Serious question related to ID...
-
The linked article is nothing short of stupid rubbish. From the linked page: The messages dictated to Rael explain that life on Earth is not the result of random evolution, nor the work of a supernatural 'God'. Evolution isn't random. It follows rules. Certainly, sometimes apparently random things happen, genetic mutation, but the rules ensure whether that mutation can be passed on or not. After reading the first page I came to the conculsion that it is a load of twaddle that is aimed at people who see themselves as athiests but want to find an explanation. I have to admit through that the ideas that it was aliens with superior technology that kicked off life on earth has more substance to it than the explanation offered by the major religions. "Any technology that is sufficiently advanced would appear to us to be magic" - Arthur C. Clarke (I think) But if this was true there would be more evidence for it that we could detect. I am happy to accept that science hasn't got all the answers yet, and I am willing to be patient to let the scientists find those answers - I don't feel the need to fill the void with some fantasy.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
The linked article is nothing short of stupid rubbish. Oh come on, what's not to trust about this guy? :laugh: (I always love how every kooky cult leader implements some type of "The great one/alien/orb/etc has informed me that as your leader, I must sleep with 10 women a night" clause in their doctrine) I have to admit through that the ideas that it was aliens with superior technology that kicked off life on earth has more substance to it than the explanation offered by the major religions. I like the theory that states we're some type of discarded alien experiment that went wrong. What a blow to the human ego that would be. The 8-Track Tape of spacekind. I am happy to accept that science hasn't got all the answers yet, and I am willing to be patient to let the scientists find those answers - I don't feel the need to fill the void with some fantasy. I'm with you, and side with the scientists, for they have a much better "batting average". We are historically, a superstitious and paranoid race that loves to make things up when we don't know the answers. Not surprisingly, it's usually to some benefit of the people doing the "making up". "When you know you're going to eat crow, it's best to eat it while it's still warm." - Reader's Digest
-
andy brummer wrote:
The US public school system teaches students to shut up, sit still
Yes, sit still, shut up, basically stuff parents are supposed to be teaching their children but don't.
Yes, many parents don't teach their children proper respect for others, and school should reinforce that. Everyone needs that to function properly in society. However, most US public schools put students in an artificial mind numbingly boring environment. School should give students the skills they need to excel at life. This involves at a minimum: 1. Reading, writing, math, learning and reasoning skills. You can't do this by making 30+ students do endless worksheets day after day. 2. Behavior. Students should be taught by both teachers and other students, they should also teach other students and learn how to lead. 3. Practical experience. Students should have experience running a real business by the time they graduate. Not only is this the point of their education, it shows them why they need everyting they've learned.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
andy brummer wrote:
If students were getting a good overall education then they would be able to make up their own minds about this one issue.
The student is as important as the education. Simply providing a good overall education does nothing for students who cannot or will not master the material presented.
Definitely. Apparently there is genetic and environmental variation in any population. Not everyone has the ability or desire to learn everything. However, there is a bare minimum that people should know to function properly in society, and I'd say that figuring out the difference between science and religion is below that minimum.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
There would go half the history lessons I ever had. One of the courses in history that I had was to attempt to find the truthe from the "evidence" from a murder trial in Edinburgh that was found to be incorrectly judged. It happened around a hundred years previously, and the police officers involved made some pretty stupid errors in collecting evidence, even by the standards of the day. Anyway, the class was presented with the "evidence" and told to come to a conclusion. For the first part we came to pretty much the same conclusion as the judge - a descision which hanged the poor woman who was accused. Then we were presented with evidence that was uncovered 20 years after her death that pretty much changed everyones opinion. So, the lesson is that we must all seek to find the truth rather than accepting blindly the evidence presented before us. Had capital punishment not been in place the woman could have been release from prison. However, false evidence caused her death.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
I see your point. That is precisely why i think that the death penalty is absolutely wrong, unless the person is an enemy in a time of war. That may seem weird, because I am a hard-core conservative/libertarian, and most of them support the death penalty. I am opposed to income tax, support legalization of drugs, am stronly opposed to any kind of gun control and support the right to defend yourself. I also feel that any kind of censorship is wrong unless it is relating to threats or things meant to cause harm. Edit: I meant to add that in my original message, I was refering to promoting a particular religion or ideology in school.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:21 Sunday 13th November, 2005
-
Since ID is based on someone not being able to cope with the idea of evolution it should be taught only within religion. The basic principle that it denies another theory simply because someone can't cope with it it not science. By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year! The tigress is here :-D
For me, it would take more faith to belive that life came from nothing instead of someone who created it. The universe is fine tuned for life to exist. We live in the perfect kind of galaxy for life; the core is not too large for there to be too much radiation, and not too small, where there would not be enough of the right elements for life to exist. Also, there is just the right amount of stars for life to exist. Any more, and there would be too much heavy elements, too few, and there would be only light elements.
