessness in Japanese, sickle cell in Africans, and dark skin among any race that lived outside in a region of bright sunlight. However, they all still have the exact same number of DNA sequences as anyone else. Nearly every other species on this planet doesn't even have the same number of chromosomes we do. How do you explain that? Also, how do you explain things like the bat? It has a voice box capable of emitting high-frequency sounds, ears capable of hearing them, and a brain capable of processing them as sonar. None of these features is any good by itself, so how did they develop?

GunnyL, I don't wake up in the morning not knowing the difference from right and wrong. I simply base my ethics on something other than the Christian Bible (I'm Hindu), so I don't need to fight the idea of evolution on religious grounds. Hindu cosmology is just as creative and fun as the account of Genesis, as is the Gilgamesh myth from the mideast, the Egyptian myths, the Inuit creation myths and all the rest. The believers of each are just like you--they're sure their way is right and the only way (except perhaps for Buddhists and Hindus, who are more tolerant of other religions than the three monotheistic religions of the Middle East).

Not directed at me, but I will say that if you live in western a society, any moral system you have is derived directly from Christianity, whether you realize it or not. You can even call yourself a druid and dress up really wierd and worship trees, but you still got your basic, societal morality system from Christianity. Our entire western culture was formed on it.

I'm not closed-minded about religion and spirituality, but I do believe that for the good of both religion and science, each should stick to its respective domain. Science can't give us ideas about right and wrong action, good or bad values, etc. And religion conviction isn't on the same plane as a testable scientific theory--if it were, its certainty would be reduced, which would be a bad thing.

You talk about religion and science as two wholly seperate things, but they can't be. If you believe God created the world, then science is the study of His creation. Every time I look at a study of the world and how intricately everything fits together to create this planet, I can't help but think of God and how wise and intelligent He must be to have created something so complex that fits together so perfectly. I can't even imagine how dull it would be to look at nature and think of it as some cosmic accident.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by LuvRPgrl:
Now, who is making the assumption???

By your statements, you show you have no clue who I am, or what Im about. You have judged me based on past experiences of your own, which have nothing to do with me. Sorry, such people have no credibility with me whatsoever.

I have judged you on your replies to my questions, which have not shown a consistent intellect behind them. However, as for this one, you have convinced me otherwise. This has been a clever post on your account. Congratulations.

Now, as you revel in the compliment I have bestowed upon you, you may consider answering the questions that I have asked you to look upon.

As of today, you have answered first with: "this is not the right question", then with "you do not understand the language the original Bible was written in" and third with the above.

Based on the first part of this post, I shall expect something more eloquent thoughts behind your next attempt to answer the questions.

 

[Annie]

I'll admit on the other hand of reading your entire post, which in retrospect was not necessary, since you did not convey any relevant information.

To respond to the last part, which is posted in the above quote under 3., I would say congratulations on the first part: trojan. Very nice. Which in itself says nothing other than that you can identify an argument being made. Good for you. However, I was asking a question in my statements, which thus far has not been answered actively, let alone conclusively, save for two people that have given it a go.

As for what you have argued under 1, 2 and 4, well, what can I say.
You have answered that yourself.

Interesting twist on #234. Interesting that you quite correctly pointed out some of my grammar goofs, you fail to convey what they were referring to. Have fun with the rest. :lame:

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Kathianne:
Interesting twist on #234. Interesting that you quite correctly pointed out some of my grammar goofs, you fail to convey what they were referring to. Have fun with the rest. :lame:

Sorry it's not the grammar I was answering to, maybe you should re-read my post. As for "fun with the rest", don't worry, I'm done with that post of yours, since there is nothing relevant in there, other than the:
1. You are all about 'tear down' with little or no substance.
2. You are beyond fraud.

Which is not relevant either, but nevermind.
We all have our bad days.

 

[Harmageddon]

As for the challenge to anti-evolutionists, which is actually the title of this thread, I have not seen any serious attempts to explain the discrepancy described below, save for Avatar4321 who has given his view, and gop_jeff, who has at least answered to it pre emptively. Thus, here it goes again, for the third time in a row, the hardest challenge as of yet:

From the book of Genesis (taken from the King James’ version):

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

God creates the light, the earth and the heaven and the seas.
But just before God starts with his creation, and states: “Let there be light”, his spirit has already moved over the face of the waters, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. This has mystified me for a while.
What kind of waters are these, the dark deep?
It is not the universe, for God is about to create it.
Apparently God does not create these waters, they are already there. But this cannot be.
My question would be: what’s your view on this apparent contradiction?

