The four horseman of the apocalypse, now

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

That was in response to the hypothetical situation of all religion being discarded immediately, voluntarily, not an enforced thing.

Umm... Meanwhile, back on planet Earth.  

I didn't ask the question, I merely replied to it.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

In other words you don't have any serious replies and are just running away with your tail between your legs?  Thats what it looks like from here.

Lol yeah whatever you say. If anyone else has any problems with aspects of it I'll be happy to adress them. I'm through debating close minded zealots.

[FSPilot 0]

Lol yeah whatever you say.  If anyone else has any problems with aspects of it I'll be happy to adress them.  I'm through debating close minded zealots.

You haven't debated with me at all. How on earth do you think I'm close minded?

lol, this is priceless. If you think my arguments are so feeble go ahead and stomp on them, boost your ego some. Don't just run away from an easy fight.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Anyone who claims 'evolution is a myth' is so unbelievably close minded, brainwashed and foolish that I am not going to waste my time argueing with them. It'd be like trying to persuade bin laden that the US loves him.

[Tovarish 0]

Lol yeah whatever you say.  If anyone else has any problems with aspects of it I'll be happy to adress them.  I'm through debating close minded zealots.

*chuckle* you know, I hate to overuse this one, but...

[FSPilot 0]

Anyone who claims 'evolution is a myth' is so unbelievably close minded, brainwashed and foolish that I am not going to waste my time argueing with them.  It'd be like trying to persuade bin laden that the US loves him.

Evolution is widely regarded by scientists as a myth. There are better theories for the creation and developments of humans.

[Harnu 0]

Anyone who claims 'evolution is a myth' is so unbelievably close minded, brainwashed and foolish that I am not going to waste my time argueing with them.  It'd be like trying to persuade bin laden that the US loves him.

Evolution is widely regarded by scientists as a myth.  There are better theories for the creation and developments of humans.

What other theories are there? It's been a long long time since I looked into this stuff.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

Evolution is widely regarded by scientists as a myth.  There are better theories for the creation and developments of humans.

No offense, but not the scientists I know / of.

[Bernadotte 0]

You said the change would not be instant.  In fact, you said it would take generations.  Without change people will remain in refugee camps.

...Or didn't you know that when you said it?  

The change of losing religious affiliations would take generations, that doesn't mean that the entire population would have to stay exactly where it is.  I thought that was obvious so I didn't bother spelling it out.

Where can the refugee population go while waiting for those who took their land to give up their God-given claim?  If it's so obvious to you then please spell it out for the rest of us.

[FSPilot 0]

Harnu

Quote[/b] ]What other theories are there? It's been a long long time since I looked into this stuff.

Good old Google

There isn't a theory out there that isn't discedited by someone

CosmicCastaway

Quote[/b] ]No offense, but not the scientists I know / of.

Ok.

[denoir 0]

While we're not entirely clear on how evolution works, we know that:

1) It does work. Evolutionary algorithms that mimic Darwinistic evolution (selection, mutation and crossing) are mathematically proven to be global optimizers.

2) The empirical evidence to support (neo-)Darwinistic theory are the best we have.

As a matter of fact, many christians have accepted evolution as compatible with their beliefs. The Catholic church has for instance declared that it does not in principle see any conflicts between the Christian creation theory and Darwinism.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

The theory of evolution is sound; there are some weak points, but overall it's solid so far as theories go.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

yes. While the actual theory may not be exactly perfect yet, the simple fact is that evolution happens. We might not be 100% sure on HOW it happens, but it does happen. Also, there is more evidence supporting evolution than supporting the theory of gravity.

[Major Fubar 0]

IMHO getting rid of cigarettes wouldn't stop all cases of lung cancer, is it still a bad idea?

Yes, because (as much as I think it is a disgusting and pointless habit) people have a right to smoke and poison their bodies if they want.

Next thing you'll be telling me suicide should be illegal!

