Evolution Questions

[Monfang]

....second law of thermodynamics is one of the most powerful arguments against evolution

 

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

[Guest Valk0010]

Believing in god does not equate to denying evolution among scientists. The majority of theistic scientists accept evolution.

The evolution of morals is different from biological evolution because it is largely a learned behavior like language. Humans are born with the ability to learn language (aside from those who are handicapped) but the language itself is learned not genetic. Self preservation and empathy are inborn but the specific morals are learned.

 

Morality is not the topic of this thread so I hope it doesn't get derailed.

 

Provide a source that the majority of theistic scientists accept evolution.

This might count as a appeal to authority but its interesting at any rate. The head of the National Institute of Health, Francis Collins, is a christian and accepts evolutionary theory. One of the biggest advocates of evolution vs creationism, is the catholic kenneth miller, author of finding darwins god.

 

Also the guy who invented the formalize idea of original sin, St Augustine didn't take genesis literally.

 

So while its not exactly what your looking for, it is defintely some food for thought.

[Monfang]

I wonder if anyone is noticing that a LAW says that a THEORY can't work.

[Super FZL]

Ridgenet is unreliable. It used one source in its entire page. Furthermore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is relative to energy, not evolution. Nice try with your non sequitirs.

[Jeremy Howard]

It is 5/5, agnostic still believes in the possibility of God. None of them are atheist and Wikipedia is not the most credible source.

 

http://findarticles....91/ai_19332942/

 

Well, first of all, let me state that I am an agnostic. If God truly does exist, I apologize for leaving him, plain and simple. However, I highly doubt he exists.

 

That article is definitely clear in its statements. I could debate its reliability, but I probably shouldn't because I am, after all, using Wikipedia. However, my Wikipedia articles are well-cited and well-moderated, so not just anyone will edit it. Edits on that site have to run through a panel on certain subjects. Crucial scientists make for highly moderated articles.

 

And, no matter how you color it, it is not 5/5. You said, "I can give you a short list of some scientists who believed in God or believed in a higher power." However, I have shown, with sources, that at least two of them were agnostic, and the other two were Christians of a totally different brand, more similar to deism than anything else. At best, you got 3/5, and in my state, that's a failing grade.

 

When I wrote the higher power it was bad wording because I was including agnostics in the list, that's my fault. I was simply showing that there are well known scientists who believe in God or the possibility of God, or in a higher power in the sense that someone or something created Earth and the universe that isn't the Christian God.

[Monfang]

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/video/efi.wmv

 

it'll pop up in your video player of choice.

[Kuroikaze]

Let me ask this question as well. It's a popular question that if God created the universe who/what created God? Let me flip the script. In the Big Bang what was before it? Nothing. So how did we get what we have today from the Big Bang when there was nothing. You can not get a massive explosion from nothing. It is impossible.

 

First, cosmology is a completely separate topic than biology, second no scientist claims there was "nothing" before the big bang. Indeed a physicist would point out that the word "before" has no meaning since the laws of physics and therefore time (at least as we conceive them) did not exist. Third, the big bang was NOT an explosion, at least not in the colloquial sense. You know so little about this it is painful to read.

 

The honest answer is that we don't really know, we cannot see back further than Plank time, however, you DO NOT get to claim that because we do not know the answer to something that "magic man done it" That is an argument from ignorance if I've ever seen one. You claim that the universe can't come from nothing but apparently your god can, so don't try to shift the evidential burden off onto us when we freely admit we do not know where the universe came from. You are the one claiming to know without a shred of evidence.

 

Also, explain dark matter. It is what holds the universe together, yet Dark matter isn't proven to exist. It simply exists because it has too.

 

You are oversimplifying things, but I am not a physicist, if you want to know about this stuff I suggest you find a physics blog.

[Jeremy Howard]

Believing in god does not equate to denying evolution among scientists. The majority of theistic scientists accept evolution.

The evolution of morals is different from biological evolution because it is largely a learned behavior like language. Humans are born with the ability to learn language (aside from those who are handicapped) but the language itself is learned not genetic. Self preservation and empathy are inborn but the specific morals are learned.

 

Morality is not the topic of this thread so I hope it doesn't get derailed.

