Evolution, 'intelligent design' share deskspace
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6754888/

I hope that changes to the Supreme Court over the next 20 years don't allow these thinly-veiled attempts to dress up Creationism and push it into the public schools to gain ground. Educating our kids to compete for jobs that will provide them with the standard of living they want in a country where businesses increasingly demand higher and higher education is already a near-impossible task.

Speaking as a former Biology teacher, I am fine with teaching judeo-christian creation theory as one of many theories of how we got here. But if we're bringing in the judeo-christian theory, I think we should also bring in other religion's genesis stories. My personal take on the situation is that evolution should be taught as the "currently accepted scientific theory", with emphasis that at one point the "currently accepted scientific theory" was that diseases were caused by evil spirits, the sun and planets orbited the earth, and the earth was flat.

More than teaching the different theories of genesis (and there are quite a few really out there theories even amongst scientists), I personally felt that we'd be doing our students a much bigger favor to teach them what a theory is (basically the "best guess") and more importantly, what the null hypothesis is and why it can't be proven. Both of which play into the evolution debate.

As an aside, there was once a preacher type in a town I worked in who, during a big battle over this which was raging in the community, did a lovely sermon (which I have unfortunately lost my only copy of) which ended by saying that he believed one cannot explain science with religion, nor can one explain religion with science. To attempt either would destroy both. I thought it was a pretty profound statement.

As a second aside, the Navajo indian tribe has one of the most amazing and detailed genesis stories I've encountered, and it actually makes far more sense to me than the judeo-christian model.

Christians who believed in the infallability of the Pope tried to discredit the theory that the earth was round. Christians who believe in the infallability of the Bible are trying to discredit the theory of evolution. In both cases the infallability of God has been reinterpreted by the chuch as the infallability of the church, which has an obvious problem and only one eventual outcome.

I like Jinjre's idea. I definitely think one thing schools should do is teach how scientists think. Learning a little bit of critical thinking is what most people need to be able to tell what is likely to be true from what is unlikely to be true. And then maybe people won't be so gullible when someone tells them that there's a space-ship parked behind the Haley-Bop comet and they have to drink some poisoned Kool-aid to board it. I think one of the best and most overlooked survival skills is a good grounding in reality.

I am fine with teaching judeo-christian creation theory as one of many theories of how we got here. But if we're bringing in the judeo-christian theory, I think we should also bring in other religion's genesis stories.
I think there is a difference between a religious theory and a scientific theory. A scientific theory is arrived at through the application of the scientific method while religious theories are taken on faith. I have no issue with teaching about the various religious theories in a cultural anthropology class or a comparative religions class but I'd be against allowing them anywhere near a science class.

My personal take on the situation is that evolution should be taught as the "currently accepted scientific theory", with emphasis that at one point the "currently accepted scientific theory" was that diseases were caused by evil spirits, the sun and planets orbited the earth, and the earth was flat.Those beliefs were hardly scientific, i.e., derived from the Scientific Method; they were more pseudo-religious or superstitious. While today's scientific beliefs may prove flawed in the future, at least they were derived from observation, theory, and experimentation to test the theory.

There should be a nice bright line between religious theories and scientific ones -- and the religious ones should NOT be taught in a state-run school. EVER. If you want to brainwash your children with religion, take them to your place of worship, or do it at home, or better yet, don't do it at all and let them make up their own mind when they mature.

By the way, I'd love to see how the Supreme Court manages to OK Christian preaching in the schools under the guise of "intelligent design" or whatever other crap they call it. It's a basic violation of the Constitution.

There should be a nice bright line between religious theories and scientific ones

Intelligent design is meant by it's creators to be a scientific conjecture, so that it can be taught as a science. I could quite believe that a mathematician could argue that there was just not enough time available for simple evolution, rightly or wrongly. Even if we could show that human evolution or intelligent design do work in laboratory conditions, which we currently can't, neither would be still proven to be what actually happened in our planetary history.

Having said that, most religious views based on "we don't understand it so God must have done it" have turned out to be total rubbish so I'm not holding out much hope for intelligent design either.

Intelligent design is meant by it's creators to be a scientific conjecture, so that it can be taught as a science.It's not the first time religious zealots have used the term "science" to try to lend plausibility to otherwise ridiculous ideas (e.g., Scientology). However, saying it's "science" doesn't make it so; it has to be based on the Scientific Method to be science. And "God created humans because I say so" -- the essence of most religions -- isn't the Scientific Method, it's circular reasoning.

Intelligent design is meant by it's creators to be a scientific conjecture, so that it can be taught as a science.
One of the requirements of a scientific theory is that it must be able to be tested. In a nut shell, all ID says is that it's really, really, really unlikely that evolution could be responsible for the complexity of life and therefore we must have been created. That's not testable. It's a theory, sure, but not a scientific one.

There should be a nice bright line between religious theories and scientific ones -- and the religious ones should NOT be taught in a state-run school. EVER.
That's tricky as religions have (and have had) a pretty major influence on humanity. Without understanding a bit about what their beliefs are it's hard to understand why they do what they do. I think there is a big difference between teaching a religion and teaching about a religion.

One of the requirements of a scientific theory is that it must be able to be tested.

This is what people thought until Darwin came along. What made Darwin's science utterly revolutionary and Darwin one of the greatest ever scientists was that he was able to create powerful scientific theories without laboratory testable evidence. A scientist even today cannot test millions years of evolution in a laboratory, well not in my lifetime anyway.

However, saying it's "science" doesn't make it so; it has to be based on the Scientific Method to be science.

Remember that these people are arguing that 'Intelligent Design' is as likely to be as correct as evolution, and we can't prove that evolution happened. Darwin's theories are already some distance from the currently understood theory of evolution which has been refined since his death. I would not be surprised if some mathematician somewhere can prove our current evolutionary science fails some of our historical evidence, since we know our current understanding of evolution is incomplete. Moving from there to 'intelligent design' is another matter though, and lawyers and judges are outside science altogether.

Scientific theories are falsifiable, i.e. you must be able to prove them wrong somehow. Creationism (or I.D. or whatever they are calling it these days) is not falsifiable, and thus is not a scientific theory. Therefore, It should not be taught as science.

Go ahead and teach the kids about it and other religious ideas in a relgion class.

Do the ID people say evolution is bogus? Or is their claim something else? Evolution is quite well documented, tested and reproducible. What I think is remarkable about Darwin is that before the discovery of the gene or DNA he was able to come up with this theory. Now that we can actually look at the genetic makeup of beings, we have proof his theory is correct.

As the genome gets mapped, there's further proof for evolution on a larger scale. The study of gene sequencing unravels complex relationships between individuals in the same species and individuals in different species and their relationship to a common ancestor.

This gets a bit over my head but...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
The degree of similarity in nucleotide sequence is a function of divergence time. If two populations had recently separated, few differences would have built up between them. If they separated long ago, each population would have evolved numerous differences from their common ancestor (and each other). The degree of similarity would also be a function of silent versus replacement sites. Li and Graur, in their molecular evolution text, give the rates of evolution for silent vs. replacement rates. The rates were estimated from sequence comparisons of 30 genes from humans and rodents, which diverged about 80 million years ago. Silent sites evolved at an average rate of 4.61 nucleotide substitution per 109 years. Replacement sites evolved much slower at an average rate of 0.85 nucleotide substitutions per 109 years.

Traces of an organism's ancestry sometimes remain even when an organism's development is complete. These are called vestigial structures. Many snakes have rudimentary pelvic bones retained from their walking ancestors. Vestigial does not mean useless, it means the structure is clearly a vestige of an structure inherited from ancestral organisms. Vestigial structures may acquire new functions. In humans, the appendix now houses some immune system cells.

I think pre-DNA mapping you might be able to argue that Evolution was a hypothesis, but nowadays, I don't think you can. I think in 10 years or so, we'll have a lot more stuff mapped and a pretty clear idea of the evolutionary tree and probably be giggling about ID.

What made Darwin's science utterly revolutionary and Darwin one of the greatest ever scientists was that he was able to create powerful scientific theories without laboratory testable evidence.
Sure, but just because the technology doesn't exist to test something doesn't mean that it is untestable. Plenty of tests can and have been done that provide evidence in support of evolution. By contrast, ID's theory that it's incredibly unlikely that life could have evolved so there must be a creator is inherently untestable.

Do the ID people say evolution is bogus?
Yeah, pretty much.

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

Because you can easily test microevolution with yeast. It doesn't even require all that much time. Of course, doing the DNA mapping takes a bit, but it is pretty easy to grow yeast, watch them change with random mutation, or perhaps introduce a slight environmental change. Bunch die, the rest thrive, voila! A DNA change that will eventually take place in every yeast organism. You'd have to be a complete simpkin to deny that.

Now macroevolution, which is the diversification into different species, like apes to man is a little hard to reproduce... since it takes millions of years and we've only been recording history for a relatively short amount of time. However that doesn't mean you can't provide some pretty darned strong proof simply by looking at the DNA of 2 different species and their common ancestor.

Not all sciencentific theories can be tested.

Case in Point:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

And despite the hype of that series, String Theory is widely regarded as not being a theory at all, more of a philosophy, because it's inherently untestable and has produced no falsifiable predictions. Its a nice fiction that may or may not explain some of the things that go on, but until it passes scientific muster, that's all it is. Even proponents of the theory admit that it's not a real scientific theory under the classic definition of such.

Plus, nobody's trying to teach it in high school science class as fact...

Not all sciencentific theories can be tested.

Case in Point:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
It's debateable as to whether or not string theory is a scientific theory for exactly this reason.

Sure, but just because the technology doesn't exist to test something doesn't mean that it is untestable.

Unfortunately, plenty of things can be untestable or unmeasurable. I'm not sure if you want a statistical, physical, or philosophical answer but I think it's the case whatever. Darwin's ability to work round this problem made him such an innovative scientist. He couldn't prove any of his theories to anyone so his work was ridiculed during his lifetime.

Plenty of tests can and have been done that provide evidence in support of evolution.

Yes there is a lot of evidence to support generalised evolution and if we set up a lab experiment we can predict simple lab results. However the 'evolution of the species' is a theorised historical event that either did or did not take place, and if it's continuing today it's (probably) statistically unmeasurable. Evidence showing that it was possible or probable does not mean that humans did actually evolve from apes. Of course if evidence can show that humans could not have evolved from apes then we'd have to find some new theories, hopefully something better than intelligent design.

Maybe we should have stuck at Jinjre's teaching of evolution as that seemed pretty sensible in the midst of pretty complex argument.

One of the requirements of a scientific theory is that it must be able to be tested. In a nut shell, all ID says is that it's really, really, really unlikely that evolution could be responsible for the complexity of life and therefore we must have been created. That's not testable. It's a theory, sure, but not a scientific one.

What is not testable?

You can see evolution take place, immediately in one generation. What are you saying?

However the 'evolution of the species' is a theorised historical event that either did or did not take place, and if it's continuing today it's (probably) statistically unmeasurable. .

What are you saying?

When you watched the Olympics last Summer, how many African Africans won gold medals? How many African Americans?

German Ubarjunge (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5278028/)

To say that evolution is statistically unmeasurable TODAY is absurd. Unless you are blind, you can't but help but see it everywhere.

What is not testable?

You can see evolution take place, immediately in one generation. What are you saying?


Actually, It can't be tested. No one can trace the origin of man from earlier life forms to homo sapien. The whole "missing link" thing. That's why it's a theory.

That's not saying I disbelieve Evolution. I actually believe it's true. But, I also thing Evolution is the tool a greater being (God if you will) used to create the world as we know it. I don't believe the world was created in 6 days any more than I believe Moses or other biblical figures lived hundreds of year.

IMHO Evolution and Creationism aren't mutually exclusive. I'm by no means a practitioner of any one faith. But, the marraige of Evolution and intelligent design just feels right to me.

You can see evolution take place, immediately in one generation. What are you saying?

Mutation and change takes place in each generation. Evolution does not necessarily take place, and even if does just how can you tell it's not just change or variation?

To say that evolution is statistically unmeasurable TODAY is absurd. Unless you are blind, you can't but help but see it everywhere.

We might be able to see the results of evolution everywhere but we don't see it in action. I'd even guess there have been no documented evolutionary changes through all the time of written records. Consider that if you could study a million insects today and then monitor their changes in biology from one generation to another; you would see some changes in the population, but I'm guessing it would not be enough information to statistically say whether it's evolution or just random variations in the species. You almost certainly wouldn't see a new species develop. The scale of natural evolution is so slow on human terms that it's (probably) unmeasurable.

If someone can provide evidence that a clever scientist has measured natural evolution in progress then I'd be very happy to look at it.

Evolution and Creationism aren't mutually exclusive.

In one sense, yes they are. For how did God evolve?

But if by that you mean we all share a(or many) common ancestor, then of course they aren't. Whoever Eve is, it matters not which.


Evolution merely means change. To say this does not happen is idiocy.

Natural Selection that that change(Evolution) is brought about by natural forces, without human intervention. This only takes observation. Most people who discuss this rarely make this a major point of discussion.

Origin of the Species(what many here are calling Evolution) is the Darwinian theory.

Three steps.

The last one is the one that anyone really debates. It is the one that denies God. The only one that requires any faith. And really is the least important one. It is prehistoric, and thus maleable depending on successive archeological discoveries and theories(no one who was able to write was around at the time, duh). And scientifically it has the least importance, for it is not predictive.

The second one, is of greater value, but all changes to species now, will most likely be at the hand of humans. And at a far greater rate that in history or prehistory. It's value has only worth toward the third one.

The first one, that is the cornerstone of the last two, is undebatable by any rational person. And is the most useful. In a thousand generations, we will not look like we look like today. We may not even be H. Sapiens at that time. But none of us will be around then to finish up that experiement, but is fun being able to point the next step in our Evolution in its direction. HA!

We might be able to see the results of evolution everywhere but we don't see it in action. I'd even guess there have been no documented evolutionary changes through all the time of written records.

I have several friends who are diebetic.

They take Humalog.

It is insulin that is produce in the cell membranes of E. Coli bacteria. Genetic human insulin.

