Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews

[geoschmo]

Maybe, and I know this borders on heresy, but maybe Adams was wrong. Maybe the answer isn't 42.

Maybe the question is 42.

[capnq]

(Krsqk The Bible specifically records a six-day creation, and its credibility is at stake.

The Bible's credibility is only at stake for people who interpret it strictly literally. Since there are several places where the Bible itself openly states that parts of it are allegorical (e.g. Mark 4:11), I personally don't think literalism is supportable.

(Wardad Can the human consciousness suffer from a thought viruses?

Would Philosophy, Ideology, Nationalism, and Religion fit the description?

The cultural equivalent of a biological gene is called a "meme" {link}.

[Krsqk]

The Bible's credibility is only at stake for people who interpret it strictly literally. Since there are several places where the Bible itself openly states that parts of it are allegorical (e.g. Mark 4:11), I personally don't think literalism is supportable.

The literalist interpretation of the Bible holds that the Bible is literal except when it indicates a literary device is in use (i.e., parable in Mark 4:11) or one is obviously in use (Pharisees called "generation of vipers" or "serpents" in Matthew and Luke).

If I said, "Such and such happened at such a time, and it happened thus and so," I'd expect you to take what I said at face value. If I said, "Let me tell you a story with a moral; here it is," I'd expect you to understand what I meant. That's the literal interpretation of the Bible.

If you don't take the Bible literally, you get to decide what you want to take or not take. It puts man as the determining factor for what's supposed to be God's Word. What did God mean if He doesn't mean what He says? To say that declared use of allegory means nothing is literal is a logical fallacy. In syllogism form:
Some Bible is allegory.
No allegory is literal.
Therefore, no Bible is literal.

[ December 11, 2002, 23:38: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Krsqk]

Here are a couple of links with easy-to-understand arguments. The point is not to disprove evolution once-and-for-all, but to prove that it's not science.

This one and this other one

This one lists ten objections against the geologic column/geologic time scale.

[Fyron]

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

Empty space comes from a lack of matter to fill it. It was not "created" by anything. Any time all of the matter in a given volume is moved out of that volume, you get empty space.

2. Where did matter come from?

No one, even religious people, can know where matter came from. There are many theories on this, of course.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

They did not come from anywhere. They are not some entity floating out there that had to be created/generated. Well actually, the laws were written by various scientists over the years. But, the forces behind those laws have always been in existence.

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Matter is in no way perfectly organized. In fact, almost all of the space occupied by matter is completely empty (even of solid objects).

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

It is hardly organized. The energy has always been there. Energy and matter can not be created nor destroyed. They can be turned into each other though. In fact, particles (matter) exhibit wave-like propeties, and waves (energy) exhibit particle-like properties. Energy and matter are likely the same thing.

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

The Earth was not completely covered in perpetual storms when life evolved from primordial goo. All it takes is a cliff-face to block the wind, and there is plenty of stable goo for the organci molecules to form. More complex molecules form out of the basic ones, and this has been proven in laboratory experiments.

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

Life never "learned" this. That implies that something taught reproduction to basic carbohydrates and proteins and such,which it didnt. Reproduction involves the formation of complex organic molecules from basic elements. This happened in the puddle of goo, and it simply continued to happen within the basic organisms that evovled.

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Itself, of course. Many lifeforms are capable of sexual reproduction with themselves.

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

Plants do not want antyhing. That is a logical fallacy. You are assigning human characteristics to things that are not human. They don't think, they just continue living. That involves reproduction. Animals function in nearly the same way. The only difference is that they generally have the ability to move about to fulfill their needs. But, they still do not have desires. They do not "want" anything. They simply fulfill basic instincts.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Arguments by analogy are inherently flawed and hardly ever work. For an analogy to work, the things being compared have to be nearly identical. The more different they are, the less accurate the analogy become. Letters and DNA are not even in the same domain. That analogy fails.

Mutations create either improved varieties, worse varieties, or varieties that have no effects.

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

In theory, anything is possible. In theory though.