 

Provide a source that the majority of theistic scientists accept evolution.

This might count as a appeal to authority but its interesting at any rate. The head of the National Institute of Health, Francis Collins, is a christian and accepts evolutionary theory. One of the biggest advocates of evolution vs creationism, is the catholic kenneth miller, author of finding darwins god.

 

Also the guy who invented the formalize idea of original sin, St Augustine didn't take genesis literally.

 

So while its not exactly what your looking for, it is defintely some food for thought.

 

Yes it is, but without a source saying what these individuals said, it's still just text that you wrote. It means nothing without a reliable source.

[Super FZL]

It is 5/5, agnostic still believes in the possibility of God. None of them are atheist and Wikipedia is not the most credible source.

 

http://findarticles....91/ai_19332942/

 

Well, first of all, let me state that I am an agnostic. If God truly does exist, I apologize for leaving him, plain and simple. However, I highly doubt he exists.

 

That article is definitely clear in its statements. I could debate its reliability, but I probably shouldn't because I am, after all, using Wikipedia. However, my Wikipedia articles are well-cited and well-moderated, so not just anyone will edit it. Edits on that site have to run through a panel on certain subjects. Crucial scientists make for highly moderated articles.

 

And, no matter how you color it, it is not 5/5. You said, "I can give you a short list of some scientists who believed in God or believed in a higher power." However, I have shown, with sources, that at least two of them were agnostic, and the other two were Christians of a totally different brand, more similar to deism than anything else. At best, you got 3/5, and in my state, that's a failing grade.

 

When I wrote the higher power it was bad wording because I was including agnostics in the list, that's my fault. I was simply showing that there are well known scientists who believe in God or the possibility of God, or in a higher power in the sense that someone or something created Earth and the universe that isn't the Christian God.

 

And you know what, some scientists do. I just personally believe evolution, and I can support that with data. A man's faith is a very personal matter, and scientists are allowed to worship whatever they so choose. However, a few scientists (or even many scientists) believing in God does not make it true. Just like a few scientists (or many scientists) believing in evolution does not make it true. Data makes things true.

 

And, monfang, that LAW and that THEORY are unrelated.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

 

I found this statistic on a few sites but this exact paragraph is from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

 

However somewhere between a third and two thirds believe in a God of some kind (depending on branch of science). The Catholic Church and others have accepted evolution and do so still believing in god/ higher power. Believing in God does not mean denying evolution.

[Kuroikaze]

I wonder if anyone is noticing that a LAW says that a THEORY can't work.

 

No because it doesn't and you are an idiot.

 

 

Seriously, You have to be seriously ignorant to think that the second law of thermodynamics says anything about evolution.

 

Lets look at the law shall we?

 

The aspect of the second law you are referring too is that closed systems tend towards disorder. The earth (the place were evolution takes place) is NOT a closed system, so the law does not apply here.

 

 

Further, you are engaging in the typical creationist misunderstanding of the meanings of "law" and "theory." Look up the proper scientific definitions before you mouth off and let everyone know what an ignoramus you are.

[hereticzero]

Why aren't there bodies of creatures who only partially evolved and only bodies of fully evolved creatures who for some reason where able to die and not be eaten or touched?

Fossils are good examples of transition from one species to another. Depends on what you are looking for.

What 'LAW' claims theories do not work? Are you including theology with this 'LAW?' That is what theology is, theories that help establish denominational doctrines. If there is a LAW that theory does not work then that is an admission that theology and doctrines also do not work.

[Monfang]

Do you count "Few" as 25,000+ in 1997?OH.. wait... You can't count High School teachers because anyone with less than a Master's is not considered a scientist.. nor are engineers.. or anyone who believes in Creationism.... OH WAIT again.. that number was achieved AFTER taking all that into account.More than likely, scientists might be hiding what they believe just to avoid being punished. Look at what happens to teachers and other scientists who speak up about believing in God or discrediting Evolution.

[Monfang]

Wait.. so theories can be written without taking natural laws into account?

 

And physics where "created" in the Big Bang? What made them?

 

And were whatever existed before the Big Bang not effected by them? What did?