E. Coli bacteria that are produced in big vats, just like beer vats(tuns).

We made the bacteria do that, we spliced human DNA into the DNA of the bacteria. They reproduced.

They evolved. They did not exist before. It is documented. What are you saying?

The scale of natural evolution is so slow on human terms that it's (probably) unmeasurable.

I gave you two examples of human Evolution in short history and today.

American Black athletes are far superior to African Black athletes. Because their ancestors were bred that way.

The German boy, whose parents(family and ancestors) were superior to most of us in muscle formation bred. The boy does not produce myostatin. An enzyme that breaks down mucle tissue. This is a mutation. This is human evolution in my lifetime.

Of course if you deny the obvious, then conjecture for what is less obvious becomes implausible.

Not all sciencentific theories can be tested.Of course. But then they're regarded as tenuous and/or purely theoretical, not the absolute truth. With religion, the fundamental premise can never be tested, yet it's regarded as the absolute truth no matter how many facts are shown to the contrary.

A true scientist will discard a theory when the empirical evidence casts serious doubt on it. A religious zealot will never dispute the existence of "God" no matter how doubtful the facts.

See the difference?

The German boy, whose parents(family and ancestors) were superior to most of us in muscle formation bred. The boy does not produce myostatin. An enzyme that breaks down mucle tissue. This is a mutation. This is human evolution in my lifetime.I would consider this both a mutation and a form of evolution. As the parents, children, and further offspring breed, they will pass this gene pattern on and over time it will spread, as will many other mutations.

Evolution has it's most noticable advances when mutations occur. One mutation (or several) in a population will have a massive effect a few years later as they are introduced to the rest of a populace, based on successful breeding of course.

What is not testable?

You can see evolution take place, immediately in one generation. What are you saying?
My comments were about ID being untestable, not evolution. I expect if you read what I wrote again it will make sense. If it doesn't, read Tiane's posts -- she said it better anyway.

Actually, It can't be tested. No one can trace the origin of man from earlier life forms to homo sapien. The whole "missing link" thing. That's why it's a theory.
Just to be clear, the theory can be tested but not with single test. Tests can be devised to uncover the chain of mutations/selections from one species to another. The more links of the chain that are tested and verified, the stronger the theory. Technology is only just now getting to the stage where this testing can be done at a genetic level in a rigorous way.

IMHO Evolution and Creationism aren't mutually exclusive.
You are correct, they aren't mutually exclusive. It's just that Creationism isn't a scientific theory.

Sometimes Fyyr you have very strange views.

Evolution merely means change.

No. Evolution suggests change from one form to another, especially in the context we are discussing.

We made the bacteria do that, we spliced human DNA into the DNA of the bacteria. They reproduced. They evolved.

As you described it, that seems to be an example of intelligent design, not evolution. Think about it.

American Black athletes are far superior to African Black athletes. Because their ancestors were bred that way.

I didn't think anyone still believed such pseudo-aryan philosophies. Americans are not a genetically superior race and neither are any other race. Training, coaching, diet, medicine, altitude, etc can account for all variations in performance.

The boy does not produce myostatin. An enzyme that breaks down mucle tissue. This is a mutation. This is human evolution in my lifetime.

This is mutation or variation. To show it is evolution you need to show it isn't caused by external chemical or biological factors and show that it can become a feature of the species. This one boy, who might or might not have children carrying this feature, has not yet "evolved" the human race.

is a mutation. This is human evolution in my lifetime.
I would consider this both a mutation and a form of evolution. As the parents, children, and further offspring breed, they will pass this gene pattern on and over time it will spread, as will many

Its not really a mutation that is going to change the species though. Its a neutral mutation which doesn't give them any majorly significant reproductive or survival bonuses. Unless they become famous and do like NBA players and screw everything that moves... then it might. :D I actually don't think humans are going to evolve all that much unless something calamitious happens and we lose civilization.

I think the big evolutionary changes happen in times of stress. For instance, there was someone that observed a major evolutionary change in a single season. A species of birds that ate small seeds. Well, there was a drought and the small seeds got eaten up. The birds starved that couldn't find any seeds small enough for their beaks to handle. The birds that had larger beaks survived because they could eat seeds from a different source. That means that the next generations would tend to have larger beaks since both Mom & Dad had the genes for big beaks and small beaks would be the recessive trait.

I think the sorts of catacastropes that caused the dinsosaurs to die are the ones that cause new species to form. First.... it kills entire and partial populations. That means there are fewer genes swimming in the pool. Once you've separated populations by large distances, they stop swapping genes. Then they may have recessive adaptations, like beaks or fur, that might help them survive and they become predominate in the species. Pretty soon enough DNA changes pile on that they couldn't reproduce with their same species. They're on their own evolutionary trail now.

Could humans continue to evolve physically naturally? I don't know. Unless something enormous happens and we lose our technology. With technology we don't have to adapt genetically, we're doing it with technology. We can change our environment to suit us. So I don't think there's any strong selection stuff happening.

In one sense, yes they are. For how did God evolve?


Did God Evolve? Given that there is no way to "prove" God exists, there is no way to even suggest he evolved. There are deeper philosophical issues there. And given that natural selection REQUIRES the passing along of genetic material, how does it apply to a being that was the first thing in existance? Darwin's theory just can't apply there.

The last one is the one that anyone really debates. It is the one that denies God. The only one that requires any faith. And really is the least important one. It is prehistoric, and thus maleable depending on successive archeological discoveries and theories(no one who was able to write was around at the time, duh). And scientifically it has the least importance, for it is not predictive.


It doesn't deny God. It merely says that Man decended from more primative life forms through natural selection. That may disagree with the notion of man being created on the 6th day if taken in the literal sense, but, it certainly doesn't deny the existance of God. I look at it this way. To a being that is outside of time, how long is a day?


The first one, that is the cornerstone of the last two, is undebatable by any rational person. And is the most useful. In a thousand generations, we will not look like we look like today. We may not even be H. Sapiens at that time. But none of us will be around then to finish up that experiement, but is fun being able to point the next step in our Evolution in its direction. HA!

I'll agree that there is a high statistical probability that Darwin's theory is correct. I'll even admit that I believe in natural selection. But, as it hasn't been proven, and anything that is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is certainly debatable.

I'll agree that there is a high statistical probability that Darwin's theory is correct. I'll even admit that I believe in natural selection. But, as it hasn't been proven, and anything that is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is certainly debatable.

How on earth can you argue natural selection? Its about the easiest part of the theory to prove.

The criteria for science isn't the same as for convicting someone for murder. There is a scale that goes from unlikely to be true to likely to be true. I'd put the Theory of Evolution at the "likely to be true" end and the ID thing at the "unlikely to be true".

Take continental drift. You can't actually see the plates of the continents separating and drifting apart.... no one actually saw it when they were all joined in one landmass, but you can certain track their changes now, minute as they are, and see the results of the shifting plates in earthquakes etc.

Of course. But then they're regarded as tenuous and/or purely theoretical, not the absolute truth. With religion, the fundamental premise can never be tested, yet it's regarded as the absolute truth no matter how many facts are shown to the contrary.

A true scientist will discard a theory when the empirical evidence casts serious doubt on it. A religious zealot will never dispute the existence of "God" no matter how doubtful the facts.

See the difference?

I am not a religious zealot. I have also never seen a single shred of evidence that disproves the existance of God. I've seen science debunk specific religious dogma (the shape of the world for example) but, that's it. That's not quite the same thing.

I didn't think anyone still believed such pseudo-aryan philosophies. Americans are not a genetically superior race and neither are any other race. Training, coaching, diet, medicine, altitude, etc can account for all variations in performance.


Very true. The notion that African American's are superior athletes than Native Africans is a bit of a stretch. Take a look at the list of Boston Marathon Winners for the past decade. How many African American's have won? How many Africans?

How on earth can you argue natural selection? Its about the easiest part of the theory to prove.


I was refering to the "origin of Man" portion of the theory. It's really just a semantic thing really. Anything that can't be absolutely true has room for debate. It's also one of the things that drives science, which is a good thing. As long as someone is asking the question, someone tries to answer it. The more this happens the closer to the truth we get.

Hmmm... I think you're talking about macro-evolution. Natural selection is readily available even for untrained, casual observers to see in action. Microevolution is also easily observable. Natural selection is a component of both. However it takes mapping DNA to prove macroevolution. And I doubt many lay-people understand it well enough to accept it as proof.

As far as disproving God's existence, that's another topic, but you can't argue something exists simply because you can't disprove it doesn't exist and be thought of as a critical thinker. For instance, I could blame my trashcans being overturned on invisible stamping elephants. I can't disprove it! I woke up, my trashcans are overturned. The implication is that you should believe everything that can't be disproved and that is just sloppy thinking, besides, imagine all the church services you'd have to attend and rituals you'd have to perform to appease an infinite number of gods, demi-gods and so on.

Just to be a total biology geek:

natural selection occurs within a given species and does not show proof of a new species in and of itself. All it shows is that a species is changing and/or adapting to a new set of environmental conditions.

evolution is the creation of a new species. A new species is defined as a species which can no longer produce viable offspring from its parent species (like horses and donkeys, you can breed them, but you get a sterile mule out of it, therefore the offspring is not 'viable'; the offspring can't produce more of its own kind).

There was a famous experiment done on a small island back in the '70s (which I now can't find) where there were ground dwelling insect who would not cross water. A ditch was dug across the island such that it essentially chopped the island into 2 islands, at least as far as the ground dwelling insects were concerned. Each breeding cycle, insects from one side of the ditch and insects from the other side of the ditch were caught and bred. After about a decade, the two "cousin" species could no longer interbreed to produce viable offspring. A few years after that, they couldn't interbreed at all (much the same as a human and a sheep can, technically "mate", but no offspring will be produced).

That process is evolution. At least one new species evolved, which could no longer interbreed with the other. Until a viable population of interbreeding adults is formed, it is not evolution, it is simply adaptive changes. It is a little more difficult with bacteria and other single cell critters because they reproduce asexually. Splicing human genes into bacteria does not neccessarily give you a new species, it gives you a variant of the old one.

I still think that it should be taught as the currently accepted theory of genesis in the scientific community, and even if a school district decides to avoid the concept altogether, I think the concept behind a 'theory' versus a 'fact' should be taught, along with the scientific review process. Too much misinformation gets passed around by "a scientist claims to have created cold fusion in an old cup of coffee on his desk" and next thing you know, everyone and their dog are going either ballistic or into rapture, depending. A little critical thinking skills are good to learn.

There is a beer commercial which runs on US tv now, where the announcer says "our beer is brewed at a chilly 35 degrees, while our competitors beer is pasturized at 140. Our beer is always cold." This statement is read in such a way that if you weren't thinking, it sounds like one company keeps their beer cold all the time, while the other company kills off all the flavor by keeping it at high temperatures. Yet in reality, both are being brewed at about the same temperature (which is a good temperature for brewing), and both, by law, have to pastuerize their beers at the same temperature.

From a purely citizenship/consumer standpoint, I think the sciences taught in schools could do a lot more than they do.

I have also never seen a single shred of evidence that disproves the existance of God.Scientific evidence debunks many aspects of the Judeo-Christian creation theory, such as the way the world was created (e.g., there was no sunlight), its age, and the dubious theory that all humans evolved from multiple generations of incestuous relationships. Certain other aspects of the bible, after the creation myth, are probably taken from real historical events or legends that were twisted and grossly exaggerated to suggest a "god".

Since there is zero evidence to support the creation myth and/or the existence of a "god", and some plausible evidence for the scientific explanation of how the Earth was formed and humans evolved (evidence which contradicts the creation myth), any logical thinker will accept the scientific explanation over the religious one.

Sometimes Fyyr you have very strange views.

I didn't think anyone still believed such pseudo-aryan philosophies. Americans are not a genetically superior race and neither are any other race. Training, coaching, diet, medicine, altitude, etc can account for all variations in performance.


I know it is a touchy subject. Jimmie the Greek got fired from CBS Sports for saying exactly that at a restaurant in his spare time, 20 years ago.

If you want to discount him or I, would you consider this source???

How about Harvard...

Endurance Running May Be Key To Evolution Of Human Body Form (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/home/news_and_events/releases/running_11172004.html)

It has always been interesting to me why both genders like nice ass. Why would something associated with defecation be admired and desired of the opposite(preferred gender)? This explains that question, um duh, so simply that I can't imagine why no one else said this before.

And you can not tell me, that Black American athletes, both males and females do not have some nice looking asses. Baby Got Back!

I see nothing Aryan about something so obvious. The reasons why Black Americans are better physical athletes is because those traits were bred in them for a few hundred years(less desirable traits bred out). And that is only a dozen or so generations.

They may seem strange, because so many people are afraid of not appearing politically correct. I don't have that handicap.

Black Americans are some of the best physical athletes on the planet, whether you choose to believe me or not.

Scientific evidence debunks many aspects of the Judeo-Christian creation theory, such as the way the world was created (e.g., there was no sunlight), its age, and the dubious theory that all humans evolved from multiple generations of incestuous relationships. Certain other aspects of the bible, after the creation myth, are probably taken from real historical events or legends that were twisted and grossly exaggerated to suggest a "god".

Since there is zero evidence to support the creation myth and/or the existence of a "god", and some plausible evidence for the scientific explanation of how the Earth was formed and humans evolved (evidence which contradicts the creation myth), any logical thinker will accept the scientific explanation over the religious one.

Nice way to take my quote out of context.

While, certainly, science has contradicted the notion that the world was created in six days, there are those, like myself, that believe numbers in the bible were exagerations used to emphisize certain atributes. Another Example would be the age of Noah. I seriously doubt any one lived hundreds of years. Instead by telling us that he lived that long they were trying to get the idea of wisdom across to the reader since age was usually associated with wisdom.

Showing that the world was created over millions of years doesn't disprove the existance in a god, but that biblical references shouldn't be taken as a cut in stone time reference.

