 |
||||
Who's onlineThere are currently 248 people online.
Featured online members |
 Vote - Evolution, Intelligent Design, NeitherAll Forums » Vote - Evolution, Intelligent Design, Neither
 Submitted by Mary Beth D. on Tue, 01/02/2007 - 22:10.
|
|||
|
||||
god so made me.
Of course I believe in intelligent design, are you kidding me. I mean, for the love of God, would I ever in a million years think that the picture my lovely 2 year old handed me and called the "bitsy bitsy spider" was random?? No. I see the way she thought out the posing of the legs and that she desires to make known her understanding that they are needed for walking...and why did she draw three spiders? are they friends? did she feel they needed friends? will i ever know? why does one have two distinct eyes and one not have any at all? Is one blind in her mind? Why all the squiggles around them and highlights of different color? am I to write them off as just "accidental markings?" but you see, I cannot, because this is my child who handed me this magnificent creation. And she even told me "look mom, it's the bitsy bitsy spider..." who am I to renounce that? And that which her picture has so evidently proven? I am no one, and neither are we. Our father has handed us lovingly beautiful pictures of landscapes, spacescapes, humanscapes, colorscapes, emotionscapes, musicscapes, passionscapes, etc., and yet we still DARE to question what the heck they are -- random, evolution, mere happenstance? What the heck? So of course I am the LAST person you'd want to enter into such a discussion, but because I am a lover of science and the OALI of such, I could completely concur they are best left to separate courses, but I'd also be the first to tell you that every single day you witness the biggest and most amazing observation and logical inference you will ever make -- and that is the next breath you just took.
Neighter
Either we allow for an honest and open discussion of all relative THEORIES of origins, or we just take this out of our schools' science programs. Talk to any of the leading microbiologists and they will tell you how evolution cannot account for the miraculous and marvelous intricacies of cellular structures. Pair them up with a mathmatician and they will show you the improbable numbers of a "Big Bang" being able to bring biological life into being. So take your pick, talk about Evolution, talk about GOD, talk about intelligent design (which could include aliens), you name it, it now becomes a philosophy class on origins. Which is really where it should have been all along. STOP teaching evolution as FACT because it is rife with unsupported evidences.
amen.
You know, there are some facts in the Bible that are able to be proven in the world today, anyone who's interested can go to www.an swersingenesis.org/ which is an extremely creationist site online, they prove evolution both unrelated to the bible and absolutely false and they also teach how creation has more evidence in it's favor than evolution. I'm not saying that creation is provable, but evolution is definately disprovable.
I wouldn't go to answers in genesis as a reliable source. Most of the content is considered pseudoscience which means it looks or tries to appear as looking like a science but it doesn't follow the scientific method or have supporting evidence or plausibility. On the other hand The theory (scientific definition of a theory)of evolution has supporting evidence and has undergone scientific testing unlike creationism.
there is no way to even test Intelligent Design to see if it could work that is the number one reason it should never be part of school
The hteory of evolution has proof and evidence just piling up while intelligent design has none whatsoever. I think that this is a shut case.
The "theory" of evolution needs some competition.
Alright, I don't know where you're getting your information, but evolution is a science. Evolution. Is. A. Science. It has been tested and it has been proven. That does not mean you have to believe we share common ancestors with apes. That does not mean you have to go against your faith. Besides, evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive, but that's another topic. Evolution relies heavily on "observation and logical inference"; if it didn't it wouldn't be a scientific theory. Please note the "scientific" aspect of the theory, too. There is a difference between theory in the scientific sense and theory in the sense of the common vernacular. Don't confuse them.
If it has been "proven" then why are they still looking for missing links? There are people that study the "science" of time travel, but last time I checked we weren't warping people back to the Middle Ages...lol. Just because something is a science or scientific doesn't make it accurate or truth.
MichaelR(B.B.B.09)a scientific theory is based on and tested against provable facts to within a fairly minnamal margin of error.not perfect of course.hence continued scientific study in all fields.intelligent design is based on myth,stories,mans need to believe he is special,and an almost pathalogical refusal to even contemplate that this.this life is all there is.why would that make it less precious?i mean we all need a teddy to protect us from the dark as children,but as we grow we realize a piece of cloth and fluff has only the power of imagination.