[der bastler 0]

Well, this thread reminds me of good old flamewars like "Win vs. Linux", "Intel vs. AMD", "nVidia vs. ATI", "Apple vs. rest-of-the-world"...

The mistake that Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX is making is the same as many religious people do: They don't accept the boundaries of their system. Science can crush religion when religion invades its domain and tries to explain physical phenomena (like "Earth is the center of the universe" etc). It's outside its domain and its arguments can be easily disproved and dismissed. The same goes for science when it embarks into the realm of religion. For example an attempt to explain morality through mathematics is no less futile than explaining the natural laws through religion.

Exactly.

Religion was a theory that explained certain "magical" phenomenons like sun, moon, seasons, etc. --until science came (wrong domain for religion -> science "won").

Religion is still a theory that explains metaphysical phenomenons like soul --it's on science's todo-list, but it'll be hard for science to score.

But: Religion was, is and will be an ethical frame work providing rules for cooperation. E.g. thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill (although this was perverted by persons/churches who were greedy for power). There are dozens of different religions and all have one job: to organise the people's way of life. I do believe in God, because as a scientist I can't explain everything, especially regarding (artificial) intelligence, soul, awareness, death and beyond, coincidences... and because my moral philosophy is based on the commandments and Jesus' amendments.

Please do not assume state-of-the-art scientific facts to be determined. Science is fluent, new theories will replace old theories. Popular example: structure of matter. Old greeks invented the theorie of atomic structures. 19th/20th century: the components of the "indivisible" atom (according to the greek translation) were discovered. Second half of 20th century: the components of the components of the "indivisible" atom were discovered.

As cand. mach. I can say that I can live with approximations if the error is small enough.

P.S. I like this one (don't know iirc)

Quote[/b] ]

The succeeding statement is true.

The preceding statement is wrong.

[FSPilot 0]

While we're not entirely clear on how evolution works, we know that:

1) It does work. Evolutionary algorithms that mimic Darwinistic evolution (selection, mutation and crossing) are  mathematically proven to be global optimizers.

2) The empirical evidence to support (neo-)Darwinistic theory are the best we have.

As a matter of fact, many christians have accepted evolution as compatible with their beliefs. The Catholic church has for instance declared that it does not in principle see any conflicts between the Christian creation theory and Darwinism.

Evolution works, yes. But it's certainly not a reasonable theory for creation. Considering it doesn't account for how we were created.

I don't think it explains how we got from whatever we were created as to what we are today. But I guess that depends on what we were created as.

I tend to believe that God uses what we see as science to his will. There was even a pretty good article published in Astronomy magazine detailing how the "big bang" theory essentially followed the Biblical account of creation.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Religion is still a theory that explains metaphysical phenomenons like soul --it's on science's todo-list, but it'll be hard for science to score.

How exactly does it 'explain' these things? All it does is postulate an invisible fairy that created these things. It does absolutely nothing to explain how.

Quote[/b] ]

But: Religion was, is and will be an ethical frame work providing rules for cooperation. E.g. thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill (although this was perverted by persons/churches who were greedy for power). There are dozens of different religions and all have one job: to organise the people's way of life. I do believe in God, because as a scientist I can't explain everything, especially regarding (artificial) intelligence, soul, awareness, death and beyond, coincidences... and because my moral philosophy is based on the commandments and Jesus' amendments.

Morality doesn't come from religion. The commandments which aren't just 'my god has a bigger dick than your god' BS are basically copied from Hammurabi's code of laws. All societies have some sort of social agreement on morality - its nothing to do with religion, although religions do like to pretend it was their idea.

Do you believe in invisible pink unicorns because you don't know if they exist or not?

Quote[/b] ]

Please do not assume state-of-the-art scientific facts to be determined. Science is fluent, new theories will replace old theories. Popular example: structure of matter. Old greeks invented the theorie of atomic structures. 19th/20th century: the components of the "indivisible" atom (according to the greek translation) were discovered. Second half of 20th century: the components of the components of the "indivisible" atom were discovered.