Maybe you are thinking that I'm some sort of bible thumping creationist. I assure you, I am not. I don't subscribe to the policies of any specific organized religion. I don't take any religious text as pure history or the literal truth. I believe Darwin to be correct. I believe geologists are correct in thinking it took millions of years for life to appear on our planet. None of these things conflict with the fact that I believe there is a God.

Jinjre, oddly I'm not seeing people use the term Natural Selection any longer. They seem to be using Microevolution instead. I've read lately calls it "macroevolution" for speciation and "microevolution" for in-species changes.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/glossary.html

I don't see anything in that Harvard article that makes the assumption that blacks are better runners. it seems to be saying humans run better than pigs.

Did God Evolve?

I was being fascious here, sorry. Just playing with the notion, that if God created us, who created God? /wink.

It doesn't deny God...

This is the only part of 'Evolution' that religious types have a problem with, is what I really mean. If animals evolved on their own, who needs a Creator? It is a simple issue, really. One that the ID people are trying to workaround, ...ie Directed Evolution. That is the term that my friends and I use when we discuss this issue. Frankly, I have to concede this point now, and frequently do.

But even in a non-deity sense, I liken it to the force of Anti-Entropy more than a bearded man in the sky, casting down commandments and such. Many forces in nature and physics have opposing or antagonistic components. Traditional/classical physics has not noted an antagonist to Entropy, that seems unusual to me.

Commonly, like the butt thing above, it may be staring us in the face...and that life and evolution of that life toward some goal MAY be that Anti-Entropy force. And because it is so obvious, it may be the reason why I had not seen it until recently, and or physicists have not speculated on such a force at all. It is in the trees and the hampsters and stuff. Still not a deity though.

In any regard, WE humans are going to be speeding up evolution, change, mutations whatever semantically you wish to call it, real fast, real fast. It won't matter if there is a God or not real soon.

It will make the use of 'species' as many of you use it obsolete. Many of you use it as a philosophical or scientific edict, when in fact it is only a taxonomical device to name things. The so called Tree of Life model has changed so dramatically in the last 20 years, to use it like some holy writ from Watson and Crick is absurd. Where you put it on a model, does not mean something is not what it is,,,regardless of how many smart people say it is so.

there are those, like myself, that believe numbers in the bible were exagerations used to emphisize certain atributesWe're almost in complete agreement, then. All you need to do is admit that "god" itself is also a lie and exaggeration -- an imaginary figure pasted onto the quasi-historical facts to make the story more interesting, and to sway the reader into believing an otherwise unbelievable set of facts.
The reasons why Black Americans are better physical athletes is because those traits were bred in them for a few hundred years(less desirable traits bred out).I don't mean to make a dent in your political uncorrectness (<img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>), but many "Black Americans" derive significant genes from recent white ancestors. The dominant genes for skin color and hair type just skew our perception of their racial makeup. I suppose the term "African American" isn't even technically correct, as many are more accurately described as hybrids of "pure" European, African, and other races. If you compare the average "black" American to the average native African, you will see they look quite different.

This one boy, who might or might not have children carrying this feature, has not yet "evolved" the human race.

Are you begging the question with this comment?

Evolution, no matter how anyone defines it, is given as many many many small changes over vast periods of time, and many many many generations. That last part is definitional to the theory(by anyone's account).

Are you are saying that such an enormous change in physical and genetic structure, is not big enough to count as evidence of one of those small changes(mutations)?

Or are you asking, against the very definition of what it is we are discussing, that in order for Evolution to be 'proved' to you, that a mutation must transform a being from one species to another in one generation?

This is confusing.,

I don't mean to make a dent in your political uncorrectness...but many "Black Americans" derive significant genes from recent white ancestors.

No dent... I actually like that point.

White Men Can't Jump! Why?

Why are there a preponderance of Black American athletes superior to White American athletes in almost all of the professional/collegiate sports, as well as Black and White Africans?

"If you compare the average "black" American to the average native African, you will see they look quite different."

Yes, that is my point. Why? Conservative estimates run that 12 million Africans died(were killed) in the Euro-American-African slave triangle, including those who died and were killed in the Americas. There is something different about the ancestors of these people, than that of those whose ancestors did not experience this. Are current descendants of these peoples victims or benefactors of one of the largest Eugenics 'programs' in human history?

Why are there a preponderance of Black American athletes superior to White American athletes in almost all of the professional/collegiate sports, as well as Black and White Africans?Usually, hybrids &gt; purebreds; humans are no exception.

We're almost in complete agreement, then. All you need to do is admit that "god" itself is also a lie and exaggeration -- an imaginary figure pasted onto the quasi-historical facts to make the story more interesting, and to sway the reader into believing an otherwise unbelievable set of facts.

I don't need to admit any such thing. That's the great thing about being allowed to have my own beliefs. More power to you if you are an Atheist. I am not, nor do I see any compelling reasons to become one.

Yes, when it comes right down to it, although you cant prove the existence of god, you cant disprove it either. Any truely logical person cant discount the possibility that god exists. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

Granted, it's among the least probable explanations of how things work in our universe, but you can never really know for sure.

Agnostic for the win!

(Otherwise known as hedging your bets!)

As for evolution, all available evidence supports it. We can see the mechanisms in action. Just because you cant "see" it happening doesnt mean it isnt... it only demonstrates the almost complete lack of understanding among humans of truly long periods of time. Its incredibly difficult do really comprehend even one hundred years... and that's a blink of an eye in the scale of these processes. To comprehend a *million* years just to see some visible differences is just beyond the ability of most people. And a million years is just enough for evolution to get started! You can never "see" these things happen, they are not beholden to human time scales. That doesnt mean they arent happening.

As for missing link, that's so overused and loaded. An example (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6522090/) of yet another recent discovery. Without even going into the new abilities to trace mitochondrial dna across the millenia, how many examples of gradual change does one need to see before one accepts the obvious? How many cross-sections of time do you need to be able to comprehend the continuum and the incredible timespans involved?

Why are there a preponderance of Black American athletes superior to White American athletes in almost all of the professional/collegiate sports, as well as Black and White Africans?

It's social factors. In England we have almost no sportsmen or women of asian descent. We have a very enthusiastic asian community that watches sport but they don't want to participate or are blocked out at low levels. We know that these people are perfectly capable as native Indians and Pakistanis with the same genes are perfectly capable. Twenty years ago there was the same low participation from the UK black communities, whereas today they have very high participation. While such influential social factors exist it's difficult to prove any genetic superiority.

Yes, when it comes right down to it, although you cant prove the existence of god, you cant disprove it either.Irrelevant, since it's impossible to absolutely prove the non-existence of something. For example, I can't disprove the notion that our world is really a computer simulation like "The Matrix", yet that's hardly reason to believe that it is so. This is actually a common debating tactic religious zealots use when they try to defend the existence of "god", yet like the other arguments, it's meritless.

I am not a religious zealot. I have also never seen a single shred of evidence that disproves the existance of God. I've seen science debunk specific religious dogma (the shape of the world for example) but, that's it. That's not quite the same thing.

Many people would suggest there isn't a single shred of evidence that proves the existance of God.

That's why belief is a matter of faith.

Believing in God requires no proof...nor should you need to ask for your belief to be disproved.

Regardless, God has no place in our public schools. No matter how they couch it in psuedo-scientific claptrap.

For example, I can't disprove the notion that our world is really a computer simulation like "The Matrix", yet that's hardly reason to believe that it is so.
Oh, I agree. There's no point in believing in something that cant be proved or disproved. I'm simply saying there's no point in actively disbelieving it either. The fact remains that if you cant logically rule out the possibility of something, then that possibility exists, no matter how small. God or the Matrix may well exist. However, in every single practical respect, belief or disbelief in either of these systems has no impact in our shared real world. If a super-system like these is in fact in operation, a reality with one is logically indistinguishable from a reality without such a super-system.

So yes, in a sense the argument is meaningless. However, it's important to keep an open mind about these things. Reality is very slippery when it comes right down to it.

And on a topic-related note, this is one reason why ID is pointless... whether or not it actually happened that way is unprovable and unfalsifiable. And even if it did, if some supreme being laid out all the evidence so that it *looked* like evolution happened but it "really" didnt, what difference does it make which system you happen to believe in? Except that the one system, evolution, is able to make predictions about phenomena and mechanisms that have been proven to exist. That makes evolution a useful working theory, and ID a not-useful philosophy which should not be taught in a science class. No more than a theory of living in the Matrix should be taught in science class, except as an exercise in critical thinking.

No dent... I actually like that point.

White Men Can't Jump! Why?

Why are there a preponderance of Black American athletes superior to White American athletes in almost all of the professional/collegiate sports, as well as Black and White Africans?

"If you compare the average "black" American to the average native African, you will see they look quite different."

Yes, that is my point. Why? Conservative estimates run that 12 million Africans died(were killed) in the Euro-American-African slave triangle, including those who died and were killed in the Americas. There is something different about the ancestors of these people, than that of those whose ancestors did not experience this. Are current descendants of these peoples victims or benefactors of one of the largest Eugenics 'programs' in human history?

It has much to do with social standards than genetics, I'd suggest.

If you go back 60 years...the preponderance of professional athlethes were White.


When a particular social group has a lower standard of living, on average. Generally speaking those who's job prospects are of a lower standard, will gravitate to professional athletics as a means to escape the "cycle". As a particular sub-group begins to elevate itself socially, and have better access to better employment, and less dependant upon scholarships for education, the slim chances of succeeding as a professional athelete are no longer worth the effort in relation to their ability to obtain an education and find a good "normal" job.

Do you really believe, for instance, that latin americans are better genetically disposed towards baseball? No. Its the most popular sport in their society and even making it to the local professional leagues will permit a person to support their family better than the majority of the jobs in the locale. As a result, there are many more Latin Americans in major league baseball.

There is something different about the ancestors of these people, than that of those whose ancestors did not experience this.Part of what's "different" is the genetic contribution of the slaveowners. Although I have not seen any solid statistics, rape of slaves was apparently a common and legal method of increasing a slaveowner's holdings. Africans who were not exploited as slaves likely mated with other Africans.

Oh, I agree. There's no point in believing in something that cant be proved or disproved. I'm simply saying there's no point in actively disbelieving it either.

Actually (and let's keep God out of it for a minute) there's a lot to be said for activly disbelieving things that have no supporting evidence. There's only so much a person can manage to focus on, and some might think it is vital that those be important things, real things, like friendship, love, respect. Like the betterment of yourself and your family and your community. Like taking time to listen to and learn from stories told by those who came before you. Like living.

I've only got so much time in this life, and I intend to fill it with REAL things. I'm no scientist or philosopher, so I can allow myself the luxury of saying that I'll fill my life with just that - real things. Not hypothesis or speculations. I don't have time for that, what if I missed out on something true and real while I was busy focusing my attention on some unsupported nonsense? What a tragedy that would be..

There should be a nice bright line between religious theories and scientific ones -- and the religious ones should NOT be taught in a state-run school. EVER. If you want to brainwash your children with religion, take them to your place of worship, or do it at home, or better yet, don't do it at all and let them make up their own mind when they mature.

Actually, the law does NOT prohibit the teaching of religion in school if it is an ELECTIVE subject. Therefore, if a student CHOOSES to be taught the differences between Creationism vs. Evolutionism they should have the right to choose that class as an elective.

But I agree that schools should be teaching students more along the lines of critical thinking and problem solving.

Personally, I think teaching a class called "comparative religions" or something along those lines as an elective social studies class would be a good thing for most Americans. Learning about religious ideas differing from their own would be good. Learning not just about the myriad of stripes Christianity takes on, but the various types of Buddhism, the multiple polytheistic cultures, various Native American religions etc. It would be lost on the more narrow minded, but for many students, I think exposure to the greater world would be good for them.

As for proving or disproving god's existance, as mentioned above, there is a reason it's called "faith" and not "fact". Again, one cannot prove religion with science, nor can one prove science with religion, to do either destroys both.

Personally, I think it's silly to argue religion anyway. We won't know until we're dead, and by then, it's too late. If you chose the wrong one, sucks to be you eh? Heck, I think I'll start my own church of poultrology. I believe that god is actually a omnipotent chicken, who is perpetually reborn in an egg, which is why we can't answer the question "where did god come from", because we can't answer the old "which came first" question. And everyone who eats chicken??? Gonna burn in hell baby! No one can prove that my version of god is any more accurate than the christian version of god. I guess I'll find out when I die (and burn in hell, because I like eating chicken).

Many people would suggest there isn't a single shred of evidence that proves the existance of God.

That's why belief is a matter of faith.

Believing in God requires no proof...nor should you need to ask for your belief to be disproved.

Regardless, God has no place in our public schools. No matter how they couch it in psuedo-scientific claptrap.

Please point out where I said it should? I never said that.

The closest thing to that anyone will get me to say is that I have no problem with qualifying Evolution as a Theory in the class room, since it is a theory. Go figure. Something akin to "Evolution is the accepted theory to the origin of Life by the Scientific community."

No mention of god. No understating the facts. Nothing but the truth that has the added bennefit of giving creationist one less thing to complain about.

Personally, I think teaching a class called "comparative religions" or something along those lines as an elective social studies class would be a good thing for most Americans. Learning about religious ideas differing from their own would be good. Learning not just about the myriad of stripes Christianity takes on, but the various types of Buddhism, the multiple polytheistic cultures, various Native American religions etc. It would be lost on the more narrow minded, but for many students, I think exposure to the greater world would be good for them.


My Catholic high school did exactly that. Who knew! A Catholic high school that went into detail on other religions. And I don't mean by saying what's incorrect about the other faiths. I had a very well rounded education on all fronts. I seriously doubt that anything like that can be taught in public schools. At least not without opening a hornets nest.

Please point out where I said it should? I never said that.

The closest thing to that anyone will get me to say is that I have no problem with qualifying Evolution as a Theory in the class room, since it is a theory. Go figure. Something akin to "Evolution is the accepted theory to the origin of Life by the Scientific community."

No mention of god. No understating the facts. Nothing but the truth that has the added bennefit of giving creationist one less thing to complain about.

Unless things have changed since I was in school...Evolution has always been taught as a theory.

