# Alternative To Evolution?



## Kane (Sep 13, 2005)

Is there an alternative to evolution or is evolution the only scientific explanation for how life began? Can we really say it has been proven yet? After all it is just a theory, or so the title says "Theory of Evolution". But hasn't evolution already been proven possible from even one family to another (not just subspecies evolving or species evolving) with bacteria and fruit flies considering their generations are much shorter and easier to study. How many generations does it take for a bacteria or fruit fly to evolve into a different species, and have if they have evolved this far have they ever evolved into different families of bacteria?

 Or has evolution ever been really proven or is it just a theory right now? If it is just a theory does it have any more scientific validity than religion? What do you think?

 Are there any other scientific theories or answer better than evolution or is evolution the only theory or answer we have to explain the origin of life?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Is there an alternative to evolution or is evolution the only scientific explanation for how life began? Can we really say it has been proven yet? After all it is just a theory, or so the title says "Theory of Evolution". But hasn't evolution already been proven possible from even one family to another (not just subspecies evolving or species evolving) with bacteria and fruit flies considering their generations are much shorter and easier to study. How many generations does it take for a bacteria or fruit fly to evolve into a different species, and have if they have evolved this far have they ever evolved into different families of bacteria?
> 
> Or has evolution ever been really proven or is it just a theory right now? If it is just a theory does it have any more scientific validity than religion? What do you think?
> 
> Are there any other scientific theories or answer better than evolution or is evolution the only theory or answer we have to explain the origin of life?


Hey Kane ... 

Gravity is just a theory, too. 

What is your fundamentalist religion version of this theory? Why does **** stay where we put it, usually? Why doesn't it float around? After all, Gravity is just a theory? What does the bible say about that? 

And, aren't you getting a little tired of hearing about these things called, random mutation and natural selection, without understanding thing one (or thing two) about them? Why don't you go to the library, and find a book authored by someone other than King James to find out what they are. 

And, what the hell, if we are throwing out 'Evolution', what do you propose we do with the sciences of archeeology, astrophysics, botony, paleontology, biogeography and zoolology? All of these need to be thrown out, along with evolution ... because they are interdependent. 

So, come on ... don't ask question ... offer up your theory. What do we do with all of these 'unproven' areas of study .... I' mean, they are just theories, right?


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 13, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> If it is just a theory does it have any more scientific validity than religion? What do you think?


Well, the theory of evolution has observable evidence to support its validity.

 I'm not sure that "evolution", per se, has ever been credited with the _origin_ of life, rather, the evolution of life forms.  The ongoing process of evolution doesn't really answer the question of how life began.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 13, 2005)

A few quick comments I should toss out:

1) There are alternative explanations to evolutionary theory, but they lack both the parsimony and the empirical evidence that provides support for evolution. In addition, many of these alternative explanations have not been subjected to peer review (proponents of Intelligent Design, for example, do not publish in any peer-reviewed scientific journals).

2) I do not believe the standard neo-Darwinian model of evolution actually claims to explain "how life began" or the "origin of life". It focuses moreso on gradual speciation mechanisms that began _after_ the emergence of single-celled organisms.

3) Strictly speaking, nothing can be absolutely _proven_ in science. This is why the scientific method allows for continual self-correction and genuine progress in our understanding of things (it rejects the concept of ultimate or absolute "truths"). However, evolutionary theory is widely _supported_ by the existing evidence.

4) It should be understood that the term _theory_ means a very different thing in science than it does to the average person. In this particular context, a _theory_ refers to a time-tested hypothesis that has amassed a large body of supporting evidence. In much the same way, cell theory (the proposition that all living organisms are composed of cells and that cells are created from other cells) is also "just a theory".

5) What some call "macroevolution" _has_ been demonstrated in laboratory environments. Specifically, I am referring mostly to certain species of bacterium, but there are other examples. Please go to www.talkorigins.org for detailed explanations.

6) The question of how long significant evolutionary changes take is currently the subject of research and debate in the sciences today. Gould's "punctuated evolution" hypothesis (which posits that several forms of "macroevolution" took place over relatively short stretches of time) began looking into this stuff in the 1970's, and the current post-Darwinian explanations (which began in the 1980's) are providing us with some interesting research and data. Apparently, in some cases, "macroevolution" can take place within the course of single generation of organisms. See A Discussion of Evolutionary Theory for more details.

7) As to the scientific validity of religion, that depends entirely on what you mean by both "science" and "religion" (read Wilber's _The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion_ for an indepth discussion of this topic). I would assume you are referring specifically to the claims of Biblical mythology, which by and large have been refuted by empirical investigation.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Christopher Umbs (Sep 13, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> 7) As to the scientific validity of religion, that depends entirely on what you mean by both "science" and "religion" (read Wilber's _The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion_ for an indepth discussion of this topic). I would assume you are referring specifically to the claims of Biblical mythology, which by and large have been refuted by empirical investigation.
> 
> Laterz. :asian:


Ah.. a fellow Wilberite!