[Jeremy Howard]

Let me ask this question as well. It's a popular question that if God created the universe who/what created God? Let me flip the script. In the Big Bang what was before it? Nothing. So how did we get what we have today from the Big Bang when there was nothing. You can not get a massive explosion from nothing. It is impossible.

 

First, cosmology is a completely separate topic than biology, second no scientist claims there was "nothing" before the big bang. Indeed a physicist would point out that the word "before" has no meaning since the laws of physics and therefore time (at least as we conceive them) did not exist. Third, the big bang was NOT an explosion, at least not in the colloquial sense. You know so little about this it is painful to read.

 

The honest answer is that we don't really know, we cannot see back further than Plank time, however, you DO NOT get to claim that because we do not know the answer to something that "magic man done it" That is an argument from ignorance if I've ever seen one. You claim that the universe can't come from nothing but apparently your god can, so don't try to shift the evidential burden off onto us when we freely admit we do not know where the universe came from. You are the one claiming to know without a shred of evidence.

 

Also, explain dark matter. It is what holds the universe together, yet Dark matter isn't proven to exist. It simply exists because it has too.

 

You are oversimplifying things, but I am not a physicist, if you want to know about this stuff I suggest you find a physics blog.

 

For one I never said because you don't know the answer means God created it. I cannot say that as I do not know the answers. If science can prove to me the big bang is real along with evolution, my mind COULD change but it's highly unlikely.

 

The problem with articles on science, and even the bible is that it was written by man. There are many books of the Bible not included, and who's to say it was accurately translated. It's known that early jewish priests preached the bible and only they knew how to read it, which lead to no one really knowing if it's the truth. The same goes for scientists. Who's to say the studies we have are correct? There are many that are because it can be proven by the eye, but for theories we cannot prove them. Carbon dating and any other form of dating can be completely false. The bible can be completely false. Religion vs Evolution is a debate that will go on forever simply because neither can be proven at this point in time. You trust in scientists research the same way I trust that the bible is God inspired and is the way to salvation.

 

Also, on a final note. If we have no purpose in life, why do we do good? If when we die nothing happens why bother with consequences? Why not murder, rape, steal, pillage? If theirs nothing to fear after death of burning in an eternal hell why should we bother with the consequences on Earth? It's more than because we want to live comfortably here. I believe in God and Christ because of my faith. I cannot prove the bible wrong, nor can I prove it right. There are many scientific facts in the bible that were written before many were proven. (i.e. that the universe constantly expands, the earth revolves around the sun, ect ect)

 

 

Also, I am not oversimplifying anything. It's an almost exact quote from a cosmos book that dark matter has not been proven to exist, it exists simply because it has too.

[Guest Valk0010]

I wonder if anyone is noticing that a LAW says that a THEORY can't work.

From the Counter-Creationist Handbook on my ipod

 

The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth. Entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Creahead 2000). even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system. In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution.(Demetrius 2000). Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998) Some see the information content of organism subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill the empty niches much as a gas expands to fill and empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994) Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it. Creationist themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the flood.

 

errors mine.

[Kuroikaze]

Do you count "Few" as 25,000+ in 1997?OH.. wait... You can't count High School teachers because anyone with less than a Master's is not considered a scientist.. nor are engineers.. or anyone who believes in Creationism.... OH WAIT again.. that number was achieved AFTER taking all that into account.More than likely, scientists might be hiding what they believe just to avoid being punished. Look at what happens to teachers and other scientists who speak up about believing in God or discrediting Evolution.

 

Um....basicly nothing?

 

The stories brought up in "Expelled" were exaggerations and in some cases outright fabrications of the truth.

 

 

Also, scientist usually referrers to people doing actual research and discovering new things, not people who teach. We already have a word to describe them, "teachers"

[Guest Valk0010]

Wait.. so theories can be written without taking natural laws into account?

 

And physics where "created" in the Big Bang? What made them?

 

And were whatever existed before the Big Bang not effected by them? What did?

Your assuming that we can know anything about went on before the big bang.

 

And anyway if your right, it only proves a first cause, not anything theistic.

 

Look up deism.

[Kuroikaze]

Wait.. so theories can be written without taking natural laws into account?

 

And physics where "created" in the Big Bang? What made them?

 

And were whatever existed before the Big Bang not effected by them? What did?

