Evolution

[rklenseth]

Read Isaac Newton's works on religion. If I remember correctly, I believe on the works is entitled General Scholium. Anyways, it is where Newton uses science and scientific research to prove that God is real and that the Bible was is correct. His works are on religion are considered the greatest ever achieved but is swept under the rug by scientists, because they are unwilling to give into his master piece which would otherwise give it credit, and by religious groups today due mainly because Newton didn't believe in organized religion.

Newton was often heard saying that 'the universe is too perfect for a Godly hand not to be involved'. And in fact one of the reason why Newton pursued science was because he believed that it would lead to the best understanding of God and God's mind.

A translated version of the General Scholium;
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/genschol.htm

[Stan]

Thanks...good post and link.

[The Sociologist]

His works are on religion are considered the greatest ever achieved...

By whom? Actually Newton devoted roughly a third of his effort to physics, a third to religion and a third to what can charitably be called "alchemy". This latter especially was complete nonsense. And in later life Einstein likewise went off on a complete wild goose chase, also babbling about God. He is best remembered for work completed in his twenties.

It's important not to be overly in awe of individuals. This idea of "genius" is very wobbly indeed, and one can easily overdo the "respect for authority" angle. That is not how science works. Scientists stand or fall by the degree of corroboration that their theories earn for themselves. Corroboration should earn respect, yes. But authority per se should not. The theory is separate from the man.

Which is why those lacking a scientific background have such difficulty entering into a meaningful debate. They--and especially religious fundamentalists--argue from authority always.

[Pie]

I made a mistake, its a human thing. I mixed up one theoretical age of the universe with the age of the Earth. It happens.

Even so you were a bit off. The Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago, with an error margin of 200 million years. This is newish stuff and I had to look it up again to remind myself. Nice to know they've reached such certain conclusions. Link:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/m ... 30211.html

Within that, the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years, single celled life dates to at least 3.5 billion years (though catalytic RNA may go back earlier), multicellular life about 1 billion years (wormy things), and recognizable orders of multicellular life about 540 million Blagh blagh, we know what you wrote.

do you have any CONCREAT PROOF of Elvolution? And dont tell me that that hary man doun the street is proof. give me a picture, or video(NOT a shaky one) to prove this.

and do you have any proof of the Big bang? lets just leav the beggining of the univers out of mind, becous no one has any concreat proof. give me proof, that ALIANS didn't create the univers. all in all, the only thing we can say, is that the evedanc is INCUNCLUSIVE to how the univers began.

Sociologist, i see you as a man of science, so tell me this, the therey of reletivity, as speed reaches infinity, time reaches zero, so, if we were in "the big bang" we would have been traveling LIGHT YEARS, LIGHT YEARS, Sociologist, and that would mean that THERE IS NO TIME. that WE NEVER EXISTED. and you all know that we exist. so that would COMPLEATLY rule out "the big bang", unles you can disprove this.

[The Sociologist]

do you have any CONCREAT PROOF of Elvolution? And dont tell me that that hary man doun the street is proof. give me a picture, or video(NOT a shaky one) to prove this.

Did I ever mention the words "concrete proof"? Nobody can ever "prove" anything in absolute terms. What scientific work produces is rather corroboration and just occasionally refutation. The Theory of Evolution is regarded as well corroborated and it has never been refuted.

A refutation, for example, would be finding any kind of mammal in an irrefutably pre-Cretaceous layer of rock, or a modern human skull in Oligocene strata. No such anomalous findings have every been made, out of many hundreds of thousands of corroboratory findings.

Corroboration is in the form of genetic distances between various animal species which can pinpoint the age of their common ancestry. Such ancestral fossils are then found or confirmed in rock layers and dated using hundreds of different atomic, chemical and physical techniques, including tree rings, sediment patterns on the seafloor and seasonally laid down layers of ice in the arctic. The ages predicted by genetics and the fossil ages agree within acceptable limits. Once again, there has never been a single finding that can be described as so anomalous as to refute the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection.

Indeed, the corroboration is now so overwhelming that entire branches of genetic medicine have recently sprung up, and these depend utterly on the explanatory power of evolutionary theory. They would not exist otherwise.

and do you have any proof of the Big bang? lets just leav the beggining of the univers out of mind, becous no one has any concreat proof. give me proof, that ALIANS didn't create the univers. all in all, the only thing we can say, is that the evedanc is INCUNCLUSIVE to how the univers began.