Chris


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 13, 2005)

Christopher Umbs said:
			
		

> Ah.. a fellow Wilberite!



 :supcool:


----------



## Kane (Sep 13, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Hey Kane ...
> 
> Gravity is just a theory, too.
> 
> ...


   Dude calm yourself down. This thread has nothing to do with evolution vs religion; I don't know where you are getting the idea otherwise.

 This thread is only to discuss alternative theories of how life arose, and whether they are better explanation than evolution (that can be tested via scientific method). So please keep off religion, you sound as if I am some sort of Bible Thumper who knows nothing about evolution, even though I probably no more about it than you.


----------



## Kane (Sep 13, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> A few quick comments I should toss out:
> 
> 1) There are alternative explanations to evolutionary theory, but they lack both the parsimony and the empirical evidence that provides support for evolution. In addition, many of these alternative explanations have not been subjected to peer review (proponents of Intelligent Design, for example, do not publish in any peer-reviewed scientific journals).
> 
> ...


 So basicly evolution is the best theory we have now for explaining how life arose, right? At least one that is more testable than other theories. What are some other good theories on how life arose?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> So please keep off religion, you sound as if I am some sort of Bible Thumper who knows nothing about evolution, even though I probably no more about it than you.


If that were true, you wouldn't even have started this thread.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 13, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Dude calm yourself down. This thread has nothing to do with evolution vs religion; I don't know where you are getting the idea otherwise.



It could be because part of your first post was:

_Or has evolution ever been really proven or is it just a theory right now? If it is just a theory does it have any more scientific validity than religion? What do you think?_



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> This thread is only to discuss alternative theories of how life arose, and whether they are better explanation than evolution (that can be tested via scientific method).



Once again, neo-Darwinism does not claim to explain "how life arose" (i.e., how the first single-called organisms emerged). It merely attempts to explain the process of speciation that began _after_ living organisms had emerged.

After all, "random genetic variation" makes very little sense if there's no genes around to diversify. Cells have genes, minerals and water do not.



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> So please keep off religion, you sound as if I am some sort of Bible Thumper who knows nothing about evolution, even though I probably no more about it than you.



That seems unlikely, given that you constantly describe evolutionary theory as explaining the "origin of life" and as being "just a theory".


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 13, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> So basicly evolution is the best theory we have now for explaining how life arose, right?



Once again, neo-Darwinian evolution does _not_ attempt to explain how life first began. Some alternative evolutionary theories might perhaps border on explaining this, but traditional neo-Darwinism does not.



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> At least one that is more testable than other theories. What are some other good theories on how life arose?



The only testable and falsifiable theories that you are looking for are different models of organic evolution. They all accept evolution of some kind as a given (so to speak), but explain it using different mechanisms.

There are a lot of different explanations out there --- neo-Lamarckian inheritance mechanisms, self-organizing complexity hierarchies, morphogentic fields and morphic resonance, genetic hybridization models, directional feedback loops, and so on --- but, not one of them rejects the existence of evolutionary change.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## qizmoduis (Sep 13, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> So basicly evolution is the best theory we have now for explaining how life arose, right? At least one that is more testable than other theories. What are some other good theories on how life arose?



No.  The current "Theory of Evolution" is the best scientific model that explains how evolution happened.  The TOE does not address the beginnings of life itself, but rather attempts to address the mechanisms (note the plural) that effected the evolution that is observed in the fossil record.  You need to be careful not to confuse the terms.  Evolution <> TOE <> how life arose.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 13, 2005)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> No.  The current "Theory of Evolution" is the best scientific model that explains how evolution happened.  The TOE does not address the beginnings of life itself, but rather attempts to address the mechanisms (note the plural) that effected the evolution that is observed in the fossil record.  You need to be careful not to confuse the terms.  Evolution <> TOE <> how life arose.



 :asian:


----------



## Kane (Sep 13, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> If that were true, you wouldn't even have started this thread.


 What? Are you that much of a radical to assume anything conflicting evolution is religious talk? Again this thread is to discuss alternative scientific theories to the origin of life, not religion.

 And no this thread is not just limited to how life arose from macro-molecules, discuss this more on a broader explanation of life.

 I never considered evolution to be at the same level as the theory gravity, but do scientists think this (evolution as valid of a theory as gravity)?