Wow it is true, 2/3 of people have imaginary friends who they talk with. I stopped when I was 6. Learn your science and you'll never be troubled by hallucinations again. You either believe that the universe is infinite, and accept all that that entails, or you make up a god and believe in the easter bunny.
well put...
Yes definitely make it a separate course, or even better, just remove it! I can not believe that people actually still believe this evolution rubbish. One of the most influential theories that came from someone with the scientific knowledge of my granny. So many people who claim to be intelligent make the school boy mistake of confusing speciation with evolution, which are two completely different processes. Speciation does occur and has been scientifically proven and occurs every day, but when was the last time you saw a fish get up and walk out of a river or saw a monkey make itself tools? Never! Why? Because it doesn't happen! This is what evolution teaches! Lies! Sure you might say it takes millions and millions of years, but you can't just turn evolution on and off, chances are we would have seen at least one occurance of this over the period of recorded history. But we have'nt, hence why it is still a theory and a very bad one at that. Personally I believe in creation, though I'd even believe steady state theory before I'd believe this rubbish.
MichaelR(B.B.B.09)hey deanw;you need to go back to school.there are at least two fish in the us that get up and walk out of the water.a catfish in florida that can travel for hours out of the water to find other ponds to feed in.and more importantly a new variation of the asain carp that is doing much the same thing.and recent footage on the discovery channel,and national geographic shows a tribe of chimpanzees macking and hunting with spears.of course these are only facts.and we know they are as nothing to faith.
Yes some fish can walk out of a river and monkeys can make tools. You need to educate yourself further, like most creationists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Teaching intelligent design would make a mockery of our country! Support real science, the proof of evolution has been set in the tree of life, if you don't know this then your not smart enough to make a decision.
I feel I have to express how saddened (and not a little frustrated!) I am to see so many thoughtful people get in such a pickle over this...
Evolution by selection really does explain, simply and beautifully, the fabulous complexity of life on earth - and yes, where us humble humans came from too.
And there is no necessary reason to see it as going against God. Evolution is not evil! It's wonderfully, mind-openingly, fabulously exciting!!
Darwin, and many others since (eg through genetics), have unravelled how life became so mesmerisingly diverse.... but not how it came to be in the first place. Darwin would be the first to admit that! Perhaps... science will explain this in time too... but, until then, christians (and other creeds with their creation stories) can rest easy: scientific reason need not be in conflict with religious faith. Please, please think carefully and reasonably before making this so.
This has all become a hideously rancourous 'debate'. I'd suggest to all EO Wilsons' 'The Creation' as this book has a much needed gentler and more thoughtful tone.
And to finish....
Would accepting evolution inevitably lead to rejecting your faith in God?
Would faith in God necessarily prevent you from rationally accepting evolution?
Evolution IS a fact. If you don't have any ideea what a Theory means in the scientific world, look it up.
Teaching Intellegent Design in schools couldn't be done without teaching religion, so it would have to be optional. Many biology courses teach evolution as a fact rather than a theory so biology would have to become an optional course for students who believe in intellegent design.
Biology is a natural science and should be taught. But the material is very biased towards evolution and I'm not sure how that bias could be taken out without making most biology textbooks obsolete.
I think a special module in biology courses about intellegent design could be done as an elective for parents who have strong religious views and want their children to know that there is a lot of science that does support intellegent design. But it would have to be definetly an elective module. Students with religious beliefs who wish to, could take the elective module on intellegent design.
It is a good point, all science subjects should teach observation and logical inference as well. Biology is an essential science for students who want to become Doctors, Veternarians or study it in college or even just to have a well rounded education. I can't see making it totally optional, but then again biology covers a lot of territory. Could some aspects of biology be taught where the issue of intellegent design or evolution doesn't come up?
Reason, Observation, and Experience; the holy trinity of science.
