Bible quotes

[kang]

How about a quote from a Pope?

"What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"

Sometimes translated as:

"It was well known how profitable this fable of Christ has been to us."

-Pope Leo X (1513-1521)

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Alfred1
Why? Because when has random chance ever built or created anything complex and ordered?
History is full of accidentlal discoveries.
If you were investing money and the consequences of being wrong meant that you would "lose your shirt", you'd likely be extremely conservative in your risk taking. You should be the same way with your soul. That was some of the reasoning that Blaise Pascal (Cauchy?) used to justify his Christian faith as well.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. What if you have the wrong god entirely? I wonder if this goddess would be more pissed at me for denying the existence of your god, or not knowing the existence of her?

[350HP930]

Originally posted by Alfred1
Why? Because when has random chance ever built or created anything complex and ordered? Oh well, if most people believed and were saved, then God would be a liar.

The fault in your beliefs is that there is nothing 'radom' about biological systems or anything else in the universe for that matter.

If you want to know more about complex ordered systems you need to study some information theory and non-linear dynamics.

Once you realize that randomness is just a human catch phrase applied to many things that are too complex easily keep track of you might be a step closer to realizing why your 'life can not radomly occur' is a moot argument because it didn't.

[gavinlit]

Second that - especially the bit regarding information theory and non-linear dynamics.

[john walker's workshop]

Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out there on Highway 61."

[350HP930]

Originally posted by Alfred1
" With the advent of quantum mechanics, however, it appears that the world might be irreducibly random. According to the standard interpretations of the theory, it is possible (and in fact very, very easy) to set up an experiment with total control of all relevant parameters, which will still have a perfectly random outcome. The resistance to this idea takes the form of hidden variable theories in which the outcome of the experiment is determined by certain unobservable characteristics (hence the name "hidden variables").

Many physical processes resulting from quantum-mechanical effects are, therefore, believed to be irreducibly random. The best-known example is the timing of radioactive decay events in radioactive substances."

More faulty thought based on a limited understanding of a complex theory.

Quantum theory is a mathmatical theory used to explain certain phenomena of a certain scale. Its mathmatical models that are used to explain reality are not reality themselves.

If you want to be a literal quantum fundementalist then you must accept that there are an infinite number of alternate universes where every possible variation of quantum state exists and we just percieve one of them.

Its much easier to realize that the universe is epiphenomenal at all scales and quantum and astronomical theories are just limited human mental models used to approximate an infinitely complex universe at different ends of our concept of scale.

If you were to use the einsteinian view that there could be entire universes inside every atom then it becomes a little easier to understand how quantum theory defines approximate averaging models to explain the matter-energy transformations that occur when universes collide and interact.

If a cosmic giant were to try to observe our solar system from a vast exterior scale do you think he is going to come up with a mathmatical theory that deals with the rings of saturn or with the average spins of entire solar systems?

As I said before, NOTHING in the universe occurs radomly. Radomness is a human idea applied to phenomena we can not predict, but there is still order there even if we can't define it.

That ordering system is the closest thing to a god that I have, but its a far cry from the personified and meddling god that most cultists prefer to pray to.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Alfred1
Luke 7:35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.

Alfred. Its not too late. Dont deny your intellect. Verily, i say unto thee- Come to the light, come to the light and all will be made clear in the fullness of time.

[kang]

It’s kind of funny to see a bunch of non-scientists debating a scientific subject (evolution). You guys could go on and on forever and never get anywhere. Let’s ask the greatest scientific minds what they think about evolution. Guess what? They all think it’s a fact. I don’t care to argue with them, they’ll kill me every time. Plus, they’ve heard every argument against evolution that the creationists can come up with, and they still consider evolution a fact.

Instead of debating minor points about science or evolution, how about discussing why all the most brilliant minds on this planet, those with PHD’s in subjects we can’t even pronounce, all consider evolution a fact? Are you creationists out there reading this smarter than ALL of these scientists? Have you come up with something they have not considered? I don’t think so. Like I said above, they’ve heard every argument you can make, and I’d guess there are a lot better arguments than presented in this thread.

I’m no brilliant scientist (and neither are 99.99% of the people on this board), so I defer to those that are. Evolution is a fact. To convince me otherwise, you must first convince me that all the brilliant scientists in the world are wrong.

[Por_sha911]

Kang: you better look up the word "fact". Just because everyone thinks it is true doesn't make it a fact. I laugh at how scientists break their own rules to prove something they want to believe. Evolution violates several accepted Laws of Physics. To be a fact (in the science world), something has to be proven by being duplicated in a controlled environment. BUZZ, you lose, thank for playing.