You do realize that the Design Argument has been proven inadequate by people such as Hume, right?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

Sometimes, the code gets mutated to have a few extra base pairs. Sometimes it is mutated to have fewer base pairs. Often, this does not cause the organism to fail at living, and so goes unnoticed. If that organism reproduces, it's offspring could inherit the extra base pairs, or the fewer ones. Given many generations in which more extra base pairs are added than lost, you get a steadily increasing DNA code. And remember, somewhere over 90% of the DNA is junk, and is NEVER used in replication. So, a few extra base pairs here and there won't hurt much, especially if they are added at the end.

When, where, why, and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

There is no such thing as a single celled plant. All plants are very, very multi-cellular. You are thinking of Protista. Some of them are similar to plants, but they are not plants.

2. Single-celled animals evolve?

See above.

3. Fish change to amphibians?

Build me a time machine, and I will tell you when and where.

A small number of them evolved into amphibians very gradually over millions of years. Very slight mutations occured in some fish that allowed them to come onto the land for brief periods of time. Why? Because they randomly mutated. That is also how.

4. Amphibians change to reptiles?

See above.

5. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

Actually, no. Bones are the same, just different thicknesses and such. Scales are hard skin cells. Feathers arre thin, elongated scales.

6. How did the intermediate forms live?

You are assuming there was a magical jump from a Carp to a Frog. Well, there wasn't. The intermediate forms were only slightly different form what came before them. They lived the same as their parents did. Evolution does not occur over night.

When, where, why, how, and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?

I am no biologist, and I have not cared to study the evolution of such creatures. Google them, and you will learn.

4. Eyes evolve?

As Dogscoff explained, from photo-receptive membranes. Many protista and monerans have such membranes.

5. Ears evolve?

From sound-receptive membranes in protista and monerans, which evolved randomly.

6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

Skin evolved form the cell walls of simple organisms. The same concept applies. It is essentially a layer of non-living stuff protecting the cell from the outside. Skin is merely a layer of dead cells. Scales are skin cells that harden.

Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

Other than feathers, they all evolved simultaneously. Some monerans and protista developed soft cell walls, some developed hard cell walls. All thanks to random mutations. This translated to soft coverings or hard coverings of small multi-cellular organims, and continued on. These traits were carried on when some cells failed to split completely during mitosis, and remained joined. The combined cells either died off, or gained a slight advantage over single-celled organisms around them. This is how I would think multi-cellular organisms evolved, anyways. But anyways, there was no magical jump between them, it was a slow process. One child had very slightly harder skin cells. The next may or may not have had harder ones. After a long while, the got harder in general. Feathers evolved from scales that very slowly got thinner and longer.

3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

What perfect mixture of gases? The air we breathe is in constant flux. At no time do we breathe the exact same composition of air as we did before.

4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

From that primordial goo. The simplest lifeforms have much less complex DNA than we do.

5. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

Random evolution.

9. The immune system or the need for it?

Things do not evolve because of need. That is Lamarckism, and is flat out wrong. All life forms have an immune system. Simple organisms have simple ones, but they do have a system to fight off harmul stuff that gets in them.

10. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation.

How so? The only reason why they are symbiotic is becuase the symbiote randomly got inside the host and found it easier to live inside it than in the outside world. So, they stayed inside and reproduced in there. Because it is a different environment, different random mutations allow for survival or death than outside.

Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

Religion is not a logical explanation. Religion is based entirely upon revelation, and not upon logical reason. It is completely unverifiable and unprovable. Science can be verified, and if not proven, then demonstrated to be close enough to the nature of reality that it can be assumed to be true. Evolotion is a part of science, not religion.

How would evolution explain mimicry?

Evolution can't explain anything. Can I call evolution up and ask it a question? Sorry, just felt the need for a small joke in the midst of this post, even if it is a tactless one.

Only a very small number of species practice mimicry. It is a relatively uncommon occurence. Due to random mutations, some organisms became colored differently. By random chance, some of them happened to look similar to other more dangerous organisms. Their predators, which had learned by instinct to avoid the predator, avoided the mimicers. Of these organisms that had mutated, some would be more apt to flee, and some would be more apt to stay in place. Because they look more dangerous, staying in place doesn't get them killed. Fleeing might cause the predator to attack anyways. So, those that had had mutations that caused the chemical balance in their neurons to create behavoir to flee die more often, and the ones that stay put reproduce and pass on their traits. Or, it might be the other way around, and the ones that flee survive and those that stay die.

Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

They weren't designed, and Lamarck was wrong. They did not choose to change their colors to look like some other creature.

What plant mimicry are you talking about here?

When, where, why, and how did

Again, give me a time machine, and I will be able to tell you when and where.

1. Man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Actually, the theory of evolution incorporates such things into it. They are all based off of chemical balances (and imbalances) in the body and brain of the human. Chemical balances and imbalances exist in all organisms. As the brain randomly evolved to be larger, the chemical system stayed with the primates.

2. How did photosynthesis evolve?

Photo-sensitive membranes evolved that could harness the solar radiation instead of simply emit it back as light radiation. This happened by random mutations.

5. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

Pardon moi?

7. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

Yes.

8. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

What?

9. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

No, everything came from primordial matter and energy that was always there. I do not know if the universe has periodic big bangs or if there will only ever be 1.

Do you honestly believe that everything came from God? If so, where did God come from? Did God just simply always exist? If so, why can't the universe have always existed?

1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (I.e., do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

Unless otherwise stated, yes.

2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

They show no faith. They show scientific understanding and learning.

3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?

Anything is possible in theory. But, the design arguement for the existence of God is a flawed argument. If you want, I could explain how to you.

4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

Yes.

6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
-It is all they have been taught.

No one has only been taught evolution. Unless, of course, they live in a cave and don't ever communicate with anyone else.

-They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).

The theory of evolution does not ever once say that there is no God.

-They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.

That is simply hog-wash.

-They are too proud to admit they are wrong.

Other than the fact that they are not wrong, are creationists to proud to admit that they are wrong? In general, yes, they are. This is because a change in their views would change everything about their life. But, science is continually updated and modified to fit new findings and theories that prove that old ones were inadequate or wrong. Religon does not.

8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?

No.

9. What are you risking if you are wrong? "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."

If there is a God, he wouldn't be so petty as to punish you for not believing what some people wrote in a work of fiction several millennia ago. He is perfect, right? Well, sending you to hell for not believing him is a sign of an inferiority complex. He would have to do that to make himself seem all big and mighty. But if he is perfect, he wouldn't have any insecurities or feelings of insecurity.

10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? 11. If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

Evolution is science. Creation is religion. Religion has no place in schools, except in classes of history. Science does.

[Suicide Junkie]

I think the main problem is that scientific theories are battle-hardened even before creationist attacks happen.
Scientists poke at the holes in each other's theories, and only the solidest theories survive.

[TerranC]

11. If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

1. Religions don't concern themselves with the brain; it concern themselves with the heart, and emotions of the person. A heavily battered person could find solace in a religion, but could follow that religion to it's strictest letter, not outgrowing the emotional support it gives.

2. There are many religions in the world. Christianity, Islam, Buddism, Shintoism, Daoism, Zoroastrinism, Paganism, Judaism, and others. Then you have sects/churches. Catholics and Protestants, Shiia and Sunni, Confusicians and buddhists, to name a few. Which one are you going to choose to teach? You can't teach all of them. If you teach one, you might offend the other.

3. Examples of the effects: Al Queda, Hazballah, Fatah, The Children's Crusade, Et cetera.

4. Similar case: Japan's education ministry publishing a textbook that were written by nationalists that has almost no mention of Japan's atrocities during WW2.

These are my 2 cents.

Edit: Post number 110.

[ December 12, 2002, 02:58: Message edited by: TerranC ]

[KirbyEF]

I have the answer:

Sh*t happens...

KirbyEF

[Krsqk]

Lots more to reply to...

Terran C: Let's not get into the results of religion or evolution. I think you'd say Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler weren't true followers of evolution, just as I'd say your examples aren't true followers of their religion. Unless you want to go there, too.

No one, even religious people, can know where matter came from. There are many theories on this, of course.

No one claims to be able to know. Creationists believe it was created; evolutionists (in general) believe it is eternal.

(re: scientific laws) They did not come from anywhere. They are not some entity floating out there that had to be created/generated. Well actually, the laws were written by various scientists over the years. But, the forces behind those laws have always been in existence.