Trollslayer wrote:
By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year!
If you wanted proof for evolution, the virus would have to come into existence by itself from simple elements, then mutate into an intelligent species. Evolution claims that life just happened for no reason, and that the universe came from nothing. I believe that the concept of the big bang proves God's existence. To say that it happened for no reason seems silly. How can athiests explain where the energy necessary for the big bang came from? They are the ones who stated that "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed". Then, how can they explain that the universe is fine tuned for life on earth to exist?
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:46 Sunday 13th November, 2005
-
I see your point. That is precisely why i think that the death penalty is absolutely wrong, unless the person is an enemy in a time of war. That may seem weird, because I am a hard-core conservative/libertarian, and most of them support the death penalty. I am opposed to income tax, support legalization of drugs, am stronly opposed to any kind of gun control and support the right to defend yourself. I also feel that any kind of censorship is wrong unless it is relating to threats or things meant to cause harm. Edit: I meant to add that in my original message, I was refering to promoting a particular religion or ideology in school.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:21 Sunday 13th November, 2005
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am a hard-core conservative/libertarian, and most of them support the death penalty.
I can see why a conservative would support the death penalty, but a libertarian*? I thought the whole ethos of libertarians was one of you can do what ever you want so long as it doesn't harm others or impinge upon their freedoms.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am opposed to income tax
Any other taxes you are opposed to? Or would you rather go for some sort of consumption tax? That way everybody pays based upon how much they consume.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am stronly opposed to any kind of gun control and support the right to defend yourself
Curiously, the only place I've seen that work well is the Swiss model. Everywhere else it just seems to escalate the amount of violence in crime. * Curiously outsite of America this would be called a liberal - IIRC, it comes from the Latin word libre meaning free
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am a hard-core conservative/libertarian, and most of them support the death penalty.
I can see why a conservative would support the death penalty, but a libertarian*? I thought the whole ethos of libertarians was one of you can do what ever you want so long as it doesn't harm others or impinge upon their freedoms.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am opposed to income tax
Any other taxes you are opposed to? Or would you rather go for some sort of consumption tax? That way everybody pays based upon how much they consume.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am stronly opposed to any kind of gun control and support the right to defend yourself
Curiously, the only place I've seen that work well is the Swiss model. Everywhere else it just seems to escalate the amount of violence in crime. * Curiously outsite of America this would be called a liberal - IIRC, it comes from the Latin word libre meaning free
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Curiously, the only place I've seen that work well is the Swiss model. Everywhere else it just seems to escalate the amount of violence in crime.
Yes, oddly enough I feel secure on a train full of Swiss Army regulars toting around loaded assault weapons. Most of them are usually drunk too when they do it. It's strange, but I don't feel threatened....
-
I see your point. That is precisely why i think that the death penalty is absolutely wrong, unless the person is an enemy in a time of war. That may seem weird, because I am a hard-core conservative/libertarian, and most of them support the death penalty. I am opposed to income tax, support legalization of drugs, am stronly opposed to any kind of gun control and support the right to defend yourself. I also feel that any kind of censorship is wrong unless it is relating to threats or things meant to cause harm. Edit: I meant to add that in my original message, I was refering to promoting a particular religion or ideology in school.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:21 Sunday 13th November, 2005
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I am opposed to income tax,
Where do you want the government to get their money from? Capital gains taxes? Consumption tax? Pure sales tax? A combination of the three? The money has to come from somewhere...