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 13, 2005)

Gravity is derived from Newton's First "Law". (Yes, scientists can be legislators).
*



centripetal force and centrifugal force, action-reaction force pair associated with circular motion. According to Newton's first law of motion, a moving body travels along a straight path with constant speed (i.e., has constant velocity) unless it is acted on by an outside force. For circular motion to occur there must be a constant force acting on a body, pushing it toward the center of the circular path. This force is the centripetal (center-seeking) force. For a planet orbiting the sun, the force is gravitational; for an object twirled on a string, the force is mechanical; for an electron orbiting an atom, it is electrical. The magnitude F of the centripetal force is equal to the mass m of the body times its velocity squared v 2 divided by the radius r of its path: F=mv2/r. According to Newton's third law of motion, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The centripetal force, the action, is balanced by a reaction force, the centrifugal (center-fleeing) force. The two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The centrifugal force does not act on the body in motion; the only force acting on the body in motion is the centripetal force. The centrifugal force acts on the source of the centripetal force to displace it radially from the center of the path. Thus, in twirling a mass on a string, the centripetal force transmitted by the string pulls in on the mass to keep it in its circular path, while the centrifugal force transmitted by the string pulls outward on its point of attachment at the center of the path. The centrifugal force is often mistakenly thought to cause a body to fly out of its circular path when it is released; rather, it is the removal of the centripetal force that allows the body to travel in a straight line as required by Newton's first law. If there were in fact a force acting to force the body out of its circular path, its path when released would not be the straight tangential course that is always observed.
		
Click to expand...

This is still simpler than the "Theory" of evolution. Those snooty scientists still fight over that one.*


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> What? Are you that much of a radical to assume anything conflicting evolution is religious talk? Again this thread is to discuss alternative scientific theories to the origin of life, not religion.
> 
> And no this thread is not just limited to how life arose from macro-molecules, discuss this more on a broader explanation of life.
> 
> I never considered evolution to be at the same level as the theory gravity, but do scientists think this (evolution as valid of a theory as gravity)?


Radical is not a term I use to describe myself, or my opinions.

As has been pointed out, Darwin's text was the 'Origin of Species'. No where in his ideas did he discuss the rise of life (as I understand it).

Someone who does not think the 'Theory of Evolution' and the 'Theory of Gravity' are of equally settled science should be loath to claim superior knowledge on the subject.


----------



## Kane (Sep 13, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Radical is not a term I use to describe myself, or my opinions.
> 
> As has been pointed out, Darwin's text was the 'Origin of Species'. No where in his ideas did he discuss the rise of life (as I understand it).
> 
> Someone who does not think the 'Theory of Evolution' and the 'Theory of Gravity' are of equally settled science should be loath to claim superior knowledge on the subject.


   Really? Well it seems like all your posts are akin to those of a radical liberal, no offense, that's my opinion. Well at least your not as bad as rmcrobertson in being radical, which is good.

 I mean how life arose as a whole, discussing the origin of species and the rise to life.

 The reason why I would never make a thread titles "Alternative To Gravity" because not as many people dispute gravity as they do evolution. Although there is a possibility all these people that dispute evolution are ID believers, but I doubt it. No one disputes the theories cosmology (well most), and many of the claims disputes Christo-ID.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Really? Well it seems like all your posts are akin to those of a radical liberal, no offense, that's my opinion. Well at least your not as bad as rmcrobertson in being radical, which is good.
> 
> I mean how life arose as a whole, discussing the origin of species and the rise to life.
> 
> The reason why I would never make a thread titles "Alternative To Gravity" because not as many people dispute gravity as they do evolution. Although there is a possibility all these people that dispute evolution are ID believers, but I doubt it. No one disputes the theories cosmology (well most), and many of the claims disputes Christo-ID.


You are entitled to your opinion. 

I do believe that 'radical' and 'liberal' are very different items, and quite possibly mutually exclusive.

The 'origin of species' and the 'rise of life', I believe, are just as different as 'radical' and 'liberal'. Darwin believed in a diety. Most scientists today are also believers in a higher power. There is nothing in Darwin's theory of evolution that precludes a belief in God, or gods.

I think that you are assuming that those who are opposed to the theory of evolution are numerous. They certainly are vocal. An honest assessment of Intelligent Design will recognize it as a cover story for Fundamentalist Christianity; a literal acceptance to the reading of Genesis; nothing more. 

In order to accept Intelligent Design, one must disregard all of the other tenets of science and fields of science, not just evolution.

As to what actually spurred the start of life ... choose your poison ... A supreme diety, aliens, or electromagnetic and chemical chance. None of these items is connected to the 'Origin of Species' or the 'Theory of Evolution'.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Sep 13, 2005)

Darwin's thesis or theory came really from the survival of the fittest, a lot of the whole atheism behind it came from fanatics that labeled it that way.

Evolution tries to explain how a species adapts and survives to a changing world.  There is good evidence out there to back it up. It is not a principle yet as you stated it is a theory, but I am sure it will one day become a principle at least in part anyway.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 13, 2005)

The assumption that 'athiesm' is behind, or part of the Theory of Evolution is erroneous. Belief in a supreme spiritual being is beyond the scope of Darwin. 