The most widely accepted theory.

We won't know until we're dead

If my theory is correct, you won't know then either! You won't even know that you don't know.

Hey, I just heard a poll from the UK said only 44% of Brits believe in god. I thought that was interesting.

Well, we can console ourselves with our religious righteousness as the rest of the world overtakes us in education and science acheivements because we're fookin' teaching our kids about magic instead of science.

I couldn't care any less about whether there's an all-knowing, all-powerful deity that created us. Or is waiting for us in some afterlife. I'll live for the moment, live for the people in my life right now, for the things I'm experiencing right now, instead of living for some afterlife that may or may not exist.

Hey, I just heard a poll from the UK said only 44% of Brits believe in god. I thought that was interesting.Hardly unusual, it's just that Americans are religious zealots compared to the rest of the world:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2004/02_february/26/world_god.shtml
It reveals that only 46% of respondents in the UK said they have always believed in God - 27% less than the average.

Only Russia (42%) and South Korea (28%) were lower.

Furthermore just 52% of UK respondents believed God (or a Higher Power) created the universe, compared to 85% in the USA, 83% in Mexico, 99% in Indonesia and 96% in Lebanon.

The highest levels of belief are found in the poorer nations of Nigeria (98%), India (92%) and Indonesia (97%).

However, the USA - the richest nation polled - has a very high level of belief.

Only 13% of those polled in America said they found it hard to believe in God (a Higher power) when there was so much suffering in the world.

Yet this compares to more than half (52%) of those polled in the UK - the highest of all the countries - and more than twice the average. The figures for Lebanon were 2% and Nigeria 12%.

The survey found that only 19% of those in the UK said they would die for their God/beliefs.

This compares to 37% in Israel, 90% of those polled in Indonesia and Nigeria, and 71% in the USA and Lebanon.

A staggering 78% of those polled in the USA claimed to have studied religious texts, by far the largest figure, followed by 51% in Nigeria and 42% in the UK. This compares to an average of 33%.

The poll also looked at the place of religion in the world.

Almost a third (29%) of people in the UK believe that the world would be a more peaceful place without beliefs in God but very few people in other countries agreed.

Just 6% of those polled in America agreed with this view, 11% in Israel and 9% in India. The average across all ten countries was 10%.

Only 15% of those polled in America blamed people of other religions for much of the trouble in the world compared with more than a third (37%) in the UK and 33% in Israel.

This figure fell to 8% of those polled in Indonesia, 24% in Lebanon and 17% in India.

The poll also looked at levels of attendance at organised religious services in the UK compared to the rest of the world.

Across the ten countries, an average of 46% regularly attend a religious service but the figure was 21% in the UK, the second lowest behind Russia (7%).

The highest figure was 91% for Nigerians, with 54% in the USA.

Furthermore just 29% of UK respondents said they had been encouraged to believe in God by someone outside their family, compared with 57% in the USA.

With regards to prayer, a total of 95% of Nigerians polled said they prayed regularly as did 67% of those polled in the USA with further numbers praying occasionally at times of crisis.

28% in the UK said they prayed regularly and 41% in Israel.

However 25% of people in the UK and 29% of people in Israel said they never prayed.

The poll did reveal however that nearly 30% of all atheists polled admitted they prayed sometimes.

Asked whether a belief in a God/higher power makes for a better human being, well over 80% of people in most countries agreed, but by far the lowest figure was in the UK with just 56%.

Furthermore, just 42% of UK respondents believed God (or a higher power) judges their actions and the way they lived their lives compared to 76% in America, 72% in Israel, 81% in Nigeria and an average of 70%.

Exploring the issue of tolerance of different religions the poll found that more than 90% of all respondents in Nigeria, Indonesia and Lebanon believed their God was the only true God.

This compares to 70% in Israel and just 31% in the UK.

The majority of those polled when asked if they believed death was the end disagreed.

This was the case for more than half of the UK respondents (51%), 79% of those polled in Nigeria, 75% in Lebanon and 74% in the USA.

Looking at how attitudes change across different religions, the poll found that while 85% of Hindus and 83% of Muslims said they prayed regularly, only 65% of Christians did and barely a third (38%) of Jews.

When asked if their God was the only true God, 95% of Muslims said yes, compared with 68% of Christians and 66% of Jews.

But when asked if other religions were to blame for the troubles in the world, 34% of Jews agreed, while only 24% of Christians, 18% of Hindus and 14% of Muslims agreed.

First More than Half of the UK believes in God. If 52% believe that God created the universe, thats obvious. The first number of 46% was of those that always believed in God. The other 6% are people that have come to believe.

Hardly unusual, it's just that Americans are religious zealots compared to the rest of the world:

Typical anti-american BS. Unless you consider "the rest of the world" the minority of it. If the UK is typical of Europe, more than half of all europeans believe in a god. Add that the vast populations of India and Indonesia and the people that don't believe in a god are in the minority. Carl Sagan even eluded to this in his book, Contact.

Lol, 10,000 people to get an accurate survey of 6 Billion. Wonder what the margin of error is. :P

First More than Half of the UK believes in God. If 52% believe that God created the universe, thats obvious. The first number of 46% was of those that always believed in God. The other 6% are people that have come to believe.
No, 52% believe that "God" <b>or a higher power</b> created the Universe. Obviously, higher power != "God" or they wouldn't have made the distinction in the survey. The trend is clear: except for America and third world countries, religion is dying.

No, 52% believe that "God" <b>or a higher power</b> created the Universe. Obviously, higher power != "God" or they wouldn't have made the distinction in the survey. The trend is clear: except for America and third world countries, religion is dying.

Actually it said:
Furthermore just 52% of UK respondents believed God (or a Higher Power) created the universe, compared to 85% in the USA, 83% in Mexico, 99% in Indonesia and 96% in Lebanon.

It never gave a % for now many Americans always believed in God. Just how many Believe God (or a Higher Power) Created the Universe.

Weeeeeee, It's so fun grasping at straws. thanks for teaching me how!

Either way, how accurate can a survey that samples such a small portion of the studied group be? It's the same proportion as putting 60,000 people in one room and asking 1 person's opinion and assuming the rest agree.

teaching our kids about magic instead of science.

I like magic.

I can levitate.

Religion is the opiate of the masses.
Karl Marx



I am changing my sig to that for a bit. I like that too.

I'm curious as to what the point you are trying to make, you who are discussing the survey and picking out numbers. It's not like it becomes any more or less true depending on the number of people who believe it. Determining truth is hardly done by majority vote.

So - uhm - what's your points?

Just about all of science is a collection of theories. Sure, evolution is "only" a theory, but so is nearly everything else taught in science classes, aside from the scientific method itself and information about how we arrived at some specific conclusions. Any disclaimers that need to be applied to evolution need to be applied to most of science.

Sure, evolution is "only" a theory, but so is nearly everything else taught in science classes

Not really. You can prove most scientific theories, usually by setting up an experiement and seeing the theory happen in real life. If you want to show that gravity acts equally on all bodies you can drop balls from towers etc etc. It's then as good as any other fact, such as "George Bush is President", as you can see it yourself and find evidence to prove it. You can't prove the origin of the species as you can't repeat it.

It's an interesting point though that evolution is as much a fact as anything taught in history classes.

If you want to show that gravity acts equally on all bodies you can drop balls from towers etc etc.

That would simply be inconclusive supporting evidence, which exists for evolution as well. Actually proving universal statements like that is extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Most statements that can actually be proven are either trivial statements or deal with artificially created systems (like mathematics).

Not really. You can prove most scientific theories, usually by setting up an experiement and seeing the theory happen in real life. If you want to show that gravity acts equally on all bodies you can drop balls from towers etc etc.

Anka,

What is gravity?

What is it, what causes it, where does it come from?



My long ago ancestors thought that it was giant invisable trolls under the ground pulling at their legs.

But what is gravity, itself?




(I did fruit fly experiments back in Biology, the results were as predictable as dropping balls)

Yes, gravity is also a theory. My physics professor pounded this into my head just about every day. You can observe it, but you cannot "prove" it, or explain it. You can draw conclusions based on observations, but this does not make it fact. Apparently, in more advanced physics classes (the ones I will never, ever, ever take), you learn about instances where "universal" laws don't apply. "Universal" laws are really only laws under a specific set of conditions.

You can argue semantics for as long as you like but it's still the case that Darwin produced a new type of science which did not rely on experimental proof. I'm not going to argue every last detail of scientific proof on message board for the rest of my life, thank you very much.

It's not semantics, it is part of trying to fix the great misunderstanding that something is "just" a scientific theory.

Science definitions for the following terms are specific:

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.
Hypothesis: A testable statement or prediction about the natural world which can be supported by experiment or observation.
Law: A descriptive generalization or pattern about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances, often stated in a form of a mathematical equation.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of how the natural world works that explains facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Before a theory can be included in the system of science, it must meet all of the following criteria:

its ability to explain what has been observed;
its ability to predict what has not yet been observed; and
its ability to be tested by further experimentation and to be modified as required by the acquisition of new data.

These definitions mean that a scientific theory is not used, as people often use the word theory, to mean a hunch or a guess. A scientific theory is held with a high degree of confidence and is supported by enough evidence to make its abandonment unlikely. As new evidence is found, a theory may be modified but only with compelling evidence, verification and peer review.

(Credit to Beautia of Mith Marr for most of this explanation.)

(And I do believe gravity is a law, not a theory.)

Waitaminute... when did gravity become a theory?
Gravity is a <i>thing</i> that you can actually <a href="http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/gravity0.htm">measure and calculate</a> - in fact, if you're a pilot, you have to compensate for it, or else you'll end up as a burning pile of rubble on a mountainside somewhere.

I would argue that laws are theories that have "enough" experimental evidence supporting them. Actually proving something (in the mathematical sense, I suppose) is next to impossible, unless you accepted certain axioms that might not be self-evident. Just because repeated experiments produced consistent results doesn't necessarily mean that those experiments will continue to produce the same results, even though it might be useful to conclude that they should.

There's still quite a bit of debate about what gravity actually is, and what happens at certain extremes (mostly in the presence of a large concentration of matter, or at the subatomic level). My understanding is that what we observe as gravity is the curvature of spacetime by matter/energy, and any object not acted upon by other forces follows a straight line in spacetime. It's not nearly as straightforward as people like Newton thought.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity :
Today General Relativity is accepted as the standard description of gravitational phenomena. (Alternative theories of gravitation exist but are more complicated than General Relativity.) General Relativity is consistent with all currently available measurements of large-scale phenomena. For weak gravitational fields and bodies moving at slow speeds at small distances, Einstein's General Relativity gives almost exactly the same predictions as Newton's law of gravitation.

Crucial experiments that justified the adoption of General Relativity over Newtonian gravity were the classical tests: the gravitational redshift, the deflection of light rays by the Sun, and the precession of the orbit of Mercury.

And some recent research that has been done:

Speed of gravity: Einstein's theory of relativity predicts that the speed of gravity (defined as the speed at which changes in location of a mass are propagated to other masses) should be consistent with the speed of light. In 2002, the Fomalont-Kopeikin experiment produced measurements of the speed of gravity which matched this prediction. However, this experiment has not yet been widely peer-reviewed, and is facing criticism from those who claim that Fomalont-Kopeikin did nothing more than measure the speed of light in a convoluted manner.

There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks. I think we should be teaching about earth suction in our schools!

Thank you Tinsi,
(or Beautia, as the case may be /smile)

That was about the best AND concise rundown I have ever seen.

Is Creationism a theory? Yup.

Is Creationism a scientific theory? Nope... it's based on faith. It has no part in any school's Science program.

Is Evolution a theory? Yup. Scientific theory? Yup. There's plenty of scientific evidence to support the theory.

Is Gravity a theory? Ummmm... it kinda depends. In it's basic form, it's a fact/law. It is measurable, verifiable, repeatable etc. Once you try to explain what causes gravity, it becomes more of a theory. (I don't mean the simplistic "mass causes gravity".)

There are lots of scientific theories that are subsequently proven wrong. Alchemy doesn't work... except in Everquest. Phlogiston doesn't exist. N-rays were the result of scientific wishful thinking. Polywater turned out to be contamination of laboratory glassware. Fire, water, wind and earth are not the base elements. I'm sure that some of the scientific theories of today will be cast aside over the centuries.

The contention that African-Americans are better athletes than African-Africans due to evolution is an absurd pile of crap. Some of the parlor room pseudo-science discussion supporting this contention is hilarious.

Who were the best athletes in the 1970's? East Germans. Was it evolution in a Communist society? (or was it state/political sponsored programs coupled with performance enhancing drugs) Are Cuban boxers better because of evolution, or Canadian hockey players, or South American soccer players, or Indian cricket players? Were Aryan Germans the superior race because they easily won the 1936 Olympics, despite the U.S. hype about Jesse Owens? Were African Americans inferior prior to the 1950s because they were lousy athletes? If you answer yes to any of these, then I guess Eugenics is alive and well for some fuzz-brains.

Thicket

Because, given this thread, this amused the hell out of me.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

Were African Americans inferior prior to the 1950s because they were lousy athletes?No, it was because they were not on an equal footing with whites due to segregation and discrimination. Today the situation is different. Obviously, social and political factors play a role in who wins a sporting event, however you'd have to be blind or stupid to claim that there aren't physical differences among the various races of the Earth.

Physical differences you can't argue. Physical superiority? That is certainly open for debate.

At age 81 Flew could be suffering from senile dementia or perhaps facing his own mortality is more than he can cope with. But belief in god as a default for lack of knowledge is a weak argument. That's why primitive peoples believed lightning was from a angry god, they couldn't explain it any other way.

At age 81 Flew could be suffering from senile dementia or perhaps facing his own mortality is more than he can cope with. But belief in god as a default for lack of knowledge is a weak argument. That's why primitive peoples believed lightning was from a angry god, they couldn't explain it any other way.Exactly, if people could just learn to deal with the unknown (i.e., the fact that something is unknown), they wouldn't need to turn to fictional fantasies to comfort themselves.

they wouldn't need to turn to fictional fantasies

I like my fictional fantasies....you stay out of them! ;)

The government cares about me personally. Our culture is wise and just and fair and equal. Guns aren't dangerous, neither are nuclear plants. Social Security will still be around to fund my retirement.