As cand. mach. I can say that I can live with approximations if the error is small enough.

Nobody has said science has all the answers correct. It merely answers questions in some form or another, which is 100% more than religions do.

P.S. I like this one (don't know iirc)

Quote[/b] ]

The succeeding statement is true.

The preceding statement is wrong.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Evolution works, yes.  But it's certainly not a reasonable theory for creation.  Considering it doesn't account for how we were created.

Good thing that it has absolutely nothing to do with 'creation', then. Read a book.

Quote[/b] ]

I don't think it explains how we got from whatever we were created as to what we are today.

its not supposed to. Read a book.

Quote[/b] ]

I tend to believe that God uses what we see as science to his will. There was even a pretty good article published in Astronomy magazine detailing how the "big bang" theory essentially followed the Biblical account of creation.

Minus the fact that its in the wrong order, wrong time scale (days, years, periods of time - the scale is wrong no matter which you say it is), run through with ambiguous language and incorrect, maybe.

[FSPilot 0]

Baron

Quote[/b] ]Good thing that it has absolutely nothing to do with 'creation', then. Read a book.

Thats what I said. Read my post.

Quote[/b] ]its not supposed to. Read a book.

So what is it supposed to do? It doesn't explain creation, or how we got from monkey to man.

Quote[/b] ]Minus the fact that its in the wrong order, wrong time scale (days, years, periods of time - the scale is wrong no matter which you say it is), run through with ambiguous language and incorrect, maybe.

Depends on how you define time, which is linear and doesn't confine God. God could of done what you think would take a billion years in a nanosecond.

[denoir 0]

Evolution works, yes.  But it's certainly not a reasonable theory for creation.  Considering it doesn't account for how we were created.

I don't think it explains how we got from whatever we were created as to what we are today.  But I guess that depends on what we were created as.

Evolution explains the genetical development of biological organisms on our planet. It's not supposed to describe the "creation" but the process following the creation.

There are however other scientific theories that cover the initial steps. How did we become what we are today? Mainstream scientific view says this:

1) Big Bang. Space-time is compressed to a single point. Through quantum tunelling a single particle breaks through which causes a huge explosion and space-time expands. An energy-matter conversion occures which converts a part of the enormous blast energy into matter. Chemical elements form and are hurled across space. Gravity et al does the rest.

Evidence: A lot of it is a direct effect of the general theory of relativity which has been validated many times. Empirical evidence comes from cosmic background radiation that gives us a historical view of the universe.

2) Our own little rock in space cools off after a billion years or so in a stable orbit. The atmosphere has yet to be created so Earth is constantly being bombarded by asteroids that hit it. A number of chemical elements find their way to our corner of the solar system. Things like carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen. Combined with energy the basic building blocks of life can be created. Or another possibility is that we got complete amino acids directly from meteorites. Several meteorites that have hit us in recent years have been found to  have large quantities of amino acids.

Evidence: The Miller Experiment & more

3) Loose amino acids formed proteines. DNA & RNA was formed and soon we had the first living cells.

Evidence: The creation of living cells from proteines is a simple lab excersise today.

4) Evolution. Through random mutation, crossbreeding and natural selection the organisms evolve. It's all conditioned by the physical laws that greatly reduce the number of possible directions.

Evidence: Studies both of pre-historic and contemporary animals (including humans). In vitro observations in labs. Mathemathical models etc.

Quote[/b] ]It doesn't explain creation, or how we got from monkey to man.