-
For me, it would take more faith to belive that life came from nothing instead of someone who created it. The universe is fine tuned for life to exist. We live in the perfect kind of galaxy for life; the core is not too large for there to be too much radiation, and not too small, where there would not be enough of the right elements for life to exist. Also, there is just the right amount of stars for life to exist. Any more, and there would be too much heavy elements, too few, and there would be only light elements.
Trollslayer wrote:
By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year!
If you wanted proof for evolution, the virus would have to come into existence by itself from simple elements, then mutate into an intelligent species. Evolution claims that life just happened for no reason, and that the universe came from nothing. I believe that the concept of the big bang proves God's existence. To say that it happened for no reason seems silly. How can athiests explain where the energy necessary for the big bang came from? They are the ones who stated that "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed". Then, how can they explain that the universe is fine tuned for life on earth to exist?
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:46 Sunday 13th November, 2005
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Any more, and there would be too much heavy elements, too few, and there would be only light elements.
Too much and too few in comparison to what? It's not the fact that there is a balance in the types of elements, it's the fact that heavy elements exist, but they are a product of standard star evolution. The proportion of heavy to light elements is a function of the age and matter density of the universe. Heavy radioactive elements are required in order for planetary heating, but the concentration of these radioactive elements decreases with increasing age of the universe. Also, it is not the galaxy per se that determines compatability for life. Distance from the galactic core is also important. Radiation follows an inverse square law, meaning intensity of radiation drops rapidly with distance. It is not so much the galaxy in which the solar system lies, but the distance from the core and the distance and atmospheric composition of the planet on which life initiates. I don't think the number of stars has anything to do with the probability of life arising. I have seen no research on this. In fact, it is not so difficult to believe that life arose from a chemical soup. Self-organising systems are quite important in biology. In fact, most biological chemicals seem to be left-handed molecules indicating some favouritism for left-handed molecules over right-handed molecules. There is gathering evidence that left-handed molecules have lower energy configurations than right-handed ones, leading to the conclusion that the preferred natural ground state is left-handed. This implies several things for the presence of life. Most importantly is that molecules naturally tend towards a left-handed state offering one possible explanation for the arisal of organised systems. From there it is not such a large leap to seeing the emergence of self-replicating systems and, subsequently, life. It is not that evolution claims life happened for no reason, but that perhaps life is a natural outcome of the progressive evolution of the universe, which, tends to further complexity with increasing age. This happens to be a direct result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (ie:entropy increases).
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
"Matter can neither be created nor destroyed".
Absolutely incorrect. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. However, this is not so much of interest these day
-
Trollslayer wrote:
Since ID is based on someone not being able to cope with the idea of evolution it should be taught only within religion. The basic principle that it denies another theory simply because someone can't cope with it it not science. By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year!
You don't have to convince me of that. Hell, before I turned ten years old (in a dusty little cow town as deep in the heart of the bible belt as you can get), I was already having doubts about the stuff I was being taught in sunday school. I found a book on dinosaurs in the town library which introduced me to the concept of evolution. That made a lot more sense to me. I spent the rest of my childhood as a happy little heretic pissing off my parents and our pious neighbors. :-D (However, after I grew up and discovered what liberalism was really all about, I began to long for their kind and patient Christian tolerance :sigh: But, on the bright side, liberals are a lot more fun to piss off! ). "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan, it sounds like you've run into a bunch of self righteous hypocrites using the label 'liberal' to push their own prejudices. I must admit the ones to disppear up their own orifices of whatever type are tempting :evil-grin: The tigress is here :-D
-
For me, it would take more faith to belive that life came from nothing instead of someone who created it. The universe is fine tuned for life to exist. We live in the perfect kind of galaxy for life; the core is not too large for there to be too much radiation, and not too small, where there would not be enough of the right elements for life to exist. Also, there is just the right amount of stars for life to exist. Any more, and there would be too much heavy elements, too few, and there would be only light elements.
Trollslayer wrote:
By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year!
If you wanted proof for evolution, the virus would have to come into existence by itself from simple elements, then mutate into an intelligent species. Evolution claims that life just happened for no reason, and that the universe came from nothing. I believe that the concept of the big bang proves God's existence. To say that it happened for no reason seems silly. How can athiests explain where the energy necessary for the big bang came from? They are the ones who stated that "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed". Then, how can they explain that the universe is fine tuned for life on earth to exist?