Oh, and the news outlets always tell the whole truth.

Actually, there are two congressional studies that showed SS had plenty of funding until 2042 or 2052 (they varied by 10 years). But that's another subject.

It's not semantics, it is part of trying to fix the great misunderstanding that something is "just" a scientific theory.

Science definitions for the following terms are specific:

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.
Hypothesis: A testable statement or prediction about the natural world which can be supported by experiment or observation.
Law: A descriptive generalization or pattern about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances, often stated in a form of a mathematical equation.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of how the natural world works that explains facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Before a theory can be included in the system of science, it must meet all of the following criteria:

its ability to explain what has been observed;
its ability to predict what has not yet been observed; and
its ability to be tested by further experimentation and to be modified as required by the acquisition of new data.

These definitions mean that a scientific theory is not used, as people often use the word theory, to mean a hunch or a guess. A scientific theory is held with a high degree of confidence and is supported by enough evidence to make its abandonment unlikely. As new evidence is found, a theory may be modified but only with compelling evidence, verification and peer review.

(Credit to Beautia of Mith Marr for most of this explanation.)

(And I do believe gravity is a law, not a theory.)

Interestingly enought, Neither the "big bang" or the theory of how life started (not just human life, but even single cell organisms)fall into any of these categories.

Exactly, if people could just learn to deal with the unknown (i.e., the fact that something is unknown), they wouldn't need to turn to fictional fantasies to comfort themselves.
Yep, there are some questions for which it is impossible to know the answers. For this reason I've always identified as agnostic. Atheism always seemed hypocritical since it requires faith to believe that there isn't a god and that belief is just as unprovable as the belief that there is a god.

Interestingly enought, Neither the "big bang" or the theory of how life started (not just human life, but even single cell organisms)fall into any of these categories.
Why do you say that? If you won't qualify them as theory they'd at least be hypothesis, wouldn't they?

Why do you say that? If you won't qualify them as theory they'd at least be hypothesis, wouldn't they?

Hypothesis: A testable statement or prediction about the natural world which can be supported by experiment or observation.

How are either Testable?

Sorry, there's all sorts of evidence of a big bang, and the theory has predicted other phenomena which have since turned out to exist. It's quite well tested, and satisfies all 3 criteria.

And as for the ultimate origins of life, if you have trouble with the idea of spontaneous generation via random occurance that only speaks to the trouble humans have grasping truly huge lengths of time and space.

Given enough time, literally almost anything is possible due to quantum uncertainty. It's entirely *possible* that a chocolate glazed donut could spontaneously coalesce on top of your keyboard. Of course, it would take far longer than the universe has existed to date for there to be an even tiny chance of it happening. But the chances of some common chemicals joining in such a way as to start down the road of replication are not that remote, and given a few billion years with the right conditions... well look around. While I dont think we've met the third criterion, there's been independant evidence of life's base molecules developing elsewhere (i.e. comets, meteors), and the fact is putting that while putting all the base chemicals in a pressure vat somewhere and watching it for a few months hasnt produced a puppydog, that's more for a lack of waiting than anything else... But I dont think most people can accept waiting several million generations.

Atheism always seemed hypocritical since it requires faith to believe that there isn't a god and that belief is just as unprovable as the belief that there is a god.

There's lots of things I choose to not believe in because there's a lack of evidence for them. In fact, there's an infinite number of things I don't believe in. One can always change their mind, like that old guy did, in the face of additional evidence, or simply just wanting to. But what I appreciate, because they are so rare, are people who have the intellectual honesty to say they believe in something because it is a comforting belief and it makes them feel better about the unsettling or unanswerable things in life, versus those who make silly arguments that there must be a higher power simply because they can't understand the complexity of universe themselves.

There's lots of things I choose to not believe in because there's a lack of evidence for them.
But saying that you don't know (or can't know) is actually more accurate (not to be confused with useful :-). Isn't it?

Sorry, there's all sorts of evidence of a big bang, and the theory has predicted other phenomena which have since turned out to exist. It's quite well tested, and satisfies all 3 criteria.


Not really, there is only hypothosis and speculation. We believe the universe is still expanding due to the big bang, but, we can't prove it since we don't have the point of reference. It's worse than trying to figure out the nature of the ocean while sitting in a dingy with no land in sight. Not so long ago man thought the sun revolved the earth. Why? Because what information we had supported that idea. Obviously, if we revolved around the sun, we'd fly off the earth.


And as for the ultimate origins of life, if you have trouble with the idea of spontaneous generation via random occurance that only speaks to the trouble humans have grasping truly huge lengths of time and space.


Grasping the legths of time and space aren't quite the same as spontaneous generation vs random occurance.


Given enough time, literally almost anything is possible due to quantum uncertainty. It's entirely *possible* that a chocolate glazed donut could spontaneously coalesce on top of your keyboard. Of course, it would take far longer than the universe has existed to date for there to be an even tiny chance of it happening.

I don't think any serious physist would agree with this idea. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not say anything is possible. Rather, it tells us very exactly where the limits of uncertainty lie when we make measurements of sub-atomic events. Not the spontaneous coalescence of matter.



But the chances of some common chemicals joining in such a way as to start down the road of replication are not that remote, and given a few billion years with the right conditions... well look around. While I dont think we've met the third criterion, there's been independant evidence of life's base molecules developing elsewhere (i.e. comets, meteors), and the fact is putting that while putting all the base chemicals in a pressure vat somewhere and watching it for a few months hasnt produced a puppydog, that's more for a lack of waiting than anything else... But I dont think most people can accept waiting several million generations.

Under lab environments, we have been able to create Amino Acids, but, that's still a huge difference from actual life.

I should note, I'm mostly playing Devils Advocate here, but, Neither theory can truly say that they adhere to the conditions that were posted.

There's lots of things I choose to not believe in because there's a lack of evidence for them. In fact, there's an infinite number of things I don't believe in. One can always change their mind, like that old guy did, in the face of additional evidence, or simply just wanting to. But what I appreciate, because they are so rare, are people who have the intellectual honesty to say they believe in something because it is a comforting belief and it makes them feel better about the unsettling or unanswerable things in life, versus those who make silly arguments that there must be a higher power simply because they can't understand the complexity of universe themselves.

Actually, I believe in God or a "higher being" not becuase I can't understand the complexity (which no one can), but because I don't believe that something so complex could be a random occurance.

Not really, there is only hypothosis and speculation. We believe the universe is still expanding due to the big bang, but, we can't prove it since we don't have the point of reference.
There is plenty of evidence -- the existence of cosmic background radiation is an example. The expansion of the universe is another. There is plenty of evidence for the expansion, here's a link to a detailed discussion. (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/ExpandUni.html)

The big bang certainly isn't "tested". We can measure our universe to test if the predicated results of the big bang are present, but that's as far as it goes. Given that the big bang theory was created to fit what we measure, that's not saying a great deal. I'm not even sure if our methods of measurement are reliable for the big bang.

There is plenty of evidence -- the existence of cosmic background radiation is an example. The expansion of the universe is another. There is plenty of evidence for the expansion, here's a link to a detailed discussion. (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/ExpandUni.html)

How can you tell the universe is expanding if you can't be sure how big it is? we believe it's expanding because our little corner of it seems to suggest that. Some Scientists aren't even sure about the Big Bang.

Again, Given the posted laundry list of requirements, it doesn't truly fit any of those clasifications either.

The big bang certainly isn't "tested". We can measure our universe to test if the predicated results of the big bang are present, but that's as far as it goes. Given that the big bang theory was created to fit what we measure, that's not saying a great deal. I'm not even sure if our methods of measurement are reliable for the big bang.

But we can't measure the universe. We can measure distances to, from and between places we can see, we can measure radiation and relative movement of what we see, but by all signs, we see only fraction of the universe.

I'm not even sure if our methods of measurement are reliable for the big bang.
Of course they are. The red-shift phenomena has been known for decades and is as reliable as the speed of light.

I don't think any serious physist would agree with this idea. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not say anything is possible. Rather, it tells us very exactly where the limits of uncertainty lie when we make measurements of sub-atomic events. Not the spontaneous coalescence of matter.
Gas thermodynamics is only a large scale generalization of quantum events. It only works on average because it happens with billions and trillions of particles. There is, however, nothing to stop a freakish occurence of the molecules suddenly all taking their least likely paths and collisions to form a donut. It's *not* impossible. It's simply extremely and utterly unlikely to ever actually happen. The spontaneous formation of life from base molecules is more likely to happen because it *has* happened, and I still have no donut on my desk.

Grasping the legths of time and space aren't quite the same as spontaneous generation vs random occurance.
Actually they are very much related. If anything has the even the slightest, most incredibly remote chance of happening, then given an infinite time, so long as that chance is greater than zero, it *will* happen. That's simple statistics. Quantum mechanics provides probabilities of sub-atomic events happening in such a way. Such that, say, when 2 particles of some type collide there will be a 90% chance of them bouncing, a 9% chance of one them breaking apart, a 0.9999999999% chance of both breaking apart, and a 0.000(insert a million zeroes)001% for some other event will occur. It's a big universe, and it's been around a long time. Eventually, given infinite time, that incredibly remote event will actually happen, that's a statistical fact. And while we havent got infinite time, only 12-14 billion years, that's still enough to allow a reasonable chance for many of the unlikeliest events to have occured, including the spontaneous generation of life from base amino acids (i.e. an unlikely freakish combination of acids that results in a simple organism that can replicate itself.) Yes, it's unlikely, but there is a chance of it happening. We can reverse engineer our own molecules and cells and the basest forms of life and see what needs to have been combined. The chance for that combination happening under the right conditions is greater than zero, quite a bit greater.

Not really, there is only hypothosis and speculation. We believe the universe is still expanding due to the big bang, but, we can't prove it since we don't have the point of reference
You are thinking in only 3 dimensions. There is no "point of reference" for such a thing as the expansion of spacetime because every point is such a point of reference, and they are all moving away from each other. There's tons and tons of evidence of expansion, and it's pretty reasonable to just roll it backwards and try to figure out where it all started. The only problem with the big bang theory lies with where our science breaks down in the first pico seconds of the event and the high-energy environment and our lack of a unified field theory prevent us from figuring out what exactly it was like. But, again, we are talking an incredibly small period of time, a few ticks of the smallest slice of time that are possible. As for where the initial clump came from... that's a mystery but we *have* seen particles spontaneously pop into existence and then pop out of existence... I'm looking forward, as are many people, to the new european collider coming online in 2007 to start getting some more answers (or, almost better, more questions...)

Actually, I believe in God or a "higher being" not becuase I can't understand the complexity (which no one can), but because I don't believe that something so complex could be a random occurance.Read Tiane's post above. An occurrence doesn't have to be divinely created in order to be complex; it can be random and complex at the same time. Life on our planet could have arisen in an infinite number of ways, any of them infinitely complex; you're just seeing one possibility.

Of course they are. The red-shift phenomena has been known for decades and is as reliable as the speed of light.

Some mathematicians believe the speed of light was not a constant at the time of the big bang. Even if you dispute that, you'd have to agree that a lot of matter is unaccounted for which suggests we either can't measure our universe well enough or our theories are wrong.

And while we havent got infinite time, only 12-14 billion years, that's still enough to allow a reasonable chance for many of the unlikeliest events to have occured, including the spontaneous generation of life from base amino acids

You can have incrediblly small probabilities just as much as you can have incredibly long periods of time, especially when you need a large number of highly improbable events to all happen. If you sat the infamous monkey in front of his typewriter for 14 billions years he probably wouldn't write one decent soliloquy, let alone the entire works of Shakespeare.

Some mathematicians believe the speed of light was not a constant at the time of the big bang. Even if you dispute that, you'd have to agree that a lot of matter is unaccounted for which suggests we either can't measure our universe well enough or our theories are wrong.
At the first few picoseconds, its possible. Whether or not those mathematicians believe it is irrelevant, because as I said, we simply dont have the science to examine those picoseconds right now, and in any case, the speed of light has remained the same since then. As for the rest, it's called dark matter and dark energy - while only a theory, it's a pretty good one and has wide acceptance.

If you sat the infamous monkey in front of his typewriter for 14 billions years he probably wouldn't write one decent soliloquy, let alone the entire works of Shakespeare
Probably not, but he might. You dont know, you cant know. That is the whole point of that million monkeys/million typewriters/million years thought experiment. It's an attempt to explain the concept of infinites or very large numbers in an easier to understand way, and it's still beyond most people. There is a *chance* that it will happen. Given an infinite time, it will absolutely happen.

On a side note, Preposterous Universe (http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/) is a fun blog to read, from an associate professor at the Fermi Institute at U of Chicago. Here's some fun ideas (http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_preposterousuniverse_archive.html#10989 2415875650212) about the Arrow of Time, for example, and here is their Cosmology Primer (http://pancake.uchicago.edu/%7Ecarroll/cfcp/primer/).

I also like Not Even Wrong (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/) from a prof at the Columbia dept. of Mathematics, and he does a good job pointing out some of the problems with current string theory.

But saying that you don't know (or can't know) is actually more accurate (not to be confused with useful :-). Isn't it?

More accurate, yes, but people would look at me funny if I stared them point-blank in the face and in all seriousness claimed that my stand on the existance of the Tooth fairy, Santa Claus and invisible green elephants stealing socks out of my tumble dryer and turning them into coat hangers* was "It could be, I don't know." :)

(* a theory that definitely would explain the mysterious disappearance of socks and the fact that coat hangers seem to multiply in the closet)

That is the whole point of that million monkeys/million typewriters/million years thought experiment. It's an attempt to explain the concept of infinites or very large numbers in an easier to understand way, and it's still beyond most people. There is a *chance* that it will happen. Given an infinite time, it will absolutely happen.