I am wondering what 'fanatics' you are referring to in your comments.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Sep 13, 2005)

Individuals that used his theory in order to further their own points of views whether they believed it or not. On the one hand you have religious fanatics and on the other hand non believers that inaccurately used his theory of natural selection to further their own cause.  Darwin died an agnostic and he died believing in an original being, one that could never be interpreted by man because this being was too complicated for man's imagination.


----------



## Loki (Sep 13, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> A few quick comments I should toss out:
> 
> 1) There are alternative explanations to evolutionary theory, but they lack both the parsimony and the empirical evidence that provides support for evolution. In addition, many of these alternative explanations have not been subjected to peer review (proponents of Intelligent Design, for example, do not publish in any peer-reviewed scientific journals).
> 
> ...


I was going to write something thorough and thought-provoking, but then I read heretic888's post and decided it'd be wiser to praise him and raise my post count. Kudos heretic888!


----------



## arnisador (Sep 14, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Is there an alternative to evolution or is evolution the only scientific explanation for how life began? Can we really say it has been proven yet? After all it is just a theory


 Yup...like gravity, heat, relativity, quantum mechanics, and so on. To say that something is a theory is a strong statement in science, not a weak one. What Eisntein meant by theory is not what Colombo meant by it.

 There are no other extant scientific theories. Older ones like Lamarckian evolution have fallen from favor.

 That doesn't mean another scientific explanation couldn't come along in the future--just that there isn't one now.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 14, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Really? Well it seems like all your posts are akin to those of a radical liberal, no offense, that's my opinion. Well at least your not as bad as rmcrobertson in being radical, which is good.


Your labels wouldn't be so off if you didn't condiser your commonly right wing stances as "moderate". 



> The reason why I would never make a thread titles "Alternative To Gravity" because not as many people dispute gravity as they do evolution. Although there is a possibility all these people that dispute evolution are ID believers, but I doubt it. No one disputes the theories cosmology (well most), and many of the claims disputes Christo-ID.


Doesn't really explain an interesting TV show I watched a couple of years back which featured a sequence where God tossed a science teacher off to heck since he taught science. 

Billy innocently enough asked the mean ol' science teacher about how the formation of the solar system proved intelligent design. "Since everything was 'just so', doesnt' thsi prove that God made the planets?"

The science teacher said it didn't really do that one way or another. 

Billy, shocked that his mother had lied to him went home and beat her.
Billy then descended into a life of alcholism and wife beating. Oh yeah, and he shunned the church from the on too as they were also stocked with liars.

God banished the science teacher to an eternal struggle against extremeism to protect the apparently heaven ensconced Billy and Billy's mother. ('Cause Billy seemed like such a swell guy.)


----------



## someguy (Sep 14, 2005)

I'd like to propose an alternative to Gravity...  Intelegent falling.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 
Proof positive that gravity is wrong man.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Again this thread is to discuss alternative scientific theories to the origin of life, not religion.



Personally, I don't like the term "religion" used in the context that it is here. I think "metaphysics" would be a closer approximation to what Michael is trying to say here.

As such, the only alternative views to evolutionary models that I have personally ever heard presented are metaphysical models. Metaphysics does not fall under the purview of the scientific process.



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> And no this thread is not just limited to how life arose from macro-molecules, discuss this more on a broader explanation of life.



Then you need to clarify what it is you're looking for here.

What scientists consider to be "life" began with simple single-celled prokaryotic organisms who may or may not have originated on Earth. When you make reference to the "beginning of life" or the "origin of life", this is what most educated people will assume you have in mind.

If you have a different meaning in mind here, then you need to clarify what it is. 



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> I never considered evolution to be at the same level as the theory gravity, but do scientists think this (evolution as valid of a theory as gravity)?



Gravity is probably a bad example, because it is currently being scrutinized by some fields within physics. Time will tell if its veracity as a theory will survive the trial of peer review.

A better example, which I gave before, would be cell theory. Evolution is accepted to be as valid a theory as cell theory. In fact, evolutionary theory is probably _better_ supported than cell theory, in that it has a wealth of empirical evidence from a number of fields (biology, botany, zoology, paleontology, geography, psychology, and so on).

People need to drop this illusion right here and now. The reality of evolution is _not_ seriously debated in peer-reviewed scientific serials. What we are currently seeing on the public arena concerning school curricula involves individuals on the fringes of "science" who do _not_ publish articles or studies for analysis in a peer-reviewed context. As such, they are outside the bounds of "science" as most professionals know it.

The exact mechanisms of evolution are debated by scientists, but its existence is not.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Gravity is derived from Newton's First "Law". (Yes, scientists can be legislators).



Once again, this results from a confusion of definitions (physical laws are a well-established paradigm within physics) and a general ignorance of how things are actually done in science.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> This is still simpler than the "Theory" of evolution.