The answer so far:

Originally posed by Avatar4321:
There is no contradiction if you understand that the Hebrew word used in Genesis that is translated to mean create could be more accurately translated to say organized.

God organized the heavens and the earth. Which of course implies that matter already existed at the time.

Originally posted by Avatar4321:
God is Eternal too

This is the one approach, which phylosophically makes sense.
However, that would imply that the Bible states that all eternal matter coexisting with God was in the state of dark, deep waters.

Originally posted by gop_jeff:
I will disagree with this point. The idea of eternal matter and a non-eternal God is LDS (Mormon) theology, not Christian theology.

Harm, I will have to respond later to your post. It's a good question.

As both answers clearly take a different approach to the Genesis version of creation, the challenge remains open:

There is still the matter of the (eternal) dark deep water to resolve.
I'm curious to the phylosophical approach by anyone, so feel free to shine your light upon this.

Oh yes, and by the way, LuvRPgrl has decided to ignore posts #226 and #228s follow up on the question of why the order of creation regarding the birds is conflicting with the scientific approach, if Genesis is the literal account of what really happened. This question is also for anyone interested in a challenge.

 

[Mariner]

Your point about falsifiability issues in evolution is well-taken.

But that doesn't mean experiments can't be done, or predictions can't be made.

For example, evolutionary theory predicts that if we overuse antibiotics by giving everyone with a viral cold amoxicillin, we will apply selective pressure to bacteria that will help them evolve into more virulent and drug-resistant strains. How does I.D. predict this? You'd have to be able to read the designer's mind to make predictions about the behavior of his designs.

Also, your point about not having to accept evolution "on faith," just because scientists say so, is also well taken. That's exactly what science is about--you are allowed to remain skeptical until persuaded by the facts. I personally believe, however, that the vast majority of people who dismiss evolutionary theory have never cracked a page of Darwin. His ideas didn't just spread like wildfire by magic--they spread like wildfire because he piles up the evidence so powerfully. In the 150 years since Darwin, the evidence to support his idea has only grown. It's hardly a brand-new theory.

As for the weirdness of quantum mechanics, it really is weird. Have you seen the "double slit" experiment? A beam of light or small particles (like electrons) aimed towards a double slit will "interfere" just as if they are waves. But if you observe the experiment, then those particles that are observed will pass through one slit or the other, just as if they are particles. In other words, a "thing" such as an electron can go through two holes at once--unless you look, in which case it satisfies your common sense notion that it can't know about both holes and can only pass through one. This idea, which is the heart of all QM, was so bizarre that Einstein never fully accepted it. The events observed on the quantum scale--things being in two places at once, or actually everywhere at once, according to their wave function, are so bizarre that they make evolution look easy.

Re: Gaps in the evolutionary record. The current estimate is that one creature out of 8 billion is fossilized. Therefore the fossil record only shows 1 8 billionth of all the creatures who ever lived--and that's if we dug up every single fossil, which we have not. So there have to be gaps in the record. Of all the humans alive today, it's possible not one will end up as a fossil that someone a million years from now could dig up.

A couple of questions for you:

1. If, as a Hindu, I decided to feel offended at certain aspects of evolution, could I come up with my own theory of Intelligent Hindu Design, involving the cooperation of 303 different gods in and endless cycle or rebirths, designing the creatures and all of existence? Could I demand that I.H.D. be taught in schools alongside evolution?

2. If "microevolution" is acceptable to I.D. folk, and if you admit that mutations take place every day, then why is it so hard to accept that if you just like microevolution proceed for a few thousand generations, a new species could result? Australia, for example, separated from the rest of the world's continents, and drifted out on its own. Random mutations of the eons among its creatures created a spectacularly different genetic pool there, including such creatures as the duck-billed platypus, which you mentioned earlier (and which has nothing to do with ducks, genetically--it just evolved a similar beak-like structure. It's a marsupial, closely related to all of Australia's other wonderful marsupials, which evolved there uniquely due to the island's separation from the rest of the world.)
Consider dog breeding. Studies of DNA suggest that all domestic dogs came from an East Asian wolf about 10,000 years ago. By applying selective pressures, humans have sped up dog evolution, so that we now have incredibly different looking creatures. Breeders of every sort of creature, from dogs to tomatoes, are well aware of the occurence of mutations, and take advantage of them whenever they can. (Genetic engineering is just creating desirable mutations on purpose.) If a chihuahua and a Great Dane can both be "microevolved" from a form of wolf in just 10,000 years, doesn't that suggest that separated populations could easily drift far enough to become unable to interbreed? That's all that's needed to create a new species.