Teaching Intelligent Design is what we call in Europe : OBSCURANTISM
Old G: Science measures the distance from the stars to our planet in light years. Their light travels at (forgive my redundancy) the speed of light and you say that at that speed "time would stand still." Then how can we be sure that their light really takes millions upon millions of years to reach us? Either time is running or time stands still, but we cannot have it both ways. I know the theory of relativity tries to explain this, but if time stops for the light coming to us, by mathematics I know that 0 ≠ 1,000,000.
Ah, but this is one of the basic concepts behind relativity (for interesting reference, one only needs to look up the "twins paradox"). We can indeed only have it one way, and light (or any relatively moving object) can indeed can only have it one way, but there are indeed "both ways"...and in every single experiment designed to either prove or disprove relativity, relativity has passed with flying colors. If we throw a clock at the speed of light (a ludicrous concept, no matter, not even a subatomic particle, can be accellerated to the speed of light as it would take infinite energy to do so, or so we think so far...but this is merely a thought experiment...atomic clocks on air and space craft has repeatedly confirmed the predictions of relativity beyond any doubt), an observer seeing that clock travelling at the speed of light will see its hands not moving...even if we follow the clock's progress for thousands (or millions) of years. But from the clock's perspective, it is not that the hands stop moving, but rather that the trip was instantaneous. And again, the delay in time from a light-signal (radio for example is merely light at a much, much longer wavelength that that of visible light) travelling from earth to mars is exactly as the speed of light would lead us to predict. The same holds for the signals sent from earth to the moon during the appolo missions. Unless you're suggesting that the laws of physics change as one gets further from earth (gallileo would be getting nervous at this point), there is no escaping the fact that the speed of light, from any frame of reference in spacetime is finite and constant -this is the wildest prediction of relativity in my opinion...even if we're moving at half the speed of light away from a light source, we will measure the speed of its light as being the same as we would if we were standing still relative to said light source...only the light's wavelength is altered (the principle behind the "red shift" of stars that are moving away from us). Again, this has been experimentally verified over and over.
Now I'm going to choose my words carefuly, as I don't want to discourage you from participating in this discussion. I'm noticing a trend in your agruments where your answers to some points eventually smack of conspiracy theories. Of course, you are absolutely correct in that science has had its fair share of frauds. Science is performed by humans, and thus of course, there have undoubtedly been many documented cases where unscrupulous scientists, desperate for acceptance or Nobel prizes or funding (or whatever else drives them), have falsified results or omitted information that could have discredited their ideas. Sadly, this is as unavoidable as is theivery, murder, and every other form of human sin. Scientist are, after all, only human, and humanity is certainly a mixed bag. But when experimental proof of a concept is attained by many scientist from all over the world, again and again, as in the case of relativity, it cannot so easily be dismissed.
I completely agree with you, as I've stated, that we have a long way to go in understanding the universe around us, but we cannot merely dismiss experiments, which are conducted by many scientists of many ethnic backgrounds who all agree on the results time and time again, as conspiracy. There is no escaping that light from distant galaxies can take hundreds of thousands, millions, or even billions of years to reach us depending on their distance from us. There are many many other forms of experimental proof which confirm and enforce the conclusions that scientists/physisists have drawn. This is not something scientists take on faith, (as may indeed be the case with evolution I'll concede)...we measure the speed of light on earth with stunning accuracy -indeed, this was done with reasonable accuracy when lanterns were a common light source (for excellent reading on the subject, check the book "The relativity of wrong" to see man's documented progress in measuring the speed of light), and we send spacecraft and measure the speed of light via radio signals and the delays between emission and absorption. All of the arguments I've mentioned cannot be the result of unscrupulous science, even if evolution is actually riddled with it as they have been successfuly been proven by experiment and observation by scientists all over the world.
Faith cannot be considered proof, nor can disproving one particular theory out of a great many confirm another theory. If a scientist who seeks to consolidate religion (or more accurately, his particular religion) and science is to be taken seriously by his peers, he must do so in the language of science with either direct experimental proof, or at the very least, direct observation of phenomena which cannot be dismissed by, or contradict, experimental proof or direct observation to the contrary. So far, this has not been done. You cannot blame science for this. In the field of biology, it may be easier to argue religious views, but when physics comes into play, one certainly has his (or her) work cut out for him.