If you are referring to the traditional neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, then no, its not. 

In fact, orthodox evolutionary theory is so amazingly simple that it still bewilders me that a significant portion of the adult population still has no clue what it entails. Its really not that hard:

1) Random variations of traits occur naturally within a species.
2) Those variations that are better suited to survival within a given environmental niche will be passed on, while those that are not will die out.
3) Over time, these incremental changes accumulate and a new species will branch out from the original species.

That is the theory of evolution via natural selection. It is not a complex idea at all. I am still amazed at the number of people that just can't seem to understand it.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Those snooty scientists still fight over that one.



The existence of gravity is currently debated in physics. The existence of evolution is not debated in biology (although its exact mechanisms are).

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> I mean how life arose as a whole, discussing the origin of species and the rise to life.



Once again, "life" began with prokaryotic organisms.

Evolution, as most biologists would describe it, started up _after_ their arrival (when genotypic variations and mutations could actually start happening).



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> The reason why I would never make a thread titles "Alternative To Gravity" because not as many people dispute gravity as they do evolution.



Not to be rude, but its fairly irrelevant what popular opinion about any given scientific theory is. That does not make it any more or less valid in a scientific context. 



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Although there is a possibility all these people that dispute evolution are ID believers, but I doubt it.



Most (if not all) of the people that dispute evolutionary theory either a) do not understand it, and/or b) have _a priori_ metaphysical beliefs that they feel contradicts with it. 



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> No one disputes the theories cosmology (well most), and many of the claims disputes Christo-ID.



No offense, but I have no idea what you just said here.  :idunno: 

Laterz.


----------



## Ray (Sep 14, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Gravity is derived from Newton's First "Law". (Yes, scientists can be legislators).


Gravity {an apparent physical attraction between bodies of material} exists apart from the scientific axioms and formulae that describe it. The force isn't derived from Newton's First Law.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> An honest assessment of Intelligent Design will recognize it as a cover story for Fundamentalist Christianity; a literal acceptance to the reading of Genesis; nothing more.



I am inclined to agree with this assessment. I would also differentiate Intelligent Design from the Argument By Design that Thomas Aquinas presented in the Middle Ages.

In his day, Thomas Aquinas was a natural scientist. He was working with the information he had available at the time, and logically came to the conclusion that a Higher Power must have engineered the structures he observed in nature. It is true, for example, that structures in nature are oriented towards particular physiological functions (which was the basis of Aquinas' teleology).

But, let's be real here. If St. Aquinas were alive today, don't believe for a second he would dispute the existence of evolution. He would most likely give a spiritual interpretation of evolution (which, essentially, is what Darwin and Wallace did) but it would be highly unlikely he would doubt its existence.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2005)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> Darwin's thesis or theory came really from the survival of the fittest, a lot of the whole atheism behind it came from fanatics that labeled it that way.



Just to clarify, the term "survival of the fittest" was never used by Darwin or Wallace. 

It was an invention of the sociological school known as Social Darwinism, and dates to decades after the publication of _The Origin of Species_.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2005)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> Individuals that used his theory in order to further their own points of views whether they believed it or not. On the one hand you have religious fanatics and on the other hand non believers that inaccurately used his theory of natural selection to further their own cause.



I would have to agree that many positivists and naturalists used evolutionary theory as a tool to further their own philosophical agendas.  



			
				evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> Darwin died an agnostic and he died believing in an original being, one that could never be interpreted by man because this being was too complicated for man's imagination.



Darwin was a deist, and he specifically attributed the process of evolution to the working of God. Wallace was even more vocal on this point, describing evolution as "the mode and manner of Spirit's perfection".


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> I was going to write something thorough and thought-provoking, but then I read heretic888's post and decided it'd be wiser to praise him and raise my post count. Kudos heretic888!



 :ultracool  :ultracool  :ultracool


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Yup...like gravity, heat, relativity, quantum mechanics, and so on. To say that something is a theory is a strong statement in science, not a weak one. What Eisntein meant by theory is not what Colombo meant by it.



As I said before, a theory (in this particular context) refers to a time-tested hypothesis that has amassed a large body of supporting evidence. Its as simple as that.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> There are no other extant scientific theories. Older ones like Lamarckian evolution have fallen from favor.



Well, Lamarck was also advocating an evolutionary theory as well, so that doesn't really count. 

That being said, neo-Lamarckian principles are currently being researched and debated to this day in biology. I cited a few links referencing such discussions in the previous thread on evolutionary theory.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> That doesn't mean another scientific explanation couldn't come along in the future--just that there isn't one now.



Bingo. 

Laterz.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 14, 2005)

So, Kane, are you going to ever get around to arguing in favor of a position different than evolution? Most Fundamentalist Regilious people can't back-up their own position with anything other than 'cuz the bible says so'. Because of this, they attack the positions of science. 