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:46 Sunday 13th November, 2005
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
If you wanted proof for evolution, the virus would have to come into existence by itself from simple elements
Oh look, viruses have been created in labs from simple elements...
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I believe that the concept of the big bang proves God's existence. To say that it happened for no reason seems silly.
Now there is an ego at work :)
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Then, how can they explain that the universe is fine tuned for life on earth to exist?
Who said it is? Life managed to fit in here nothing more. The tigress is here :-D
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
discovered what liberalism was really all about
It's funny, Stan, but the liberals you seem to have discovered are nothing at all like the liberals I know. Most liberals epitomize tolerance while many "Christians" practice intolerance. Just read some of the posts in this forum about "ragheads".
Show me a single post here where someone claiming to represent christianity has referred to someone as a 'raghead'. The only use of the term I've heard is from some lefty putting words into other people's mouths in order to self-validate his own bigotry. I have almost universally found Christians to be just about the most tolerant people on the planet - and liberals to be quite the contrary. You are a perfect example of that - as throughly incapable of entertaining an opinion beyond your narrow minded secular world view as a pig is of understanding physics. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
BTW, did you see the program concerning the theory that Ice Age Europeans might well have been in North America 17,000 years ago?
I saw something about that on PBS. Maybe not the same thing that Discovery did since the only thing I remember was that it was really pushing what evidence they had. I think even in the conclusions it stated that it was unlikely. But this is also how science works. You look at the facts and fit a hypothesis to it and see if it will fly. Maybe you aren't right but you get someone else thinking just a little differently and things fall better into place. What you can't do is ignore evidence to make your hypothesis work and that generally what the pseudoscientists do. If something clearly is going to throw a wrench in their thinking, it gets hidden. And a lot of scientific hypotheses are thrown out there, I think, with the intent "prove me wrong". They stimulate additional research and thinking. 100 years after being postulated, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is still being tested as is Quantum Mechanics. The day that someone produces clear, repeatable evidence either theory doesn't work in a certain situation will be the end of it as "the" theory. However, that doesn't necessarily signal that the theory is worthless. We've known Newtonian mechanics are "wrong" for 100 years but they're still taught in schools and they're great if you know when to apply them.
Tim Craig wrote:
I saw something about that on PBS. Maybe not the same thing that Discovery did since the only thing I remember was that it was really pushing what evidence they had. I think even in the conclusions it stated that it was unlikely.
The evidence is fascinating though. The oldest artifacts so far found in North America date from about 17,000 years ago and are found on the east coast, and are identical to artifacts found in France from exactly that same time period, but completely different from those known to have been used in Siberia. Also, at least one eastern woodlands tribe, the Ojibwa (Chippawa), have genetic markers that appear only in European populations. It is also known that a permanent Ice sheet stretched from France to the area of Virginia and would have been rich with sea life at a time when land game in Europe was becoming increasingly scarce.
Tim Craig wrote:
And a lot of scientific hypotheses are thrown out there, I think, with the intent "prove me wrong". They stimulate additional research and thinking. 100 years after being postulated, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is still being tested as is Quantum Mechanics. The day that someone produces clear, repeatable evidence either theory doesn't work in a certain situation will be the end of it as "the" theory. However, that doesn't necessarily signal that the theory is worthless. We've known Newtonian mechanics are "wrong" for 100 years but they're still taught in schools and they're great if you know when to apply them.
I suppose this is an issue where I simply do not trust either side. Certainly I do not want children taught ID as science. On the other hand, I also do not want some over inspired secularists teaching psuedo-science in order to purposefully undermine the faith that parents might otherwise wish to impart to their children. I think the latter probably does more harm to science than the former. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Stan, it sounds like you've run into a bunch of self righteous hypocrites using the label 'liberal' to push their own prejudices. I must admit the ones to disppear up their own orifices of whatever type are tempting :evil-grin: The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote:
it sounds like you've run into a bunch of self righteous hypocrites using the label 'liberal' to push their own prejudices.