[gavinlit]

Actually no such thing as fact in the scientific world, only currently accepted theories (as opposed to hypothesis or ideas that are not supported yet/ever). These theories are useful in that they enable us to do stuff, understand stuff or lead us to other theories. Theories are never proven, only supported by results or experimental data. If you manage to disprove a theory, and this data/result is verified and agreed by the appropriate scientific community a new theory eventually takes it's place. Or a theory may be replaced by one which better models available data or provides for more accurate predictions (kind of an evolution of theories So far nobody has managed to disprove the theory of evolution, which is widely supported by other accepted theories and data.
Now I'd be interested to know which accepted laws of physics evolution violates and why no one has made a big deal about it in the wider scientific community. You could be famous!! Or is it another case of BUZZ, you lose

Only in mathematics can something be 'proven' true although Godel had a bit to say about that concept being rubbish as well. Oh well, as long as the bridges don't fall down when I drive over them I'll be happy enough.

[350HP930]

Originally posted by Por_sha911
Evolution violates several accepted Laws of Physics.

LOL, thats funny.

How about pointing out what laws of physics are broken by evolution.

Debating science with bible thumpers sure can be fun.

[gavinlit]

Now now, don't be mean. They still have 'creation science'

[Por_sha911]

Originally posted by gavinlit
Actually no such thing as fact in the scientific world, only currently accepted theories (as opposed to hypothesis or ideas that are not supported yet/ever).

That sounds really good but you can't just make up your own definitions as you go along. Without accepted standards, no one could function (measurements of length, weight, volume, etc.)

As far as your question about laws of Physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says (in layman's terms) that all things in nature go from an organized to disorganized state. Or in other words: things degrade, decompose, corrode. Don't believe me? Leave a tunafish sandwich on the table for a few months. Or better yet, watch your Porsche rust into oblivion over time. Everything breaks down into a simpler state. Evolution claims that the things went from an disorganized state and come together to create complex organisms.
Now before you answer back with an "I think" statement. First go get your college physics textbook out and prove me wrong. I got my answer from College Physics, not "well, I think that..."

[widebody911]

By the same token, take a look at the life forms that will evolve in that tuna sandwich!

[Por_sha911]

Rotten tunafish has never grown legs and started quoting Darwin.

[gavinlit]

Standards are different to theories. No one is here arguing about the existance of an agreed concept called weight. That would be a whole different argument

Actually theories do get made up as you go along - that's the whole point of research (scientific and otherwise). If your theory stacks up with the rest of the community & available data, it may stand for a while.

Any of those evolved forms of life will decay or move towards a disorderd state. Indeed it may seem strange that we see order all around us when the natural state of things is disorder. You could if you wanted to, think of life as a struggle against disorder. Go look at some non linear modelling, fractal theory or chaos theory for a view into this.
I'd be more than happy to review my understanding of the second law of thermodynamics but am pretty sure it won't shoot the idea of evolution down. Or else a lot of physicists have missed that link. How could they be so stupid, unless.....

[Por_sha911]

Debating evolution with people that don't know what they are talking about is funnier.

[gavinlit]

Couldn't agree more.

[Por_sha911]

Go back to definition of "fact" and the 2nd law of thermodynamics and then we'll talk.

[350HP930]

Originally posted by Por_sha911
As far as your question about laws of Physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says (in layman's terms) that all things in nature go from an organized to disorganized state. Or in other words: things degrade, decompose, corrode.

Wrong ! It looks like you get a big fat F on this test. Basic science books never did a very good job of teaching the second law of thermo very well so try this one on for size.

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

Since its discovery, the idea that disorder tends to increase has been the focus of a great deal of thought, some of it confused. A chief point of confusion is the fact that the result S >= 0 applies only to isolated systems; notably, the Earth is not an isolated system because it is constantly receiving energy in the form of sunlight. Nevertheless, it has been pointed out that the universe may be considered an isolated system, so that its total disorder should be constantly increasing. It has been speculated that the universe is fated to a heat death in which all the energy ends up as a homogeneous distribution of thermal energy, so that no more work can be extracted from any source. Recent work, however, has cast extensive doubt on the heat death hypothesis and the applicability of any simple thermodynamical model to the universe in general. Although entropy does increase in an expanding universe, the maximum possible entropy rises much more rapidly and leads to an "entropy gap," thus pushing the system further away from equilibrium with each time increment. Furthermore, complicating factors such as the impact of gravity, energy density of the vacuum (and thus a hypothesized "antigravity"), and macroscopic quantum effects under unusual conditions cannot be reconciled with current thermodynamical models, making any predictions of large-scale thermodynamics extremely difficult.

http://www.entropysite.com/

First-year college chemistry textbooks since about 1960 have used the 1898 description of thermodynamic entropy as “disorder”. In the February 2002 issue of the Journal of Chemical Education I showed that treating entropy change as “disorder” was not based on modern science and could mislead students. In the October 2002 Journal I urged that entropy be presented as the quantity of dispersal of energy/T or by change in the number of microstates.

Textbooks do not alter their presentation of basic concepts readily nor rapidly. Thus, for 12 of the following 13 texts to delete “entropy is disorder” from their new editions within three years of my calling for such a drastic change is astonishing. Further, for all 13 now to describe the meaning of entropy in various terms of the spreading or dispersing of energy (quantified by Boltzmann's number of microstates) shows the utility of this concept in good teaching.