Science is susceptible to these attacks because, science does not claim to know anything with certainty, instead it makes claims as to probability; in the past we have observed 'x' repeatedly, we assume in similiar tests in the future we will continue to observe 'x', however, we remain open to the possibility that an observation of 'y' is possible and if observed, we will repostulate our hypothesis.

So, it is time to 'Put Up or Shut Up'. Would you like to propose a hypothesis which you think might better explain the vast different types of plant and animal life that exist on our planet? 



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> you sound as if I am some sort of Bible Thumper who knows nothing about evolution, *even though I probably no more about it than you.*


To Quote my Favorite Captian .... 
Kane, I'm laughing at the superior intellect. ​


			
				Kane said:
			
		

> I mean how life arose as a whole, discussing the origin of species and the rise to life.
> 
> The reason why I would never make a thread titles "Alternative To Gravity" because not as many people dispute gravity as they do evolution. Although there is a possibility all these people that dispute evolution are ID believers, but I doubt it. No one disputes the theories cosmology (well most), and many of the claims disputes Christo-ID.


Oh, and for the record ... there are crackpots everywhere.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Science is susceptible to these attacks because, science does not claim to know anything with certainty, instead it makes claims as to probability; in the past we have observed 'x' repeatedly, we assume in similiar tests in the future we will continue to observe 'x', however, we remain open to the possibility that an observation of 'y' is possible and if observed, we will repostulate our hypothesis.



Nicely put.  :asian: 

Laterz.


----------



## Ray (Sep 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So, Kane, are you going to ever get around to arguing in favor of a position different than evolution? Most Fundamentalist Regilious people can't back-up their own position with anything other than 'cuz the bible says so'. Because of this, they attack the positions of science.


Fundamentalist? The 20th century protestant movement or the attitude of stressing strict/literal adherence to a set of basic principles {mirriam-webster}? Or a sociological definition?

I consider myself a fundamentalist religious person and have no overwhelming need to try to disprove evolution. 

I know that your comments are directed towards Kane, but couldn't help intejecting {it must be a genetically hard-wired reaction that afforded some slight advantage of survival to my ancestors, ha, ha.}


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 14, 2005)

Evolution doesn't necessarily take eons. You can see a very rapid and simple example of evolution in bacteria with an experiment that would only take a couple of days.

Grow bacteria in a culture medium. Add an antibiotic. Those bacteria which possess a gene for resistance to the antibiotic will proliferate. Those lacking that gene will die out. In a couple of days, all the bacteria growing in the culture will bear the antibiotic resistance gene. In that particular environment, that gene is a powerful evolutionary advantage, and will tend to increase in the population.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Fundamentalist? The 20th century protestant movement or the attitude of stressing strict/literal adherence to a set of basic principles {mirriam-webster}? Or a sociological definition?
> 
> I consider myself a fundamentalist religious person and have no overwhelming need to try to disprove evolution.



I think Michael probably means _fundamentalist_ in the limited sense of, "adhering to a rigidly literal interpretation of the Bible". That'd be my guess, anyway. 



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> I know that your comments are directed towards Kane, but couldn't help intejecting {it must be a genetically hard-wired reaction that afforded some slight advantage of survival to my ancestors, ha, ha.}



Or, at the very least, didn't prove to be maladaptive.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Evolution doesn't necessarily take eons. You can see a very rapid and simple example of evolution in bacteria with an experiment that would only take a couple of days.
> 
> Grow bacteria in a culture medium. Add an antibiotic. Those bacteria which possess a gene for resistance to the antibiotic will proliferate. Those lacking that gene will die out. In a couple of days, all the bacteria growing in the culture will bear the antibiotic resistance gene. In that particular environment, that gene is a powerful evolutionary advantage, and will tend to increase in the population.



Bravo.  :asian: 

The really interesting thing, though, is when populations of those wacky bacterium (I'm specifically thinking of some experiments done with E. Coli) adapt in ways that _don't_ appear to be _random_ mutations. 

Now, isn't that just wacky? 

Laterz.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 14, 2005)

> The really interesting thing, though, is when populations of those wacky bacterium (I'm specifically thinking of some experiments done with E. Coli) adapt in ways that _don't_ appear to be _random_ mutations.


 That's because they PLANNED it that way, muahahahahaha....


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> That's because they PLANNED it that way, muahahahahaha....


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The really interesting thing, though, is when populations of those wacky bacterium (I'm specifically thinking of some experiments done with E. Coli) adapt in ways that _don't_ appear to be _random_ mutations.
> 
> Now, isn't that just wacky?