The monkey->man transition is fairly certain. I'm sure you are aware of the gradual change of our spieces:

 

No but seriously, while we can't quantify the development in the form of a mathemathical formula, it's no doubt that for instance our direct ancestor the australopithecus was more similar to a large ape than it is to a modern day man:

Australopithecus afarensis skull: (Age: 3.5 million years)

Gorilla gorilla skull: (modern day gorilla)

Homo sapien skull: (Age 90,000 years):

Homo sapien skull: (modern day human)

And this is real empirical evidence. During the last couple of million years, we have changed radically. And if you check the genetic markers you see that 1 million years ago we had more in common with apes than we have today.

[Renagade 0]

The universe was god farting and the meteorites that hit earth were some of gods butt nuggets

[Balschoiw 0]

The big bang theory is getting old fashioned.

I´m a fan of the deep sea life generators, so called "black smokers".

It´s somehow amazing that lifeforms down there don´t even need sunlight to grow. Maybe this is the source of life on this planet.

Quote[/b] ]Deep-sea hydrothermal vents support extraordinary ecosystems deep beneath the surface of the oceans. These ecosystems are the only communities on Earth whose immediate energy source is not sunlight. Life on Earth, and even possibly on other planets, may have formed in environments similar to these.

Black smokers

[CosmicCastaway 0]

The big bang theory is getting old fashioned.

I´m a fan of the deep sea life generators, so called "black smokers".

It´s somehow amazing that lifeforms down there don´t even need sunlight to grow. Maybe this  is the source of life on this planet.

Quote[/b] ]Deep-sea hydrothermal vents support extraordinary ecosystems deep beneath the surface of the oceans. These ecosystems are the only communities on Earth whose immediate energy source is not sunlight. Life on Earth, and even possibly on other planets, may have formed in environments similar to these.

Black smokers

Just finished reading quite a good book about the deep sea. I'd recommend it. The Universe Below by William J. Broad. Concentrates for the first half on the developments in under-sea exploration brought about by the de-classifying of cold war technology. The second half digs deeper into the origins of life in the deep. Some fasciniating stuff in there about life developing in the deepest parts of the oceans, devoid of sunlight, oxygen and anything else we would normally associate with life.

So I'd say it was a theory with potential.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Balschiow, the origin of life on earth isn't covered by the big bang theory. It could be that life arose around the deep vents on the sea bed, after the planet formed according to Denoir's excellent description.

If anyone wants more information on BOTH sides of the debate, check out Talk origins

There are articles on averything from Abiogenesis (how life might have arisen) to how evolution works, to more pictures like Denoirs examples of intermediate species, to anything that has been seriously discussed about origins of life, matter and humans.

[der bastler 0]

This is a good book if someone is interested in an overview of existing theories. Ok, it's a novel without equations, but imo it's quite good for getting started.

Quote[/b] ]

Amazon.co.uk Review

Terry Pratchett needs no introduction. Ian Stewart has written fine nonfiction books on mathematics, and he and Jack Cohen collaborated on the quirkily inventive pop-science titles The Collapse of Chaos and Figments of Reality. What on earth, or on Discworld, are they all doing in the same book? Pratchett provides a very funny 30,000-word novella about Discworld science, beginning in the High Energy Magic faculty of Unseen University and leading his eccentric wizards to investigate an alien cosmos where there's no magic to keep things going. This is the Roundworld universe--ours. The key point: much that's true only on Discworld (eg: that suns orbit planets and not vice-versa) was once believed on Earth and the wizards' comic misunderstandings echo the history of real science ... Unusually, Pratchett's story is split into chapters and in between his chapters Stewart and Cohen wittily discuss the concepts underlying the fiction, from the Big Bang through stellar formation to life and evolution. Much of the science we know, they cheerfully insist, is "lies-to-children": good stories that are mostly untrue, like thinking of atoms as tiny solar systems. Discworld operates by narrative plausibility and so does human thought even when our Roundworld universe disagrees. Between the laughs, The Science of Discworld is a provocative, informative book that'll make you think about what you think you know. --David Langford --

(This text refers to the Hardcover edition.)

Peter Ingham, The Times

‘The hard science is as gripping as the fiction'