That's why I used that concept. I'm not sure if you noticed but I suggested that for a monkey in front of a typewriter hitting keys, 14 billion years is still not enough time to be likely to write a Shakespeare play. Infinite time is one thing, finite time is something else. If 14 billion years isn't long enough for the monkey to have a decent chance of writing Shakespeare, it's not intuitive to say that its family are likely to evolve into human beings (who could copy a play for him) in those 14 billion years instead.

invisible green elephants stealing socks out of my tumble dryer and turning them into coat hangers*
I think the Invisible Green Elephant theory has lost support over the last few years. While IGE was able to make fairly accurate predictions about the ratio of socks to coat hangers there was always the nagging issue of "how can it be both invisible and green?" The theory that seems to be gaining ground these days is the Hanger Evolution Theory (HET) which suggests that hangers eat the socks and then procreate in the closet. This theory has predicted not only sock/hanger ratios but also things like why a closet that has only ever had wire hangers will eventually yield wooden and plastic hangers. It also provides a plausible explination for why kids always seem to hear noises coming from the closet.

An occurrence doesn't have to be divinely created in order to be complex; it can be random and complex at the same time.
Or progressively/iteratively complex. Cellular automata, for example, can exhibit fantastically complex behaviors that arise out of the iterative application of extremely simple rules.

Actually, I believe in God or a "higher being" not becuase I can't understand the complexity (which no one can), but because I don't believe that something so complex could be a random occurance.

But you're basing this complexity upon your knowledge as a human being living in a world where we only have been recording history for a few thousand years. In the scheme of thing, we just aren't all that smart that we should assume that we can grasp and fully understand the complexity. We are unraveling pieces all the time. That leads me to believe the entire thing is understandable and knowable.

Not long ago the complexity of lightning was beyond the grasp of mankind and so, the default position is, it must be coming from a "high power". heh! I guess it was pretty high power all right....zzzzZZZzzzT! :mage01: So yes, I think you're doing the same thing as our ancestors did. The biggest difference is that now its fashionable to believe in "a higher power" rather than a whole panoply of them. Your lack of intelligence and understanding, and mine, doesn't imply anything but a lack of intelligence. (I mean this in the fact that humans in general aren't smart enough, yet perhaps never, to grasp the complexity -- not that you're stupid which is clearly not the case).

As far as, how did the first cells form... I believe this has already been replicated to some extent in labs. I'll try to dig up some articles.

IGE and HET!?!!! :lmao:

I'm not sure if you noticed but I suggested that for a monkey in front of a typewriter hitting keys, 14 billion years is still not enough time to be likely to write a Shakespeare play.
Oh yeah? Well I bet that if you had a super-cyber-mutant-monkey who could type really, really fast, it could come up with the Cliff's Notes to a Shakespeare play in half that time. In fact, I'd stake my reputation on it.

Creating life in the lab (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/09.12/CreatingLifeina.html).

Unfortunately I don't subscribe any longer but... Registered subscribers only: Strange brew brings inorganic chemicals to life (5/29/2004)
A mixture of inorganic chemicals spontaneously forms cell-like structures that behave like tiny chemical reactors.

Klath, I think that monkey would come out with a Mel Brook's script.

You know, it'd probably be just faster to teach the dang monkies language and typing.

Creating life in the lab (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/09.12/CreatingLifeina.html).
That's an interesting article. I wasn't aware that there had been that much progress. I hope this research doesn't go the way of the research that scientists were working on 50 years ago. They thought they were on the brink of a major discovery, got everyones hopes up and nothing ever materialized.

Pretty cool though, huh? I thought it was interesting that they found a very primitive single celled creature that is a common ancestor humans but not bacteria.

where a primitive one-celled creature, called an archeon, was recently discovered. Its genes show that it shares a common evolutionary heritage with us, but not with bacteria. The consensus is that both archeons and bacteria came from a common, even simpler creature. But even this one-celled organism is far more complicated than the first living thing.

The one thing that confuses me is they mention that RNA is encased in fat, but isn't fat something that comes only from living stuff? Perhaps it was something other than fat at first.

But you're basing this complexity upon your knowledge as a human being living in a world where we only have been recording history for a few thousand years. In the scheme of thing, we just aren't all that smart that we should assume that we can grasp and fully understand the complexity. We are unraveling pieces all the time. That leads me to believe the entire thing is understandable and knowable.

Not long ago the complexity of lightning was beyond the grasp of mankind and so, the default position is, it must be coming from a "high power". heh! I guess it was pretty high power all right....zzzzZZZzzzT! :mage01: So yes, I think you're doing the same thing as our ancestors did. The biggest difference is that now its fashionable to believe in "a higher power" rather than a whole panoply of them. Your lack of intelligence and understanding, and mine, doesn't imply anything but a lack of intelligence. (I mean this in the fact that humans in general aren't smart enough, yet perhaps never, to grasp the complexity -- not that you're stupid which is clearly not the case).

As far as, how did the first cells form... I believe this has already been replicated to some extent in labs. I'll try to dig up some articles.

IGE and HET!?!!! :lmao:


No cells have been formed in lab experiments. Amino Acids have been created. That was decades ago actually.

Look, I am in no way questioning the fundimental beliefs that science has started suggest. Science is, fundimentally, the process of learning the truth of the universe around us. No scientist worth his salt dismisses concepts until they have been proven wrong. He may chose not to believe certain things, but, he can't outright dismiss them as false since it has not been debunked. Until then it's just an unknown.

Here's more grist for the mill. Evolution happens faster than you think.

Kibble for Thought: Dog diversity prompts new evolution theory

A genetic mutation that researchers have examined in several dog breeds may drive evolution in many other species. more...

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20041218/fob1.asp

Kibble for Thought: Dog diversity prompts new evolution theory

Christen Brownlee

The wide range of variety in domesticated dogs—from the petite Chihuahua to the monstrous mastiff—has powered a new view of what drives evolution.

a5684_1899.jpg

NOBODY KNOWS. A new hypothesis might explain why purebred bull terrier snouts changed dramatically from (top to bottom) 1931 to 1950 to 1976.
Fondon and M. Nussbaumer

Scientists have long known that the evolutionary changes that alter a species' appearance or create new species frequently occur in rapid bursts. One widely accepted theory holds that any evolutionary change results from a random switch of a single genetic unit within DNA.

These single-point mutations occur in about 1 out of every 100 million DNA sites each generation. This frequency is too low to cause rapid evolutionary change, assert John W. Fondon and Harold R. Garner, biochemists at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.

While examining human-genome data, Fondon found that small segments of repeated DNA sequences, called tandem repeat sequences, are frequently present in genes that control how an animal develops into its final appearance. Unlike single-point mutations, tandem repeat mutations occur when a cell's machinery for copying DNA makes a mistake and inserts a different number of sequence copies.

Such mistakes, which happen 100,000 times as often as single-point mutations, could alter an organism's appearance or function for successive generations.

"I was stunned by what I found," says Fondon. "It occurred to me that this might be a nifty way for [organisms] to evolve very rapidly."

To evaluate this hypothesis, Fondon and Garner looked for tandem repeat sequences in 92 breeds of domesticated dogs. For example, they examined a gene that determines nose length. They found that the number of times a particular sequence is repeated correlates strongly with whether a breed has a short or long muzzle.

Many researchers explain dog-breed diversity as the emergence of hidden traits in the genome. However, says Fondon, a more likely scenario is that genetic mutations occur in dogs at a high rate.

By comparing skulls of dogs over decades, Fondon and Garner found significant and swift changes in some breeds' appearances. For example, between the 1930s and today, purebred bull terriers developed longer, more down-turned noses.

Moreover, the researchers found more variation in tandem-sequence repeat lengths among dogs than they found in the DNA of wolves and coyotes.

These results suggest that dogs have experienced significantly higher rates of tandem repeat mutations than the related species have, says Fondon. Because tandem-repeat sequences litter the genes that control the developmental plan in many species, Fondon suggests that mutations in these regions could have a strong bearing on evolution.

"As a new finding about the biology and genetics of dogs, I'm all for it. But in terms of applying this to [evolution in general], I think there's a question mark," says Sean Carroll, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Carroll notes that because dog owners have coddled their companions over the centuries, mutations that would have killed wild animals may have persisted in the gene pool of domestic dogs. Because domestication diverges from a standard model of evolution, he says, further experiments are necessary to add weight to Fondon and Garner's theory.



No cells have been formed in lab experiments. Amino Acids have been created. That was decades ago actually.


Did you read the article? Yes, amino acids have been created, but a lot more has happened since then. They've making progress towards building RNA which is how they hypothesize life began and evolution began, since RNA can copy itself and change.

The changes in species with selected breeding appear extremely fast. Ususally within a few generations. It still doesn't change my original statements. I believe Evolution is true. I just also believe it was intentional.

I've read and watched much matieral on experiments for creation of life. Creating the basic materials is a big step, but there is a big difference between that and creating life.

Of course they are. The red-shift phenomena has been known for decades and is as reliable as the speed of light.


Religion topics aside.

What do you say to recent experiments and discoveries that throw doubts over both the speed of light and Red-Shift Phenomena?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/781199.stm

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/quasars_come_from_stable_homes.html?2652004

I've read and watched much matieral on experiments for creation of life. Creating the basic materials is a big step, but there is a big difference between that and creating life.

No question, it isn't life yet. Hmm... that does raise the question of when do you call it life? When it can evolve and copy itself? I think would probably be a good definition.

I wonder how religions will react when/if someone does manage to get some RNA going from non-living stuff.

I wonder how religions will react when/if someone does manage to get some RNA going from non-living stuff.

I don't particularily care as it still won't change my faith. My fundimental beliefs wouldn't be proven wrong or right were it to happen.

I don't particularily care as it still won't change my faith. My fundimental beliefs wouldn't be proven wrong or right were it to happen.

I wasn't refering to you specifically. I wouldn't expect it to change yours since you're not a literalist. More specifically, I'm wondering about the folks who think the world is 6000 years old or who don't believe that evolution into species is possible. Of course, I tend to think that people that believe that are probably not scientifically literate enough to understand it all anyway so it probably won't impact them much.

More specifically, I'm wondering about the folks who think the world is 6000 years old or who don't believe that evolution into species is possible.As with the other scientific discoveries that have proven them wrong, they'll probably stick their head in the sand and come up with some warped explanation of how "God" did it. The nice thing about fiction is that you can always twist it to suit whatever result you wish. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>

The thing is, Contrary to popular opinion, most "christians" have no problem with Evolution. There are definately segments that believe in a literal translation of the bible, but, frankly I don't personally know any of them.

I find that theory to be as silly as "the rapture" folks.

Atheism always seemed hypocritical since it requires faith to believe that there isn't a god and that belief is just as unprovable as the belief that there is a god.

This is the most(well one of them, /silly) absurd thing that theists think. It is a common error.

Belief in nothing is not the same as disbelief in something. They are not equal. It is not hypocritical.

I do not need to prove to you, Klath that Apollo the Sun God does not drive a fiery chariot across the heavens each day, do I? Of course not.

And YOU certainly do not believe that He(Apollo) exists, do you? Of course not.

And I require no proof from you that He does not exist, do I? Of course not.

And that goes for the whole Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian, Celtic, or Norse pantheons, does it not? You believe in none of these gods, without any proof that they exist or do not exist...

For you and I, Klath, are both Atheists...I just believe in one less god than you do.

Your conclusion of what Atheism is or is not for me is wrong. For your definition is wrong. And since your definition is wrong, your conclusion is in error, as well.

I just view your God, the same way that you view Apollo. It is that simple. If I am a hypocrite for disbelieving that your god exist, you are as well for disbelieving in Apollo(and any other gods). Those, are equal.

I just view your God, the same way that you view Apollo. It is that simple. If I am a hypocrite for disbelieving that your god exist, you are as well for disbelieving in Apollo(and any other gods). Those, are equal.
What part of "I've always identified as agnostic" did you misunderstand? I'm willing to admit that I don't know if there is a god while you are willing to take it on faith that there isn't.

I think those who are a little better grounded in reality their view of God might change in that they may come to believe God is less a force that created the world and humans to a force that created the potential for it to exist, but didn't really specifically design any element of it. It always seemed to me that fundamentalists of all faiths are egoists. Their religion seems to revolve around humans being created in order to worship God and God is interested in what they do and they have to perform certain litmus tests in order to get rewarded after they die. Its totally egocentric. I think fundamentalists would be really uncomfortable with any scheme that didn't revolve around a very detail oriented god overly micromanaging daily human events. The reason is because they feel they must find some plot element that explains why they exist and what they're supposed to do while they're alive. They wouldn't be happy with the explanation that their existence is a series of random and complex events that go back billions of years. And as far as purposes, there are none other than the ones hard-wired into our genetic code, or ones we dream up for ourselves.

As far as atheism versus agnosticism, I guess I'm willing to take on the chance of a rounding error in favor of disbelieving. :D

..."I've always identified as agnostic"...

Personally, I think that true agnostics are willy nilly fence sitters. Make up your mind. What do you think or believe in?,,,,"I dunnnooo". Agnostics are pliant mush heads,,, squishy.

Atheists who call themselves agnostics are cowards. Stand up.

Theists at least have the con('nads)victions to stand up for what they believe in. Pick a side!

I'm willing to admit that I don't know if there is a god while you are willing to take it on faith that there isn't

There is NO faith in disbelief!!!

If I told you that there are man-eating 600 pound kangaroo rats in the outback of Australia. Do you require faith to disbelieve me??? Of course not...that requires no faith.

Your logic is absurd, because your premise is wrong. Not believing in something is not the same as believing in nothing. Then of course, as an agnostic, you would have to reply,,,"I dunno if they exist or not, for they may, I dunno". Because you don't know(that is what agnostic means, it means you don't know).

Without knowledge.

What a peculiar term to describe one's self with,,,/shakes head.

But being an Atheist means you disbelieve. While disbeleiving with full disclosure of facts isn't faith, doing so in the absence of facts is. You must make a step into the unknown. Someone who believes in god steps one way into the unknown an atheist steps another into the unknown.

Faith: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

That's the first definition of the word on Dictionary.com

Atheism is a faith. It's just not a religion.