Once again, the hypothesis of the Big Bang has been astoundingly well corroborated and never refuted. There are now detailed maps, such as the one shown in that article I linked to above. And such maps have massive explanatory power in showing why the universe is now the way it is.

Sociologist, i see you as a man of science, so tell me this, the therey of reletivity, as speed reaches infinity, time reaches zero...

As velocity reaches the speed of light relative to an observer, then time slows down relative to the observer. Not quite what you said.

so, if we were in "the big bang" we would have been traveling LIGHT YEARS, LIGHT YEARS, Sociologist, and that would mean that THERE IS NO TIME. that WE NEVER EXISTED. and you all know that we exist. so that would COMPLEATLY rule out "the big bang", unles you can disprove this.

The answer is that we didn't travel anywhere. The Big Bang is not some point in space that we are rushing away from. Most students are provided the usual analogy of two dimensional beings (call them "spots") living on a balloon while you are blowing up the balloon. They all move further away from each other because the balloon is getting bigger, but none of the spots are actually moving along the surface of the balloon itself. The Big Bang is something like that. Space itself is expanding.

You have an awful lot of studying to do still, and hanging out on crackpot websites won't help you.

[Stan]

I thought the post to Isaac Newton's work was a good post. By the way, I have a Mechanical Engineering Degree, so I consider myself up on science. I'm sure I would also be classified as a "religious fundamentalist" as well.

I argue from a point of data. I do think there is good science behind some of the arguments for evolution...well...kind of...but I think there are also so many holes in the argument that anyone who considers themself pessimistic should look sideways at some of the contentions.

I for one, believe, that if God wanted to "evolve" people from dirt he could do it in the blink of an eye. I also believe that he could form a person from nothing.

I used to get into this debate. The real problem is no one can prove the Bible (which by the way, Genesis isn't an attempt to explain the science behind the creation of man, it's a story about the fall of man) it's a matter of faith that someone takes after they are filled with the Holy Spirit. I also don't believe the evolution story has been proven completely either and many people put faith in the theory because many are very "anti-religion".

Either way, it isn't ever a fruitful debate and I can't think of a single good practical application if, in fact, we knew the truth. If there is one, then someone should apply it.

[rklenseth]

His works are on religion are considered the greatest ever achieved...

By whom? Actually Newton devoted roughly a third of his effort to physics, a third to religion and a third to what can charitably be called "alchemy". This latter especially was complete nonsense. And in later life Einstein likewise went off on a complete wild goose chase, also babbling about God. He is best remembered for work completed in his twenties.

It's important not to be overly in awe of individuals. This idea of "genius" is very wobbly indeed, and one can easily overdo the "respect for authority" angle. That is not how science works. Scientists stand or fall by the degree of corroboration that their theories earn for themselves. Corroboration should earn respect, yes. But authority per se should not. The theory is separate from the man.

Which is why those lacking a scientific background have such difficulty entering into a meaningful debate. They--and especially religious fundamentalists--argue from authority always.

By many religious scholars but I assume, because they have something to do with religion from which I have gathered from your statements, then they aren't credible. Correct me if I am wrong in this regard. But it is true that Newton was considered crazy during the times he wrote and studied God and religion just like Einstein. But really only by the scientific communities that they hailed from because they couldn't accept those things that they were writing about and studying. Newton came from an age where the evils of organized religion were well known and that created a stigma in the Western world especially among the scientific community due to their constant war of knowledge against religious doctrine. Newton stood in the middle and said perhaps both were correct and went about trying to prove that.

Anyways, what you claim of people who 'do not have a scientific background' always gain their arguments from authority but in the end isn't that exactly what people do when they argue science? All these people who argue in defense of science take their arguments from the authority of science based mainly on the belief that that argument is correct because it is backed up by a formula or someone's observation. I think it is unfair and goes to show how unopen minded people of scientific background can be (just as much as others) when it comes to debating over what is and what isn't. It is natural to believe that people of religious background will take their arguments from religious authority. Does that make either side any less correct? No, as truth is only what you make of it and in the end both are correct to themselves. The only possible conclusion to debate is to try to convince those that do not believe in your truth to do so.

[The Sociologist]

I also don't believe the evolution story has been proven completely either...

Please read my post just above yours. There is no such thing as "proven completely". Currently, Evolution by Natural Selection is well corroborated, not refuted, and has no rival or competing theories within the mainstream scientific discliplines.