I don't belive in conspiracy theories. I believe scientists make mistakes. Some of their mistakes somehow are taken as truth and remain so for decades, even centuries. And mistakes have been made by all, even by Einstein himself. Read below:
In 1887, two scientists Michelson and Morley did an experiment to measure the velocity of light and confirm the basic laws of nature. They sent light beams along the direction of the earth's travel as it went around the sun. The earth moves about 67,000 miles per hour around the sun, which is a small but measurable percentage of the velocity of light. Their experiment was to show that a beam of light sent in the direction of the earth's travel should be the speed of light PLUS the speed of the earth. While a beam sent backwards should be the speed of light MINUS the speed of the earth. No matter how many times they and many other scientists repeated that same experiment, it always failed. The measured speed of light was always the same in any direction. For 20 years modern science was in a quandary. Were Newton's easily provable laws of physics wrong? In 1905 Albert Einstein thought he had found a solution -- but he was wrong.
Earlier in 1873, the noted Scotsman mathematician/scientist James Maxwell wrote his famous four equations. His equations have become a gold-standard in science and are still accepted without changes or doubt. While integrating his differential equations, Maxwell had to add the mathematically required integration constant. In math, the integration constant is usually called "C." Maxwell's equations relate the static electric attractive force of an electron to the same magnetic attractive force of a moving electron traveling in a circle or a coil of wire. To make the equations match the experimental measurements, the integration constant C had to have the units of 186,000 miles per second. Everyone made the incorrect assumption that C was the "velocity of light." Today, science still calls the velocity of light C.
One hundred two years ago, in 1905, Dr. Albert Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity. It has become the basis for much of modern physics. In 1959 a young American student, Marshall Smith, read his paper and found that it contained a simple arithmetic error, therefore the theory must be false. Years later as a college physics student he told his professors about his discovery of the math error. They didn't believe him, even when he showed them a much simpler way to solve advanced physics problems. Einstein's Relativity Theory produces a series of well-known paradoxes. In mathematics and logic, whenever a syllogism, system of logic or theory produces a paradoxical result, it is almost always the result of an incorrect premise. Today as a senior physicist, Marshall still asks, "Why is it that modern science for 100 years has believed a theory which is based on a simple math error?"
The answer is simple. It was a mistake in the normal "peer review" process used by the prestigious physics journal in which Einstein's Special Relativity paper was first published. In 1905 the famed peer-reviewed German journal "Annalen der Physik" published Einstein's first paper on the Quantum Solution to the photoelectric problem. That unique and widely acclaimed paper had just won Einstein the Nobel Prize. To win the prize, obviously many esteemed physicists had reviewed that paper and established its reality and correctness.
But also in that very same journal issue, Einstein published several other avant-garde theoretical papers, including his "Special Theory of Relativity" which contained the math error. Why did no one catch the obvious error? It was simply because chief editor, Max Planck or co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, had made the fateful decision not to send Einstein's Relativity paper out for the usual in-depth peer review. That Relativity paper, along with Einstein's other papers, were published without any scientific review. It seems from the historical record that none of the other scientists around the world in the physics community knew that the journal had broken its own publication rules. The other scientists all assumed that since "Annalen der Physik" was a strictly "peer reviewed" journal, that Einstein's Relativity paper, with the simple math error, had already been reviewed and approved by a team of highly esteemed elite scientists. But not so. Thus in the early 1900's no scientist would dare to point out the obvious math error in the Relativity paper. To have done so, the scientists thought, would be the same as calling the esteemed reviewers, the greatest minds of physics, a bunch of dribbling idiots and drooling dolts. Not a good thing to do if you want a future career in physics. In their competitive scramble to get along and go along within the physics community, the scientists simply could not see the truth of what was in front of them. It would take the innocence of a child to state the obvious. He (Marshall) was 14 at the time when he found the obvious math mistake in Einstein's paper.