 

Yes, the laws of physics came into existance (magnitism, gravity, and strong and weak nucular forces) durring the big bang, if you don't even know that much then how do you pretend to have a right to speak on this subject? The problem here is that you do not know any acutally science.

[Super FZL]

Do you count "Few" as 25,000+ in 1997?OH.. wait... You can't count High School teachers because anyone with less than a Master's is not considered a scientist.. nor are engineers.. or anyone who believes in Creationism.... OH WAIT again.. that number was achieved AFTER taking all that into account.More than likely, scientists might be hiding what they believe just to avoid being punished. Look at what happens to teachers and other scientists who speak up about believing in God or discrediting Evolution.

AGAIN! You pull statistics out of nowhere! SOURCES! And in the end, twenty-five thousand scientists believing in creationism is a small portion of the scientific community. Furthermore, evolution is not irreconcilable with faith. Further, furthermore, scientists who believe against evolution does not make the data magically disappear. I do not want to be rude, but if you don't start make coherent arguments, you're going to have to leave this site and never come back. We are EX-Christians. We do not want to be preached to. We've heard it all before. If you don't have an open mind, or at the very least, common courtesy, leave now, delete this site from your history, your cookies, and reinstall your browser for good measure.

 

 

Wait.. so theories can be written without taking natural laws into account?

 

And physics where "created" in the Big Bang? What made them?

 

And were whatever existed before the Big Bang not effected by them? What did?

 

The Big Bang is not related to Evolution, despite what people may tell you. The Big Bang is in regard to the origin of the universe. Evolution is in regard to the origin of life as we know it.

 

The Big Bang is a theory that says the universe started as super-dense, super-heated particles in a very small area. According to the theory, said particles always existed, just like your God always existed, according to your theology. I don't know what I think of the Big Bang honestly. But talking about the Big Bang will derail this topic.

[Ancey]

firstly, there is no such-thing as partially-evolved. It's a nonsensical question.

 

Someone needs to retake a biology class that explains evolution correctly.

 

species evolve in gradual steps through mutations- mutations that increase the ability for the animal to sexually reproduce and have viable offspring through 1) attaining more food or means of living, thus surviving longer 2) avoid being eaten and 3) being more attractive to the opposite gender. Of course, this is a vast generalization, because there are other factors involved.

 

The thing is, these steps very gradual- one mutation may take place in one individual- and if the individual is very fit to reproduce, it'll pass it's genes along- and it's children will pass those genes along... and eventually, if the gene is beneficial, it will often be further refined by more beneficial traits, or have little traits 'hi-jack' their way with it.

 

And furthermore, evolution happens so slowly, that it can take millions of years for noticeably change. I'll tell you what: take a picture of an animal now and of every generation after it, take one picture of each. In a million years, the first and last picture may be vastly different, especially if you change the environment of the animal.

 

Yet we have actually moved evolution along in short spurts- in Russia over the course of 50 years, they developed a breed of fox that is tamed like a dog- and it also has some physical traits of a dog, too (which are actually 'along-for-the-ride' traits- no real benefit, but they tend to form alongside the trait that is desired). And with creatures that have short life spans like pepper moths, fruit flies, guppies, and e coli, you can get noticeably differences between generation 1 and generation 500.

 

btw, thermodynamics DOES NOT apply to evolution- even though you figure, we started with probably one or two species of amoeba-like unicellular organisms and now have had billions of species of plants and animals and fungi and bacteria that live on this planet over time: that's actually going from less chaos to more chaos. Go figure. Complexity is also more chaotic- certainly more can go wrong with that much complexity- which it does. I have myopia and celiac disorder, both genetic traits that cause me quite some bother, and humans, with all their complexity, face a multitude of genetic issues, and malfunctions with our natural processes. That's very chaotic compared to a single-celled bacteria.

 

Even though thermodynamics does not apply- I think I made a point- evolution does cause more complexity and chaos, just in a different way.

 

I think I can also make a decent argument that we have forced evolution so much that we practically have two distinct species of dog (yes, I said it, we have made two separate species this way). Chihuahuas and St. Bernards. Even though you could potentially fertilize them artificially, I have no doubt if you put the two breeds together with no other breed of dog, the two species would NOT be able to breed with each other successfully. Species are defined by their ability to breed together and have viable offspring. Also, take for example Tigers and Lions- you can breed a Liger, but that Liger is not fertile. Same with Donkeys and Horses. The two species have been separated for so long and have diverged on separate evolutionary paths.