[Pie]

Corroboration is in the form of genetic distances between various animal species which can pinpoint the age of their common ancestry. Such ancestral fossils are then found or confirmed in rock layers and dated using hundreds of different atomic, chemical and physical techniques, including tree rings, sediment patterns on the seafloor and seasonally laid down layers of ice in the arctic. The ages predicted by genetics and the fossil ages agree within acceptable limits. Once again, there has never been a single finding that can be described as so anomalous as to refute the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection

So that means that your saying, JUST becous i am 98% a monky in my jenes, then i evolved frome a monky, right? well, i am a COMPLEAT sceptic on all of that. JUST becous a watermelon is 98% whater, and a ClOWD is 98% whater, AND SEA WATER is 98% water, they are the same, correct?

to prove Evolution is correct, and not a compleatly(almost compleatly, i know) unfounded thery, then give me this, a missing link, PROOF that man came frome animals, ANY proof that man cam frome monkys, and monkies frome WHATEVER they came frome.

[The Sociologist]

Correct me if I am wrong in this regard. But it is true that Newton was considered crazy during the times he wrote and studied God and religion just like Einstein. But really only by the scientific communities that they hailed from because they couldn't accept those things that they were writing about and studying.

To be blunt, Newton spent a great part of his life trying to transmute lead into gold. He wrote somewhere in the region of a million words on the subject, none of which were later regarded as being fit to print.

Anyways, what you claim of people who 'do not have a scientific background' always gain their arguments from authority but in the end isn't that exactly what people do when they argue science? All these people who argue in defense of science take their arguments from the authority of science based mainly on the belief that that argument is correct because it is backed up by a formula or someone's observation. I think it is unfair and goes to show how unopen minded people of scientific background can be (just as much as others) when it comes to debating over what is and what isn't.

There is always a gap between how one should behave and how one does behave in fact. And it does happen that scientists might cling to theories purely out of a sense of awe at their "authority". There was a debate a while back (Popper/Kuhn) about how science really works.

However this does not alter the fact that we accept Newton's theory because it can be used to build bridges and launch rockets, not because of who Newton was as a man.

[Floyd]

Oh c'mon, Creationsim? That theory was put to rest back in the 20's wasnt it? Johnny Scopes, the monkey trial, etc etc, this debate has been had so many times and been won over and over by evolotionists, there's simply no proof to support creationism, whereas theres plenty to back up Evoloutionism.

And anyways, Darwin had a better beard... Sorry if that points allready been made... i only read the first two posts of this topic

[The Sociologist]

to prove Evolution is correct, and not a compleatly(almost compleatly, i know) unfounded thery, then give me this, a missing link, PROOF that man came frome animals, ANY proof that man cam frome monkys, and monkies frome WHATEVER they came frome.

You show no evidence of having read or understood my post. The task now is to refute the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection, not to "prove" it. In other words, propose "if x is found, then evolution must be false". Then set out to find "x". But bear in mind, that if you fail to find "x" then the hypothesis of evolution is further corroborated by every such failure. And do you know what? There have been literally tens of thousands of attempts to refute it and they have all failed.

[Stan]

I did like the beard...I hope it wasn't flammable...just kidding. As I've said this discussion has always and will always be irrelevant. People like Sociologist will always say "something can't be proven completely" and people like me will always say "creationism doesn't have to be proven for me to know it's true". The resolution is so far apart as to beg for burial.

On a slightly diverging topic, quite related, though...I would be interested in hearing Sociologists opinion on the following statement. It has fascinated me in the last couple of years, but I've always been too busy playing Cantr and making a living to read much on the subject, but I would think Sociologist might agree. I, frankly, don't know if I agree or not.

"The belief in a planned universe by a Higher Power helped spark the industrial revolution due to the fact that scientists of religious conviction searched for a rational explanation for observed phenomena."

I don't think I've heard any argument against a statement like that.

-----------On a slightly different note--------

I would also like to mention (to anyone interested) that it is a falsehood that those with religious conviction are easily fooled and uneducated. In fact, I consider myself quite pessimistic (as does Wichita if I recall) and hold out for proof on most issues. For me, I started believing after saying to myself that I was open to the idea that a Higher Power COULD BE in control. I then asked God for PROOF of His existence...the wild prayers that have been answered for me are all the proof I need. I typically rely on results and effect then begin to relate a cause. If you want proof of God, just open up to the possibility that He's there then ask Him to prove it. But, that's a discussion for a different time.

[Floyd]

See alot of the British people are far to cynical to accept the possibility of a higher power (Other than Rupert Murdoch ruling from beyond the grave)

... Maybe thats why we're getting bombed

[Stan]

Never speak against Rupert!