And what was that Simple Math Error? It's so simple even a child could figure it out. It was a matter of re-interpreting the meaning of the negative results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein had interpreted the negative results as meaning that C is the constant velocity of light which nothing can exceed. That "fact" actually has never been proved and was and still is only a "hypothesis" stated by Einstein. He then set the speed limit at 186,000 mi/sec. To make that work, Einstein had used the equation called the Lorentz Transform. This is both mathematically and logically incorrect. The Transform seems to give the numerical or arithmetic "right answer," but mathematically it is false. The Lorentz Transform uses the square root of the velocity squared divided by C squared.
Mathematically all square roots have two answers, the positive and the negative root. Einstein, in his paper, seemingly without telling anybody, had arbitrarily tossed out the negative root as not having any physical meaning. But that is a mathematical and scientific "no-no" and means that the original premise of Einstein's Special Relativity Theory must be incorrect. Under the Lorentz Transform an object will travel at V = 1,000 mph East, and also -V = 1,000 mph West, at the same time. That clearly is paradoxical.
This is equivalent to Einstein stating in his theory that the square root of four is equal to two. For most people, those numbers seem absolutely correct. But actually that is false, since the square root of four is equal to both plus two AND minus two. For the mathematically challenged, that is equivalent to Einstein claiming that two plus two is equal to five (2 + 2 = 5). And that same mind-boggling math error is published in every modern advanced physics textbook on Relativity Theory. But since, supposedly it was published in a respected "peer reviewed" physics journal, who would dare to argue with it?
The usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false" premise is a paradoxical result. For example: (1) All dogs have four legs, (2) All four legged animals are cats. Therefore: All dogs are cats, AND/OR All cats are dogs! Which premise is false? With the Special Theory of Relativity, the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" along with several others which were discovered later.
Amazingly, no theoretical physicist quickly tossed out Einstein's Special Relativity Theory as false, eventhough it produced a paradoxical result - indicating a false logical premise. The simple fact that Einstein himself published the "twin paradox," should have been a strong warning or at least a first clue that the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong. Actually, one noted physicist did toss it out and exactly for that reason. It was Einstein's own professor, Dr. Lorentz, who never accepted Relativity as a valid theory. Dr. Lorentz had developed the Lorentz Transform as a classroom demonstration tool in an attempt to explain the negative Michelson-Morley experiment. He taught it to his students in advanced physics classes, including Einstein, as a simple "curiosity" which produced the seemingly correct arithmetic answer. But it did not produce the correct logical mathematic or scientific answer.
Dr. Lorentz already knew that the Transform must be false, for the reason just mentioned. He already knew that his young student, Albert Einstein, using the Lorentz Transform, which Einstein had seemingly "lifted" out of his college classnotes, had produced a false "Theory of Relativity." Dr. Lorentz never accepted nor called it the "Theory of Relativity." For the rest of his life, Lorentz always referred to it, in mock derision, only as "the Einstein theory" since he knew it must be false, because it produced the obvious paradox. Clearly, Lorentz did not get to "peer review" his student's paper. That Relativity paper would never have made it through a real and proper "peer review" process.
Ok, For one thing, there are no shortages of expert opinions out there on the internet from those who claim Eistein's theory to be wrong. Again, I have to stress that it is still called a "theory of relativity". However, the predictions it makes are absolutely correct, and as I've stated, relativity has, to date, passed every scientific experiment devised to test its predictions. Experimental results, to date, leave no shadow of a doubt for scientific community. I was going to pull out some texts that I own and start citing some of the more interesting ones, but something about your post gave me a feeling, and on a hunch I cut a couple of sentences from your post and pasted them into google as an "exact phrase" search and was brought to the following page on "Brother Johnathan's Gazzette" (which I assume is where you got your post from). http://www.broj on.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN... Now, I'm not saying that it cannot be improved (in particular, consolidated with quantum theory), and it could very well be there is a mathematical error in the theory (I'm not qualified to say as I'm not a math guy) but as it pertains to your arguments for a universe that is only thousands of years old, it really is quite irrellevant anyways. Interestingly, right below the article is another article pertaing to "Creation vs Evolution" in which the author states as fact: "Every 1 to 2 million years, the magnetic field of the earth reverses the north and south magnetic poles." I mention this so you'll have no choice but to agree with me when I say that just because something is on a webpage, it doesn't necessarily make it true ;) Relativity and its predictions has passed every test thrown at it, wether an article at Brother Johnathan's Gazzette calls it "wrong" or not. There is no documented (and legitimate) practical experiment in which the predictions of relativity have been proven wrong, and there have been many in which it has been proven right. Nasa's "Gravity Probe B" may shed further light on it once results have been finalized, but apparently the data they've analyzed so far point, once again, to it being right.