Just my bad luck then, eh? :-D From my experience in life, self righteousness is something the human race will probably never run out of. It comes in all forms and flavors. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
For me, it would take more faith to belive that life came from nothing instead of someone who created it. The universe is fine tuned for life to exist. We live in the perfect kind of galaxy for life; the core is not too large for there to be too much radiation, and not too small, where there would not be enough of the right elements for life to exist. Also, there is just the right amount of stars for life to exist. Any more, and there would be too much heavy elements, too few, and there would be only light elements.
Trollslayer wrote:
By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year!
If you wanted proof for evolution, the virus would have to come into existence by itself from simple elements, then mutate into an intelligent species. Evolution claims that life just happened for no reason, and that the universe came from nothing. I believe that the concept of the big bang proves God's existence. To say that it happened for no reason seems silly. How can athiests explain where the energy necessary for the big bang came from? They are the ones who stated that "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed". Then, how can they explain that the universe is fine tuned for life on earth to exist?
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:46 Sunday 13th November, 2005
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
I believe that the concept of the big bang proves God's existence. To say that it happened for no reason seems silly. How can athiests explain where the energy necessary for the big bang came from? They are the ones who stated that "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed". Then, how can they explain that the universe is fine tuned for life on earth to exist?
Consider this, however. If 'athiests' do finally come up with a varifiable theory of what the underlieing causes of the 'big bang' were, the notion that it "proves God's existence" is thereby overturned. By predicating their religious faith on incomplete scientific investigations, the religious community is sealing its own doom. Most of those proofs are just waiting to be determined scientifically. Science has the philosophical foundations to ultimately provide the proof once sufficeint evidence becomes available by means of experimentation and observation. Religion can only set and watch as such arguments are systematically invalidated. The religious community is only harming itself by trying to confront science head-on with such silly arguments. The only hope it has is to try to stop true scientific inquery altogether, and I think that is a very valid concern by those of us who wish to see it continue unabated. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
For me, it would take more faith to belive that life came from nothing instead of someone who created it. The universe is fine tuned for life to exist. We live in the perfect kind of galaxy for life; the core is not too large for there to be too much radiation, and not too small, where there would not be enough of the right elements for life to exist. Also, there is just the right amount of stars for life to exist. Any more, and there would be too much heavy elements, too few, and there would be only light elements.
Trollslayer wrote:
By the way, if you want proof of evolution look at how flu mutates and the successful mutations spread across the world every year!
If you wanted proof for evolution, the virus would have to come into existence by itself from simple elements, then mutate into an intelligent species. Evolution claims that life just happened for no reason, and that the universe came from nothing. I believe that the concept of the big bang proves God's existence. To say that it happened for no reason seems silly. How can athiests explain where the energy necessary for the big bang came from? They are the ones who stated that "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed". Then, how can they explain that the universe is fine tuned for life on earth to exist?
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski -- modified at 2:46 Sunday 13th November, 2005
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Then, how can they explain that the universe is fine tuned for life on earth to exist?
Imagine your self as a puddle of water. It a very interesting universe you find yourself in, isn't it. This hole that holds you is exactly the right size and shape to hold you. It must have been created specifically for you. And as you thing about how wonderful it is that the universe was created just to have you in it, the sun comes out. All the time you are evaporating, but still clinging to the thought that this universe was made just for you because you fit into it so neatly. The above is paraphrased from an essay that Douglas Adams wrote a few years ago. It can be found in "The Salmon of Doubt". You may also like to read Richard Dawkins' "The Bind Watchmaker" If that is too heavy reading then perhaps "The science of the Discworld III, Darwin's Watch" would be a better read.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
-
Most of the stuff on the Discovery channel is crap. They take one controversial point of view and stretch it out into an hour show using fancy graphics. It presents many theories as fact without going into the minimal supporting evidence if any. They definitely don't bring up any of the competing interpretations. That's one of the reasons my wife has gotten into documentary film making. She just had a documentary on excavations in Shiloh accepted to a film festival BTW. The US public school system teaches students to shut up, sit still, be bored, and memorize facts. It prepares students for assembly line jobs and little else. To explain the difference between a scientific theory and unscientific religious belief, you have to assume the student is capable of thought. This whole debate just highlights the larger problems with the education system. If students were getting a good overall education then they would be able to make up their own minds about this one issue.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
andy brummer wrote:
The US public school system teaches students to shut up, sit still, be bored, and memorize facts. It prepares students for assembly line jobs and little else.