Your conclusion of what Atheism is or is not for me is wrong. For your definition is wrong. And since your definition is wrong, your conclusion is in error, as well.I think you might have a misunderstanding with the definition. "<a href=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist>Atheist</a>" can either mean someone who disbelieves the existence of a god ("I don't believe a god exists" -- your definition, and mine), or someone who affirmatively denies existence of a god ("I believe a god does not exist"). If you adopt the latter definition, then you could say atheism is hypocritical.

Also, "<a href=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic>agnostic</a>" can either mean someone who is skeptical about the existence of a god (the wishy-washy view), or someone who believes it is impossible to know whether a god exists (a more logical view, though not as strong as atheism).

If I told you that there are man-eating 600 pound kangaroo rats in the outback of Australia. Do you require faith to disbelieve me??? Of course not...that requires no faith.
I would assess the likelihood of your assertion and conclude that it was highly improbable. However, skepticism (even extreme skepticism) isn't the same as outright disbelief.

You cannot prove or disprove the existence of "god" therefore any belief that takes a stand one way or another is based on faith.

...any belief that takes a stand one way or another is based on faith.

That is absurd to me.

For all things that are not true, and are not believed would have to require faith.

The moon is made of green cheese.
Apollo the Sun God drives a fiery chariot across the sky each day.
There are invisible trolls grasping at my legs to hold me fast to the Earth.
David Copperfield and David Blaine can conjure up real magic.
Witches ride broomsticks.
Fairies wear Dr. Martin's boots.
Aliens came and anally probed me last night, and made me inhale a gas to erase my memory.

And a hundred million things that are untrue, that I do not believe in, would require faith? (and a few hundred million more untruths I have yet to think of)?

I don't believe any of those things equally to not believing in a god; you are telling me that to disbelieve those things requires faith?

That is not logical to me, it just is not.

I don't consider atheists in general to be hypocrites, but I do believe that atheism is based on faith. "Faith" is a belief that cannot be proven. To have faith in something is to believe in it, despite the absence of evidence. It can be proven that apollo doesn't drive a fiery chariot across the sky each day. It can be proven that the moon is not made of green cheese. The existence or lack of a god cannot be proven.

That is absurd to me.

For all things that are not true, and are not believed would have to require faith.

The moon is made of green cheese.


Prior to actually confirming that it wasn't it would require faith. But it is factual information as we have had men walk its surface and retrieve samples.


Apollo the Sun God drives a fiery chariot across the sky each day.


We can observe the sun and it's interaction with our world, so that doesn't require faith to disbelieve.


There are invisible trolls grasping at my legs to hold me fast to the Earth.


Again, we know this not to be true through facts so no faith is required to not believe it.


David Copperfield and David Blaine can conjure up real magic.


If they call it real magic, you believe it's real magic and no one can prove it other wise, guess what!?!?! It would be taken on Faith!


Witches ride broomsticks.


Now you're just getting silly


Fairies wear Dr. Martin's boots.


No they wear Dr. Scholl's Sandals.


Aliens came and anally probed me last night, and made me inhale a gas to erase my memory.


Well, that would expalin a few things :biggrin:


And a hundred million things that are untrue, that I do not believe in, would require faith? (and a few hundred million more untruths I have yet to think of)?

I don't believe any of those things equally to not believing in a god; you are telling me that to disbelieve those things requires faith?

That is not logical to me, it just is not.

The difference between these things and Atheism is that you are compairing things we have confirmed false vs something we can't confirm false.

It doesn't take faith to beleive that there are humans on earth since that's obvious. It takes faith to believe that there is life on other worlds, however. We can't prove it with what we know, but we can't disprove it either.

Again, you are confusing faith with religion.

Religion topics aside.

What do you say to recent experiments and discoveries that throw doubts over both the speed of light and Red-Shift Phenomena?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/781199.stm

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/quasars_come_from_stable_homes.html?2652004

Well the first article has nothing to do with doubts about the speed of light. They are talking about faster than light information propagation. Here is some clarification (http://www.reedsmith.com/library/publicationPrint.cfm?itemid=3822)) on what the experiment actually proved, along with some criticism of newspapers and websites that reported it somewhat incorrectly. To quote the experimenter himself: "Our experiment shows that the generally held misconception that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, is wrong. Einstein's Theory of Relativity still stands, however, because it is still correct to say that information cannot be transmitted faster than the vacuum speed of light." I was also unable to find any further mention of the experiment after 2000. The bottom line, there's no information being transmitted, relativity stands. The experiment looks to me like very strange wave effect through the cesium atoms, but it's completely un-useful as there's not any actual thing being transmitted FTL. There's no particle actually travelling that speed. There's no information being transmitted that speed.

The second article has nothing to do with red-shifting. It's about quasars. And it's not even particularly interesting except to those who had made certain assumptions about how they would be distributed around the early universe.

So... certainly not as earth-shatteringly important as your post would suggest, or even as the AP headlines might suggest. The reality of these things is often much less dramatic and doesnt make for selling newspapers. Scratch the surface and you often find that all these sites/papers/shows all quote the same press release and dont bother doing any background research at all. Even things like EQ get misrepresented, like when the BBC reported (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4012815.stm) that it has 750,000 active subscribers...

David Copperfield and David Blaine can conjure up real magic.
Fairies wear Dr. Martin's boots.


I find your lack of faith disturbing...

David Copperfield and David Blaine can conjure up real magic.
Fairies wear Dr. Martin's boots.
I find your lack of faith disturbing...
I'm not sure how but I'd wager his lack of faith is somehow related to all the anal probing. In any case, Ozzy Osbourne provided a detailed account of a boot-wearing-fairy encounter on Sabbath's Paranoid album. With evidence this compelling it's hard to understand why the doubting persists.

Well the first article has nothing to do with doubts about the speed of light. They are talking about faster than light information propagation. Here is some clarification (http://www.reedsmith.com/library/publicationPrint.cfm?itemid=3822)) on what the experiment actually proved, along with some criticism of newspapers and websites that reported it somewhat incorrectly. To quote the experimenter himself: "Our experiment shows that the generally held misconception that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, is wrong. Einstein's Theory of Relativity still stands, however, because it is still correct to say that information cannot be transmitted faster than the vacuum speed of light." I was also unable to find any further mention of the experiment after 2000. The bottom line, there's no information being transmitted, relativity stands. The experiment looks to me like very strange wave effect through the cesium atoms, but it's completely un-useful as there's not any actual thing being transmitted FTL. There's no particle actually travelling that speed. There's no information being transmitted that speed.

I've read other accounts from other researchers with similar findings. I'll try to find them for you. My point wasn't meant to mean that Einstein was totaly wrong. Just that some assumtions about what we believe is a constant (ie something that doesn't change) may not be as cut and dry as we think. That certainly is some cause for thought and investigation.


The second article has nothing to do with red-shifting. It's about quasars. And it's not even particularly interesting except to those who had made certain assumptions about how they would be distributed around the early universe.

It's the relationship that Quasars have with red-shifting that should be noted. The article I linked didn't explain what I meant. I probably linked the wrong page I had up. hehe, sorry. Try this one.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/QUASARS/Quasars.html

Now, no one is trying to debunk Red-shifting. I should have phrased my question differently. But, how quasars relate to it is at least enough to make scientist rethink their theories on the nature of the unverse. Apparently The red shift of Quasars is questionable. The Red-shift isn't so much distance related as much as the temperature of the Quasar.

I'll be the first to admit that a lot of what this guy is saying is over my head, but, I do find this stuff fascinating.



So... certainly not as earth-shatteringly important as your post would suggest, or even as the AP headlines might suggest. The reality of these things is often much less dramatic and doesnt make for selling newspapers. Scratch the surface and you often find that all these sites/papers/shows all quote the same press release and dont bother doing any background research at all. Even things like EQ get misrepresented, like when the BBC reported (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4012815.stm) that it has 750,000 active subscribers...

Earth Shatteringly important? Not sure if I would go that far. Worthy of further research? Absolutely.

Again, you are confusing faith with religion.

Both "faith" and "atheism" seem to be used as dirty words. If you extend the definition of "faith" also to include negatives ("I believe that is not true, not because I've seen any direct evidence against it, but because, based on everything I've learned before, seems so far-fetched it cannot be"), then yes, "strong atheists" do operate on faith.

What is getting theists in trouble, however, is how this is presended as hypocritical, while most the atheists I've come across stribe very hard to apply the same level of proof-requirement to every aspect of their lives, not just the question of higher power - yes or no. And to them this is very consistent - doesn't matter what the claim is, if there's no proof backing it up, it's not believed. And as such, to THEM it seems the theists are the hypocrites who sometimes accept this and other times accept that and yet other times are as rejective as the strongest of atheists. This strikes the atheists as hypocritical, and there's nothing that can get people's blood boiling as fast as being called a hypocrite by someone you consider to be .. a hypocrite. :)

Either way - Happy new year to everyone and don't let any socks be eaten by vicious hangers, socks have feelings too!! :)

And to them this is very consistent - doesn't matter what the claim is, if there's no proof backing it up, it's not believed. And as such, to THEM it seems the theists are the hypocrites who sometimes accept this and other times accept that and yet other times are as rejective as the strongest of atheists.
I agree, when you get right down to it the only ones who aren't hypocrites are the agnostics since they're wise enough to avoid taking a stand on something that can't be proved.

I agree, when you get right down to it the only ones who aren't hypocrites are the agnostics since they're wise enough to avoid taking a stand on something that can't be proved.

That, of course, depends on your point of view. Taken from a litteral Christian religious view, it doesn't matter if you don't actively believe for this reason or for the atheists' reason - you're still not getting into heaven. And to some, that might not seem like a wise choice :)

The difference between these things and Atheism is that you are compairing things we have confirmed false vs something we can't confirm false.

No, I am comparing those things that can not be proved to God and theism. Those things(well except for the magicians) have NOT been confirmed false.

You don't know that there are not 600 pound man eating kangaroo rats in Australia. You can not prove that they do not exist.

The only difference is the number of people who believe this to be true and those who believe in god.

It is a philosophical and logical LAW, that no one can prove anything negative. And positives can only be 'proved' via probalities. It is de facto.

I don't have to prove that god does NOT exist. That is definitionally impossible. And only a fool would try(which I have /smile). Because in the end, your opponents will smugly say "I don't care, I believe what I believe".

There is not proof required for Atheism. That is absurd. For to really prove that a negative is false, is to just present the positive,,,Gimme some proof that HE exists. Something, a wave, a nod, an email. Spam from God. I don't care. But the theist will rebut,,,'you require faith'. Hence we are at an impasse. For I do not require faith. I don't have that in me.

Just out of curiosity, how many of you non-theistic believers actually believe in say . . . extraterrestrial life? I've had discussions with people who claimed to be either atheist or agnostic who would then turn around and say they believed in the existence of life on other planets. I was just wondering if there were people on this message board who believe in this?

And if so, then wouldn't "intelligent design" work with that belief, that a more advanced species may have started life on this planet and then allowed evolution to take place? I personally don't believe this, but I've heard the theory/speculation.

Just out of curiosity, how many of you non-theistic believers actually believe in say . . . extraterrestrial life?Just as with the existence of a god -- it's possible but unproven. Maybe "God" was just a technologically advanced extraterrestrial with a set of magic tricks to fool people from centuries ago in order to enslave them, like a bad sci-fi plot. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>

No, I am comparing those things that can not be proved to God and theism. Those things(well except for the magicians) have NOT been confirmed false.

You don't know that there are not 600 pound man eating kangaroo rats in Australia. You can not prove that they do not exist.

The only difference is the number of people who believe this to be true and those who believe in god.

It is a philosophical and logical LAW, that no one can prove anything negative. And positives can only be 'proved' via probalities. It is de facto.


But Saying something doesn't exist because there is no proof is also false logic. If someone in 1798 said that there was a mammal that layed eggs they would be wrong by that logic. I mean, it's obvious that mammals do not lay eggs. It's contrary to everything in natural science. Of course anyone that used that thought process was wrong since in 1799 the platypus was discovered.

In otherwords, lack of evidence is not the same thing as proof. Especially when dealing with this subject. You and I only have a slight beginning of a glimmer to the universe around us. Our perspective based on our rudimentry knowledge of the universe and our observations of a minuscule fraction of it, just isn't enough information.

I'd also like to point out that no one in this thread has faulted you for your beliefs. Your faith lies in that you believe (as in you don't know 100% for certain because you can't know) there is no God or higher being. Good for you. My faith lies in that I believe there is a god or higher power.



I don't have to prove that god does NOT exist. That is definitionally impossible. And only a fool would try(which I have /smile). Because in the end, your opponents will smugly say "I don't care, I believe what I believe".


No you don't have to prove that god does not exist. And no one is asking you. But, you also can't tell me what created the universe, can you?


There is not proof required for Atheism. That is absurd. For to really prove that a negative is false, is to just present the positive,,,Gimme some proof that HE exists. Something, a wave, a nod, an email. Spam from God. I don't care. But the theist will rebut,,,'you require faith'. Hence we are at an impasse. For I do not require faith. I don't have that in me.

There is no proof required for atheism. But, since lack of proof does not guarantee facts it can't be taken as an absolute truth. So, by definition Atheism is a faith. No one "requires" faith. It's not something you need. It's something you have or don't have. Again, you are confusing faith with religion. They are two seperate concepts. Religion relies on faith while faith relies soley on a persons belief and not religion.

The only ones that don't have faith when concerning this topic are Agnostics. The neither believe in god, nor do they believe it to be an impossiblity.

Just out of curiosity, how many of you non-theistic believers actually believe in say . . . extraterrestrial life?

I don't. There's been no indication of this being true.

The only ones that don't have faith when concerning this topic are Agnostics. The neither believe in god, nor do they believe it to be an impossiblity.

Uhm, who told you atheists say it's impossible?

I don't. There's been no indication of this being true.


The laws of statistics say it must be true. Or at the very least it is highly probable that there is life elsewhere in the universe. It may not be intelligent life, or a life form our species will ever see due to the vastness of space, but, there is a high statistical likelyhood for it to be true.