I do agree with you that if you come from an I.D. or creationist viewpoint, it makes sense to see science as part of creation, and therefore subject to religious thinking. But I think it's a dangerous idea, this country was founded on religious freedom, so if any one group pushes its own mythology it's threatening ot the others. The separation of church and state protects both, as many religious leaders have pointed out.

Mariner.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Evolution, however, has no experimental basis.

Sure it does. It predicts what kinds of transitional fossils we will find and what kinds we won't find. And its done a good job of that.

And in fact it has been observed on multiple occasions that a species evolves into another.

There have been dozens of people before you on this board who brought up falsifiability. Evolution isn't falsifiable, either. The only way to prove evolution wrong is to travel through time and observe it directly, which you can't.

Evolution is most certainly falsifiable. All one would have to do is find a fossil of a mammal-to-reptile transitional species.

I.D. is not supernatural, as it only requires and intelligent being capable of creating something so complex as life.

Let's assume ID correct. What created the intelligent being?

I contend that there isn't any junk DNA. It all has a purpose. We just haven't found it, yet.

I contend there are unicorns. We just haven't found one yet.

Not directed at me, but I will say that if you live in western a society, any moral system you have is derived directly from Christianity, whether you realize it or not.

Actually, the Jews came up with that whole don't lie don't steal don't cheat on your wife thing first.

You talk about religion and science as two wholly seperate things, but they can't be.

Are you a Buddhist or something? Everything is one! But guess what, things do have differences.

If you believe God created the world, then science is the study of His creation.

If you believe God created the world, then you pray to him before you play a football game - doesn't change the rules of the game.

Every time I look at a study of the world and how intricately everything fits together to create this planet, I can't help but think of God and how wise and intelligent He must be to have created something so complex that fits together so perfectly. I can't even imagine how dull it would be to look at nature and think of it as some cosmic accident.

Oh, well if you find evolution to be aesthetically unpleasing, it must not be true!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Quantum physics is more an explanation of why some other scientific laws are true rather than a base theory required to power devices. In fact, quantum physics is still highly theoretical and is no more credible than atomic theory was a hundred years ago. Now, atomic theory has held true, but quantum physics has yet to be tested.

Complete BS. Much of quantum physics has been experimentally verified. In fact there is more experimental proof of quantum mechanics that of General Relativity.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Evolution has virtually no supporting evidence, making it far flimsyer than even quantum tunneling, a theory Stephen Hawking is starting to rethink.

I think what you meant to say is that Stephen Hawking has a problem with the quantum tunneling boundary condition on the beginning of the universe. If you can point to me where he actually thinks quantum tunneling itself is in error, I'd definitely be interested to see it, considering quantum tunneling is not only amply supported by experimental evidence, but it is also the very basis on which we constructed the quantum tunneling microscope.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I asked how flowering plants could have come before insects,

You have heard of wind, haven't you?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So has anyone proved this yet?

As far as I know, no. Not a single person has been able to prove 100% beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth orbits the Sun. So it must not.

In fact, I'm beginning to doubt that the world is round at all. We have photographic "evidence" of this - but a) the photos could have been doctors - b) how do we even know that its Earth in the picture?

Besides, a round Earth goes against common sense. Just look at it, its flat. Duh. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Would a logical God create a round Earth?!?!

 

[Powerman]

The earth does appear flat. But that's how I try to explain tangent lines to people. As far as we can see it looks flat but we can't see very far so it's infinitely small compared to the overall circumference of the earth. So therefore it just looks straight. But I'm preaching to the Choir here.

 

[GotZoom]

As far as I know, no. Not a single person has been able to prove 100% beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth orbits the Sun. So it must not.

In fact, I'm beginning to doubt that the world is round at all. We have photographic "evidence" of this - but a) the photos could have been doctors - b) how do we even know that its Earth in the picture?

Besides, a round Earth goes against common sense. Just look at it, its flat. Duh. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Would a logical God create a round Earth?!?!

You know....you could be onto something.

That would make so much sense now....all those space flights - the lunar landing......a sound-stage..or the desert.....

Hmmmmmm.............