From http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch19-d.html:

"Because genes interact and regulate each other so extensively, the genome forms a complex whole that resists change. Only certain areas can vary at all because most of the genes are so interdependent upon each other-almost grid-locked-that variation is not a choice. As evolutionist Ernst Mayr puts it, 'Free variability is found only in a limited portion of the genotype.' The power of this genetic holism can be seen in animal breeding. Breeders commonly encounter undesirable side effects triggered when unknown genes are activated in the process of selecting for one particular trait. However, when pressure for that one trait is let up, organisms in succeeding generations rapidly revert to the original type, much as if the genome has sprung back to its set point. Variation in real genes is quite different than we imagined. The evidence suggests that not only is it nonrandom and parochial, but it is difficult to come by at all.

The impression one gets is of a highly flexible bureaucracy of genes managing the lives of other genes. Most astounding, the same gene bureaucracy is franchised throughout life, from fruitfly to whale. For example, a nearly identical homeobox self-control sequence (a master-switch gene which turns hunks of other genes on) is found in every vertebrate.

So prevailing is the logic of nonrandom variation that I was at first flabbergasted in my failure to find any biologists working today who still believe mutations to be truly random. Their nearly unanimous acknowledgment that mutations are 'not truly random' means to them (as far as I can tell) that individual mutations may be less than random-ranging from near-random to plausible; but they still believe that statistically, over the long haul, a mass of mutations behaves randomly. 'Oh, randomness is just an excuse for ignorance,' quips Lynn Margulis.

This weak version of nonrandom mutation is hardly even an issue anymore, but a stronger version is more of a juicy heresy. It says that variations can be chosen in a deliberate way. Rather than have the gene bureaucracy merely edit random variations, have it produce variations by some agenda. Mutations would be created by the genome for specific purposes. Direct mutations could spur the blind process of natural selection out of its slump and propel it toward increasing complexity. In a sense, the organism would direct mutations of its own making in response to environmental factors. Ironically, there is more hard lab evidence at hand for the strong version of directed mutation than for the weak version.

According to the laws of neodarwinism, the environment, and only the environment, can select mutations; and the environment can never induce or direct mutations. In 1988 Harvard geneticist John Cairns and colleagues published evidence of environmentally induced mutations in the bacterium E. coli. Their claim was audacious: that under certain conditions the bacteria spontaneously crafted needed mutations in direct response to stresses in their environment. Cairns also had the gall to end his paper by suggesting that whatever process was responsible for the directed mutations 'could, in effect, provide a mechanism for the inheritance of acquired characteristics'-a bald allusion to Darwin's rival-in-theory Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. 

Another molecular biologist, Barry Hall, published results which not only confirmed Cairns's claims but laid on the table startling additional evidence of direct mutation in nature. Hall found that his cultures of E. coli would produce needed mutations at a rate about 100 million times greater than would be statistically expected if they came by chance. Furthermore, when he dissected the genes of these mutated bacteria by sequencing them, he found mutations in no areas other than the one where there was selection pressure. This means that the successful bugs did not desperately throw off all kinds of mutations to find the one that works; they pinpointed the one alteration that fit the bill. Hall found some directed variations so complex they required the mutation of two genes simultaneously. He called that 'the improbable stacked on top of the highly unlikely.' These kinds of miraculous change are not the kosher fare of serial random accumulation that natural selection is supposed to run on. They have the smell of some design.

Both Hall and Cairns claim that they have carefully eliminated all other explanations for their results, and stick by their claim that the bacteria are directing their own mutations. However, until they can elucidate a mechanism for the way in which a stupid bacterium can become aware of which mutation is required, few other molecular geneticists are ready to give up strict Darwinism."

Hee hee hee. 

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2005)

Here's a rather interesting "alternative" to the standard synthetic or neo-Darwinian model of evolution:

The Evolution Of Phenotypic Plasticity Through The Baldwin Effect

Here's an interesting interpretation of the same phenomena within a post-Darwinian context:

Organisms Can Be Proud To Have Been Their Own Designers

Enjoy.  :asian:


----------



## evenflow1121 (Sep 14, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I would have to agree that many positivists and naturalists used evolutionary theory as a tool to further their own philosophical agendas.
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin was a deist, and he specifically attributed the process of evolution to the working of God. Wallace was even more vocal on this point, describing evolution as "the mode and manner of Spirit's perfection".


I thought Darwin died an agnostic and as a result of a loved one that had died at an early age or something.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2005)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> I thought Darwin died an agnostic and as a result of a loved one that had died at an early age or something.



Quite possibly, but it is my understanding that he considered himself a deist for most of his adult life. In any event, he specifically attributes the evolutionary process to God in his work (as did Wallace and Lamarck).

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## ginshun (Sep 15, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Gravity is derived from Newton's First "Law". (Yes, scientists can be legislators).


 Without getting into the argument here, this really isn't true anymore.  The laws / rules that Newton came up with still work to describe how gravity affects objects in our everyday life.  However, the nature of gravity was redefined when Einstien came up with his General Theory of Relativity.  Can't remember exactly when.  circa 1916?