Uhm, who told you atheists say it's impossible?

Well, if someone says a god doesn't exist aren't they implying it's impossible? If something is not impossible it's possible (no matter how improbable). Someone with that believe is not an Atheist but an agnostic.

Just out of curiosity, how many of you non-theistic believers actually believe in say . . . extraterrestrial life? I've had discussions with people who claimed to be either atheist or agnostic who would then turn around and say they believed in the existence of life on other planets. I was just wondering if there were people on this message board who believe in this?

And if so, then wouldn't "intelligent design" work with that belief, that a more advanced species may have started life on this planet and then allowed evolution to take place? I personally don't believe this, but I've heard the theory/speculation.

While I do believe in God, I fail to see the relation between atheisism and belief in extra-terrestrial life.

In a universe which is beyond the scope of human imagining, it is almost a certainty that intelligent life exists elsewhere.

As for intelligent design. While you can find ideas supporting it, I personally believe it very likely true, it shouldn't be taught in schools.

While I do believe in God, I fail to see the relation between atheisism and belief in extra-terrestrial life.

In a universe which is beyond the scope of human imagining, it is almost a certainty that intelligent life exists elsewhere.

As for intelligent design. While you can find ideas supporting it, I personally believe it very likely true, it shouldn't be taught in schools.

I'm not a fan of religion being taught in public schools in the form of teaching religious doctrine, or to promote any one religion, but, I admit, I do like the idea of Comparitive religion classes as electives. Religion in general is a huge part of our planets culture. Just as much as the Greek and Roman pantheons shaped their history, the contemporary religions shape ours today. It's something that should be taught to get a better understanding of other cultures.

Just out of curiosity, how many of you non-theistic believers actually believe in say . . . extraterrestrial life? I've had discussions with people who claimed to be either atheist or agnostic who would then turn around and say they believed in the existence of life on other planets. I was just wondering if there were people on this message board who believe in this?

And if so, then wouldn't "intelligent design" work with that belief, that a more advanced species may have started life on this planet and then allowed evolution to take place? I personally don't believe this, but I've heard the theory/speculation.

I believe there is the possibility of life on other planets. But the proof that supports that hypothesis is the bounty of life on our planet. If those sorts of conditions exist elsewhere in the Universe, and its a very large place, then its quite possible, even probable, that life exists. It may be very rudimentary life, or not.

Going back to the Intelligence behind intelligent design, there's no proof of other intelligence in the universe, divine or otherwise. So if I believe that, I'm buying into the Invisible Green Elephant theory. Extra-terrestrial life isn't necessarily from off the sci-fi channel and flying around in space ships and terraforming planets -- it could be simple like RNA or bacteria.

RNA isn't life just a neccesary part of it on our planet.

I'm with Panamah on this one. There are so many planets out there, it is nigh on impossible to wrap my mind around it. A few of those probably are very much like the earth. That being the case, the statistical odds of the same sort of biogenesis occuring on those planets seems pretty reasonably high to me.

Even within the scientific theory, there are some pretty wild theories of how life started on this planet, including frozen biota stuck in asteroids "seeding" the planet with bacteria or DNA or RNA (eg retroviri). Most of those theories aren't given a lot of 'air time' as it were, but they do exist and have yet to be DISproven, any moreso than "intelligent design" has been DISproven. So those sort of off the wall scientific theories all get lumped together into the "other theories of biogenesis" which include divine intervention.

And while it's certainly possible that a more advanced species might 'seed' our planet with the beginnings of life, my question would be "why?" If they are that advanced, one would hope they would be wise enough to know not to go messing around with the natural process of things. And if they did start life here, what would be the purpose? Harvesting organs? I s'pose that might explain the occassional abduction (although the abductees always seem to come back with all their organs intact). Or perhaps we're simply an interstellar ant-farm for their amusement?

As for a link between atheism and extraterrestrial life, there is none. Some atheists do not believe in ET, some do. And some who believe in ETs are not atheists.

There's almost certainly life *somewhere* out there, it would be amazingly unlikely if there werent. Whether it's within a reasonable "reachable" distance from us is another question entirely. The old Drake equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation) which gives an idea of the likelyhood of a scientific civilization arising on another planet still has variables which are only wild guesstimates.

Anyway, in one way I do agree with Tea... atheists who deny the possibility of the existence of a God are basing that belief as much on faith as the most religious zealot.

Will check that other article you linked in a little bit 8)

*edit* k I had a look at it. Interesting article but full of a lot of opinion and pretty dated. All the info he cites is around 15 years old, with nothing later than 1992. A lot of that has been dealt with in more modern definitions of dark matter and dark energy, which again although are still theories, work out very nicely in explaining currently observable phenomena. We may never detect dark energy directly, though, but we should continue to see ways in which it affects the movement of very large objects. The cosmological constant was thrown out a while ago as a viable theory, but funnily enough the dark matter/dark energy theories wind up replacing it and provide the same effects, so there may yet be something to it. Still tons to learn.

RNA isn't life just a neccesary part of it on our planet.

Really? It seems that possibly the very first life on the planet was RNA based, according to an article I read. It can copy itself, it can evolve. Seems like both of those criteria would fit a description of life. It needs a little more, like to be encapsulated in some fat, but there you go.

Just out of curiosity, how many of you non-theistic believers actually believe in say . . . extraterrestrial life?

I don't really have an opinion on extra terrestrials. They might be out there somewhere, they might not, I'm not losing sleep over it. I've no reason to think there wouldn't be some very simple life forms in our galaxy somewhere. I'm not convinced that statistics show us likely to contact intelligent life though.

It is a philosophical and logical LAW, that no one can prove anything negative.

Prove that you cannot prove anything negative, please.

But, you also can't tell me what created the universe, can you?

Just like you, as a theist, can tell me that God always existed...

I can just as easily say that the universe has always existed.

There is no proof to the otherwise. And it is far more probable. /shrug. More probable, that is, than a bearded man up in the sky, seeking the undying worship and adoration of humans, to validate his existence.


Different topic(but related).

You may take this as unusual(or paradoxical) but I, like Marilyn vos Savant, am skeptical of the Big Bang Theory(I had been before I found her to be).

I can agree that the Universe is expanding.

I am sure that it is. The evidence points to that fact.

But, that does not mean that there was, at one time, a singularity. And subsequent explosion.

It is quite plausible, and more probable, that the Universe has always been expanding. And will continue doing so, until the end of time. Which, most probably, there won't be. An end of time, that is.



RE: RNA and DNA

Bacteria use single strands of DNA for replication. They also have plasmids(circles/toroids) of DNA which have not replicative purpose(that we know of yet).

Viruses use RNA for replication. And thus host DNA.

Eukaryotic cells(including us) and organisms use both RNA and DNA. Not only for replication but for cell function.

With this extreme variation, just here on Earth, it is not unimaginable that other forms(not RNA or DNA) of replication and function occur out there in the Universe.

As much as I think that it is probable that non-Earth intelligent life exists, I am going to hold out a real opinion, at least until they stop giving me that gas.

Prove that you cannot prove anything negative, please.


See, you can't now can you. (care to divide that by zero?)

/smile

You can not prove a negative.

Philosophically speaking...
There is always a slim chance, no matter how remote, that something does exist. I can not prove that the Sun will not rise tomorrow. I can not prove that there are not leprechauns. I can not prove that the moon is not made of green cheese(for unlike a previous poster realized), there MAY be green cheese at the core of the moon.

I can not prove that Santa Clause does not exist, nor the Easter Bunny, or the Sketcher-Wearing Tooth Fairy. Nor Peter Pan and Captain Hook.

Logically there is always a remote and slim chance(next to nil), that they DO exist, and we just have not seen or discovered them.

I can not prove that God does not exist. Because you can not prove a negative. Thusly the onus is on the proponents to argue the proof of the positive. But they don't, because definitionally, they have set up the scenario where they do not have to. It is the definition of faith, to not have proof.

I can not prove that God does not exist. Because you can not prove a negative. Thusly the onus is on the proponents to argue the proof of the positive. But they don't, because definitionally, they have set up the scenario where they do not have to. It is the definition of faith, to not have proof.
As an evangelical agnostic, my highly tuned convert-sense is all atingle. Come on, Fyrr, abandon your weak atheism and join the ranks of the strong agnostics. Renounce your faith and recognize the unknowable for what it truly is.

You know, Stalin was an atheist and Darwin was an agnostic -- who would you rather be like?

Well, if someone says a god doesn't exist aren't they implying it's impossible?

No. Anything (nomatter how far-fetched) is possible. Categorically stating that something is impossible is narrow-minded and blatantly false. Things change, documentation is aquired, something shows up and tosses our previously known "facts" out the window etc. Once something is made likely, one might change ones mind about it. Until then, one operates under the assumption it doesn't exist.

Prove that you cannot prove anything negative, please.

The null hypothesis: If I don't do A, B will/will not happen.

It is impossible to prove the null hypothesis.

The negative hypothesis: A doesn't (have a characterisitic, exist, relate to B) etc.

It is possible, in some cases to prove the negative hypothesis. I say "GWBush is not my father". I take a DNA test, and sure enough, he's NOT my father. The negative hypothesis has been proven.

However, if I say "If we do nothing, Iraq will destroy the world", there is no way to prove that until Iraq actually does destroy the world, or ....we keep waiting until they do...or we just keep waiting and nothing happens.

As an aside, the inability to prove the null hypothesis was one of the reasons restraining orders were invented. Prior to restraining orders, police could do nothing about threats until the person took action. The restraining order was a way of legally bypassing the inability to prove the null hypothesis (If the police do nothing, the victim will end up dead). Restraining orders take into account "reasonable fear", which then turns the perpetrators behavior into a non-null statement. "The perpetrator has shown a high degree of threat to the victim, if we write this little piece of paper out, the victim won't have to live in fear anymore." (not the way it actually plays out IRL all the time, but that was the way they bypassed the null hypothesis dilema).

Fyyr and I are in good company:

Isaac Asimov

"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

"Creationists make it sound like a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night"

-Isaac Asimov, Russian-born - American author

Ernest Hemingway

"All thinking men are atheists."

On page 144 of Paul Johnson's book Intellectuals, it states that despite being raised in a strict Congregationalist household, Ernest "did not only not believe in God but regarded organized religion as a menace to human happiness", "seems to have been devoid of the religious spirit", and "ceased to practise religion at the earliest possible moment."
Other's have pointed out that Hemingway used the non-existence of God as a theme in his books.

- Ernest Hemingway, American author (1899-1961).

George Orwell (1903-1950).
Orwell's biography calls him an atheist. His books also have themes that are explicitly and/or suggestively anti-religious. In Animal Farm, the parody was a raven named Moses who told the animals stories about a great mountain in the sky that they would go to when they died, called Sugar Candy Mountain. In 1984, the concept of Big Brother is a parody of God: You never see him, but the fact of him is drilled into so many people's minds that they become robots, almost. Plus, if you speak bad against Big Brother, it's a Thoughtcrime.

Sir Charles Spencer "Charlie" Chaplin, British born actor, director, and producer (1889-1977).
"By simple common sense I don't believe in God, in none."
Quoted in Manual of a Perfect Atheist.

Albert Camus, French author, Existential Philosopher (1913-60).
Preached a heroic atheism. People should reject God defiantly in order to pour out all their loving solicitude upon mankind. [A History of God]

Shame on you, Klath, for picking just two possible examples of atheism and agnosticism, one good, one double-plus-un-good, and presenting them as paragons of their beliefs. Disingenuous! Naughty!

(BTW: Here's an interesting web site with atheists and agnostics and quotes from them through the ages). Abe Lincoln?!?? (http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm)

Hey, I think I'm liking Lovecraft more and more...

H. P. Lovecraft, American author (1890-1937).
"H. P. Lovecraft was strongly influenced, not only by his mother but also by the books he read. . . . At five, he . . . (read) . . . a junior edition of The Arabian Nights. He at once fell in love with the glories of medieval Islam and spent hours playing Arab. . . . One effect of dabbling in non-Christian traditions was to make Lovecraft skeptical of the faith of his fathers. Before he reached his fifth birthday anniversary, young Lovecraft announced that he no longer believed in Santa Claus. Further private thought convinced him that arguments for the existence of God suffered the same weaknesses as those for Santa. At five, Lovecraft was placed in the infant class of the Sunday school of the venerable First Baptist Meeting House on College Hill. The results were not what the elders expected. When the feeding of Christian martyrs to the lions came up, Lovecraft shocked the class by gleefully taking the side of the lions. " From a biography by Sprague De Camp

". . . His skeptical view of the supernatural - his nontheism - and his love of the Classical world were not the only lasting passions formed in his childhood.

". . . he embraced eighteenth-century rationalism, which confirmed him in his atheistic materialism."

Funny that a guy who wrote about elder gods and mystical horrors that lurked in the universe was an atheist!

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.
Hehe. That quote is definitely a keeper.

Shame on you, Klath, for picking just two possible examples of atheism and agnosticism, one good, one double-plus-un-good, and presenting them as paragons of their beliefs. Disingenuous! Naughty!
He who trolls the past, trolls the future.

Just to be fair and balanced, here are a few famous Agnostics:
Piers Anthony
Margaret Atwood
Bob Guccione
Jack Kevorkian
Larry King
Anka
Carrie Fisher
Alan Dershowitz
Matt Groening - "I was very disturbed when Jesus found a demon in a guy and he put the demon into a herd of pigs, then sent them off a cliff. What did the pigs do? I could never figure that out. It just seemed very unChristian. Technically, I'm an agnostic, but I definitely believe in hell - especially after watching the fall TV schedule."

The null hypothesis: If I don't do A, B will/will not happen.

It is impossible to prove the null hypothesis.

I think a similar statement on the null hypothesis would be true if it's couched in stronger mathematical language, but with things like this you have to be careful or you get misleading statements (such as " you can never prove anything negative"). If for a specific example you can prove B will happen under any circumstances, then it's proved that "if I don't do A, B will happen".