I'm not sure that I think that basic education can or should ever be much more than that. Some people like learning, some don't. Those who do will learn in almost any kind of an environment, while those who don't won't. I'm not sure that I think a hell of a lot of resources should be wasted on getting those who simply wish to live their lives fixing flat tires to understand philosophical abstractions. I was always bored in school as a child and generally made very poor grades until I got into college. Yet, I have always loved reading and learning. But, I cannot think of anything my teachers could have done to have inspired me to learn the way they wanted me to learn. No given teacing philsophy is ever going to reach every child. Therefore, I think it is better just to stick to time tested methods and teach the basics in a basic way. By trying to make education entertaining you are more likely to encounter the very issues I was referring to when I started this thread - the popularization of knowledge in a way that is more appropriate for a disney movie than for a classroom. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Any more, and there would be too much heavy elements, too few, and there would be only light elements.
Too much and too few in comparison to what? It's not the fact that there is a balance in the types of elements, it's the fact that heavy elements exist, but they are a product of standard star evolution. The proportion of heavy to light elements is a function of the age and matter density of the universe. Heavy radioactive elements are required in order for planetary heating, but the concentration of these radioactive elements decreases with increasing age of the universe. Also, it is not the galaxy per se that determines compatability for life. Distance from the galactic core is also important. Radiation follows an inverse square law, meaning intensity of radiation drops rapidly with distance. It is not so much the galaxy in which the solar system lies, but the distance from the core and the distance and atmospheric composition of the planet on which life initiates. I don't think the number of stars has anything to do with the probability of life arising. I have seen no research on this. In fact, it is not so difficult to believe that life arose from a chemical soup. Self-organising systems are quite important in biology. In fact, most biological chemicals seem to be left-handed molecules indicating some favouritism for left-handed molecules over right-handed molecules. There is gathering evidence that left-handed molecules have lower energy configurations than right-handed ones, leading to the conclusion that the preferred natural ground state is left-handed. This implies several things for the presence of life. Most importantly is that molecules naturally tend towards a left-handed state offering one possible explanation for the arisal of organised systems. From there it is not such a large leap to seeing the emergence of self-replicating systems and, subsequently, life. It is not that evolution claims life happened for no reason, but that perhaps life is a natural outcome of the progressive evolution of the universe, which, tends to further complexity with increasing age. This happens to be a direct result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (ie:entropy increases).
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
"Matter can neither be created nor destroyed".
Absolutely incorrect. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. However, this is not so much of interest these day
John Theal wrote:
I don't think the number of stars has anything to do with the probability of life arising.
We already put a probability on these things with no data samples :confused:
John Theal wrote:
In fact, it is not so difficult to believe that life arose from a chemical soup.
It kind of reminds me of the Soviet, who bacause of being atheist, base there understanding of the universe on the material. So they tried to do an experiment where they got the chemical composition of living organisims and tried to put them together, with electrical stimulation and what not. No life emerged, what a suprise.
John Theal wrote:
It is not that evolution claims life happened for no reason, but that perhaps life is a natural outcome of the progressive evolution of the universe, which, tends to further complexity with increasing age. This happens to be a direct result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (ie:entropy increases).
I think your misunderstanding complexity here. Second Law says the universe is going from order to disorder. Anyway I am not sure what this has to do with evolution.
John Theal wrote:
Inflationary theory removes the need for an initiating event for the creation of the universe.
I guess the claim here is that it made itself. Quran Translation Intro Discover
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Any more, and there would be too much heavy elements, too few, and there would be only light elements.