Now forces sound more like the Force. I get the idea that the answer for anything dealing with stellar evolution, etc, is "It's always been there." Doesn't sound too scientific (i.e., verifiable) to me. Sounds more like a belief or faith.

The Earth was not completely covered in perpetual storms when life evolved from primordial goo. All it takes is a cliff-face to block the wind, and there is plenty of stable goo for the organci molecules to form. More complex molecules form out of the basic ones, and this has been proven in laboratory experiments.

I defy you to tell me what was in the primordial goo or what the conditions on earth were like. That's unverifiable. To come up with some soup in a laboratory, hook up a spark plug, come out with some amino acids, and then assume that you somehow must have hit on the combination that existed is unscientific. To say, "Well, it must have existed--after all, here we are!" is so far from logic that it's not worth debunking. Also, there is a world of difference between organic molecules and life. The "simplest" cell is orders of magnitudes more complex than the most complex organic molecule. (I know. Given enough time and the random chances of enough of the right molecules landing in the right places in this worldwide primordial goo...)

(re: reproduction)Life never "learned" this. That implies that something taught reproduction to basic carbohydrates and proteins and such,which it didnt. Reproduction involves the formation of complex organic molecules from basic elements. This happened in the puddle of goo, and it simply continued to happen within the basic organisms that evovled.

There is a world of difference between continued production of organic molecules and cellular reproduction.

Itself, of course. Many lifeforms are capable of sexual reproduction with themselves.

Given the random chance that it somehow developed with the ability to reproduce with itself. It's probably just as likely that it randomly evolved in close proximity to another cell with which it could reproduce.

You do realize that the Design Argument has been proven inadequate by people such as Hume, right?

Hume's argument stretches the premises beyond their logical extension, by cleverly wording the design argument. No creationist would say that man's creation and God's creation are like results from like effects. If the universe is without edge and without center (as is commonly said), then God would have created an infinite creation. Man never comes close to infinite creation. In fact, man never comes close to the complexity found in "simple" organisms. Given enough time and chance, though, I'm sure we could come up with something.

"6. How did the intermediate forms live?"
You are assuming there was a magical jump from a Carp to a Frog. Well, there wasn't.

Where did I say this? I'm wondering what allowed intermediate forms to live with partially developed 1) circulatory systems, 2) respiratory systems, 3) transportation systems, 4) digestive systems, etc. For that matter, if the "super-carp" is better, why do we have carp today? If each step up is better by definition, we should have run out of lower forms quite some time ago. The answer, of course, is random chance.

"3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?"
What perfect mixture of gases? The air we breathe is in constant flux. At no time do we breathe the exact same composition of air as we did before.

First, you missed the point of the question. The entire system needs to be present to function. How did species with one or two parts survive before the rest of the system developed? Random chance saw to it that it all worked out.

"4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?"
From that primordial goo. The simplest lifeforms have much less complex DNA than we do.

How did it happen that DNA and RNA both happened in the same cell (all surviving cells, actually), with DNA in an incredible double-helix, and DNA unwound itself and unzipped, and an RNA molecule snuggled up to it and made a copy, and the DNA then zipped back up and rewound. Random chance?

"8. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?"
What?

Typo. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen becoming human? In other words, life from unlife. What about the experiments of Redi and Pasteur? Are they bogus? Or didn't they have enough time (or just bad chance)?

"2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?"
They show no faith. They show scientific understanding and learning.

Your verifiable, testable, provable scientific explanations included "random" or "chance" at least ten times. In fact, we're to believe that everything in biological evolution (not to mention planetary, stellar, and elemental evolution) is the amazing result of random chances. I believe in a supernatural (i.e., non-verifiable, non-scientific) miraculous creation of the universe and everything in it. You believe in a materialistic, statistical miracle of such proportions based on so many unverifiable, unsubstantiated assumptions that I'd be ashamed to admit it.
[edit for clarity]

[ December 12, 2002, 03:51: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Krsqk]

Two links here. This one about probability is quite interesting. It gives an idea of the long-odds chances of spontaneous generation. This one gives several quotes by well-known scientists about evolution. If they don't know what there is to know, then who does?