The magnetic poles change about every 50,000 years. THIS IS A FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I personally can't prove or disprove the theory of relativity or to prove or disprove the theory of evolution. All I'm saying is that a lot of scientists have another opinion and interpretation of an observed phenomena. They come up to different conclusions. What I'm addressing is that evolutionists/physicists/pick-your-scien ce can be and are wrong in many of their conclusions. I'm not the one saying it, their peers are. There are two opinions in the debate in both theories. Two totally oposite interpretations. You have to decide which of the two to believe. Both can't have the truth with them, only one. And if there is a hole in a scientific theory, or as the case appears to be, there are many holes in it, why can't scientists be brave enough, honest enough, and say that they can't, at least today, prove their theory? Why are they so arrogant that no matter what other scientists point to them as flaw in their asumptions, observations or conclusions, they still insist that the theory has been proved? Just because they are the majority? 600 years ago the majority of scientists believed the Earth was flat. Until Galileo. But even Galileo was wrong in many of his asumptions. And it appears that Einstein was wrong too. But we are talking here about the Highest Priest of them all... hey, Einstein can't be wrong. He is infallible.
What I posted about Marshall Smith I received from a friend by email. It's probable he got it from that webpage you mention. But it's interesting to know that apparently Einstein's Theory of Relativity didn't get his peers review. It's a point that's worth mentioning. It's true that gifted minds have been able to deduct many phenomena by intuition and later they were proved to be right. Copernico, Galileo, Einstein. But they were not correct in all their conclusions. Who knows, it is a probability that Einstein will be proved wrong in some of his conclusions in the future. Neither you or I will live long enough to see it because science takes time to disprove theories, sometimes centuries. So knowing all this, plus what other scientists say is that I don't believe in evolution. Relativity? We are talking here about the speed of light... I have traveled 100 mph once in my life, so his theory is not that relevant in my everyday life. But evolution is, it reduces me to a mere accident. It says I'm equal to an insect, a plant, a horse or an elephant. Only slightly inteligent evolutionists say because our brain evolved a little more than theirs. This has a greater impact on a human being than Einstein theory, and knowing what for 6,000 years has been passed from generation to generation until it reached me... that we humans are the center (not physically) of the Universe, of all the Creation, is also one more reason to reject it. But the main reason for rejecting it it's because it's not true. It has failed on it's very ground: science.
But evolution is, it reduces me to a mere accident. It says I'm equal to an insect, a plant, a horse or an elephant. Only slightly inteligent evolutionists say because our brain evolved a little more than theirs. This has a greater impact on a human being than Einstein theory, and knowing what for 6,000 years has been passed from generation to generation until it reached me... that we humans are the center (not physically) of the Universe, of all the Creation, is also one more reason to reject it. But the main reason for rejecting it it's because it's not true. It has failed on it's very ground: science.
Reading this part of your post, I believe this is the point at which these kinds of debates fall apart. I could share my opinions regarding our signifigance in the universe, but I don't believe it would be productive. While I don't share your beliefs, I will respect them. Therefore, I think good taste dictates that this is the point at which we should shake hands and leave the debate where it is, agree to disagree as it were.
I do sincerely thank you for the discussion (I seldom get to talk about things like this with anyone). I must say though, that your attitude is a refreshing one. I wish all people of religious faith were as tolerant, as reasonable and above all, as tactful as you are.
Cheers Eduardo.