Too much and too few in comparison to what? It's not the fact that there is a balance in the types of elements, it's the fact that heavy elements exist, but they are a product of standard star evolution. The proportion of heavy to light elements is a function of the age and matter density of the universe. Heavy radioactive elements are required in order for planetary heating, but the concentration of these radioactive elements decreases with increasing age of the universe. Also, it is not the galaxy per se that determines compatability for life. Distance from the galactic core is also important. Radiation follows an inverse square law, meaning intensity of radiation drops rapidly with distance. It is not so much the galaxy in which the solar system lies, but the distance from the core and the distance and atmospheric composition of the planet on which life initiates. I don't think the number of stars has anything to do with the probability of life arising. I have seen no research on this. In fact, it is not so difficult to believe that life arose from a chemical soup. Self-organising systems are quite important in biology. In fact, most biological chemicals seem to be left-handed molecules indicating some favouritism for left-handed molecules over right-handed molecules. There is gathering evidence that left-handed molecules have lower energy configurations than right-handed ones, leading to the conclusion that the preferred natural ground state is left-handed. This implies several things for the presence of life. Most importantly is that molecules naturally tend towards a left-handed state offering one possible explanation for the arisal of organised systems. From there it is not such a large leap to seeing the emergence of self-replicating systems and, subsequently, life. It is not that evolution claims life happened for no reason, but that perhaps life is a natural outcome of the progressive evolution of the universe, which, tends to further complexity with increasing age. This happens to be a direct result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (ie:entropy increases).
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
"Matter can neither be created nor destroyed".
Absolutely incorrect. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. However, this is not so much of interest these day
John Theal wrote:
This happens to be a direct result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (ie:entropy increases).
Did you mean to phrase it that way? Its been a long time since I studied thermodynamics, but isn't increasing entropy decreasing order? EDIT - Doesn't biological evolution on Earth represent an ever so tiny decrease in entropy as they sun's continueing burning of fuel represents a massive overall increase? In any case, the 2nd law probably doesn't strongly support either side of the debate as it only applies to closed systems. The solar system in which the earth exists is certainly anything but closed, as the Sun pumps a gazillion units of energy into it every single second, and, at this point, we have not a clue as to how closed our entire little space-time continuum itself might actually be. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom." -- modified at 8:31 Sunday 13th November, 2005
-
John Theal wrote:
I don't think the number of stars has anything to do with the probability of life arising.
We already put a probability on these things with no data samples :confused:
John Theal wrote:
In fact, it is not so difficult to believe that life arose from a chemical soup.
It kind of reminds me of the Soviet, who bacause of being atheist, base there understanding of the universe on the material. So they tried to do an experiment where they got the chemical composition of living organisims and tried to put them together, with electrical stimulation and what not. No life emerged, what a suprise.
John Theal wrote:
It is not that evolution claims life happened for no reason, but that perhaps life is a natural outcome of the progressive evolution of the universe, which, tends to further complexity with increasing age. This happens to be a direct result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (ie:entropy increases).
I think your misunderstanding complexity here. Second Law says the universe is going from order to disorder. Anyway I am not sure what this has to do with evolution.
John Theal wrote:
Inflationary theory removes the need for an initiating event for the creation of the universe.
I guess the claim here is that it made itself. Quran Translation Intro Discover
A.A. wrote:
We already put a probability on these things with no data samples
No, this is not what I said. You conveniently omitted the part where I clearly stated "I have seen no research on this topic".
A.A. wrote:
It kind of reminds me of the Soviet, who bacause of being atheist, base there understanding of the universe on the material. So they tried to do an experiment where they got the chemical composition of living organisims and tried to put them together, with electrical stimulation and what not. No life emerged, what a suprise.
Yet somehow I am supposed to accept that some "supreme being" for which (in over 2000 years) no evidence exists is responsible? I prefer to think the experiment didn't work because we are still misunderstanding some principles.
A.A. wrote:
I think your misunderstanding complexity here. Second Law says the universe is going from order to disorder. Anyway I am not sure what this has to do with evolution.
No, I understand complexity. I was not speaking about order or disorder. This is important for evolution because theories of complexity provide insight into how complex molecules develop. **EDIT:**See my reply to Stan below.
A.A. wrote:
I guess the claim here is that it made itself.
No, absolutely not. For that you have to presume that the universe existed in some form prior to that form by which we know it now. I never said this. I claimed that inflationary theories provide an explanation as to how a universe can spontaneously arise from uncertain vacuum energy fluctuations. -- modified at 8:50 Sunday 13th November, 2005