 

Now, I'm not an expert- I've just read books my Experts. Currently in the middle of "the Greatest Show on Earth".

 

Sorry if I didn't answer all your questions- I got quite side-tracked in my explanations of the more simple concepts of evolution.

 

I'll introduce you to an interesting video about how long evolution takes.

 

 

And also this one: one of a 12/13 part series. fascinating stuff.

 

[Ancey]

 

 

The Big Bang is not related to Evolution, despite what people may tell you. The Big Bang is in regard to the origin of the universe. Evolution is in regard to the origin of life as we know it.

 

 

I'm sorry, but I must correct you: Evolution is the explanation of the diversity of life on earth and how traits are passed on through generations: not it's origin. The explanation of the possible origins of life are subjects like Abiogenesis.

[Monfang]

Also, scientist usually referrers to people doing actual research and discovering new things, not people who teach. We already have a word to describe them, "teachers"

 

So a teacher can't be a scientist and a scientist can't be a teacher?

[Guest Valk0010]

Believing in god does not equate to denying evolution among scientists. The majority of theistic scientists accept evolution.

The evolution of morals is different from biological evolution because it is largely a learned behavior like language. Humans are born with the ability to learn language (aside from those who are handicapped) but the language itself is learned not genetic. Self preservation and empathy are inborn but the specific morals are learned.

 

Morality is not the topic of this thread so I hope it doesn't get derailed.

 

Provide a source that the majority of theistic scientists accept evolution.

This might count as a appeal to authority but its interesting at any rate. The head of the National Institute of Health, Francis Collins, is a christian and accepts evolutionary theory. One of the biggest advocates of evolution vs creationism, is the catholic kenneth miller, author of finding darwins god.

 

Also the guy who invented the formalize idea of original sin, St Augustine didn't take genesis literally.

 

So while its not exactly what your looking for, it is defintely some food for thought.

 

Yes it is, but without a source saying what these individuals said, it's still just text that you wrote. It means nothing without a reliable source.

For franis Collins, check out his book, the language of god.

 

For kenneth miller look up about the scopes trial, and some stuff about it from nowadays.

 

The St Augustine bit, the part about original sin, I got from another person on this site, but the part about genesis not being taken literally I got from that other person, and the debate William Lane Craig had with christopher hitchens.

[Kuroikaze]

 

 

The problem with articles on science, and even the bible is that it was written by man. There are many books of the Bible not included, and who's to say it was accurately translated. It's known that early jewish priests preached the bible and only they knew how to read it, which lead to no one really knowing if it's the truth. The same goes for scientists. Who's to say the studies we have are correct? There are many that are because it can be proven by the eye, but for theories we cannot prove them. Carbon dating and any other form of dating can be completely false. The bible can be completely false. Religion vs Evolution is a debate that will go on forever simply because neither can be proven at this point in time. You trust in scientists research the same way I trust that the bible is God inspired and is the way to salvation.

 

 

 

You make me laugh. Claiming that I believing in science is equal to believing in god. A set of bronze age myths with no facts to back them up is NOT equal to believing in a theory like evolution which has been backed up by mounts of evidence and data. You do not see the data because you have not looked, your ignorance on even the most basic concepts in science is proof of that.

 

Also, on a final note. If we have no purpose in life, why do we do good? If when we die nothing happens why bother with consequences? Why not murder, rape, steal, pillage? If theirs nothing to fear after death of burning in an eternal hell why should we bother with the consequences on Earth? It's more than because we want to live comfortably here. I believe in God and Christ because of my faith. I cannot prove the bible wrong, nor can I prove it right. There are many scientific facts in the bible that were written before many were proven. (i.e. that the universe constantly expands, the earth revolves around the sun, ect ect)

 

Seriously? would you go out and murder rape and steal if you thought there was no god? Is the only reason you behave morally because you fear wrath and punishment if you do not? I pity you if that is true.

 

I make my own purpose, I do not need to be handed one like a puppet.