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 15, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Without getting into the argument here, this really isn't true anymore. The laws / rules that Newton came up with still work to describe how gravity affects objects in our everyday life. However, the nature of gravity was redefined when Einstien came up with his General Theory of Relativity. Can't remember exactly when. circa 1916?


1916 is actually the correct publication date. Even gravity has been in question in the past few years, or at least reanalyzed... gravitons and string theory (the theory of everything) have been explored in an attempt to have a true unification theory.

Gravitons and gravity waves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

String theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory


----------



## ginshun (Sep 15, 2005)

The only reason I even remembered the date is because I was just re-reading _A Brief History of Time_ by Stephen Hawking last night.


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 15, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> The only reason I even remembered the date is because I was just re-reading _A Brief History of Time_ by Stephen Hawking last night.


Great book.... wish I had more time to do recreational reading!


----------



## arnisador (Sep 15, 2005)

No one knows how gravity is carried, either relativistically or at a quantum level...gravitons, warping of space, a field, strings,...? It's so funny to see people pick on evolution when fields like quantum mechanics are so much more subject to disagreement amongst professionals.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 15, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> No one knows how gravity is carried, either relativistically or at a quantum level...gravitons, warping of space, a field, strings,...? It's so funny to see people pick on evolution when fields like quantum mechanics are so much more subject to disagreement amongst professionals.



That's probably because gravity doesn't upset certain groups' metaphysical belief structures.   :wink:

Additionally, while they don't reach the public's attention all that often, there _are_ professional debates and disagreements about the exact mechanisms of evolution. The standard neo-Darwinian or synthetic model is by no means the only valid model, nor is it even the most valid model anymore. I personally think organic selection or the "Baldwin Effect" is a monstrously fascinating phenomenon that makes a much stronger case for a generalized explanatory principle of evolution than natural selection.

Unfortunately, much of these debates don't seem to get publicized all that often because, my guess, is that many in the scientific community are afraid proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design will use them as tools for their metaphysical agendas.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## arnisador (Sep 16, 2005)

Yeah, there's still debate about things like species selection. But it's when it affects someone's philosophy that people care, as you point out. Darwin is often listed among philosophers!

Yet, there are areas so much more unsettled!


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 16, 2005)

This just in .. 

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/16/nobel_winners_defend_teaching_evolution/?evolution

*Nobel winners defend teaching evolution*

State board asked to reconsider science standards

Topeka  Thirty-eight Nobel laureates led by Holocaust survivor and noted author Elie Wiesel have turned their attention to the Kansas State Board of Education.

The Nobel Prize winners are asking the board to reject science standards that criticize evolution.

In a letter to the board released Thursday, the group of leading scientists and thinkers from around the world said Darwinian evolution was the foundation of biology.

 ... its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA, the group wrote.
​


----------



## someguy (Sep 16, 2005)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> I thought Darwin died an agnostic and as a result of a loved one that had died at an early age or something.


I belive you are refering to Darwins daughter Anne who die at the age of 10 in 1851 I belive.  Now how much this did contribute to Darwin's religious views I'm not sure yet it has been sugested that Darwin was only a Deist or Agnostic or an Atheist.  Which is accurate?  I don't know enough to guess.  That said there was a point in time that Darwin did train to be a pastor.
I would also like to add that the death of his daughter was before _The Origin of Species._ That was published in 1859. 
I would also like to mention that Alfred Russel Wallace published his work the day after Darwin which also was about Natural selection.
We now return you to your regularly broadcasted program.
Peace yo


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Sep 17, 2005)

'science' museums teaching creationism - 

   from: Chicago Tribune, 7 August 

 "It is important to many creationists that man and dinosaur lived simultaneously because they believe there was no death in the world until Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden. If the Genesis story is false, they say, then there would be no need for Jesus Christ to redeem the sins of the world.

 Thus, at the Museum of Earth History, Genesis dictates gentle, vegetarian dinosaurs sharing Eden with Adam and Eve, whose vaguely Polynesian appearance represents all races, according to a guide. Another exhibit confirms that dinosaurs, like all land creatures created on Day 6, were on Noah's Ark. The exhibit maintains that the ark could accommodate them because it was huge--450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high--and only smaller, adolescent dinosaurs were put on board.

 Such literal interpretation is essential, Sharp said, because "if we lose Genesis as a legitimate scientific and historical explanation for man, then we lose the validity of Christianity. Period."


   I'm glad I haven't eaten anything yet today because I feel like throwing up.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 18, 2005)

Shizen Shigoku said:
			
		

> Such literal interpretation is essential, Sharp said, because "if we lose Genesis as a legitimate scientific and historical explanation for man, then we lose the validity of Christianity. Period."





Frustrating, isn't it?  Fundamentalists can not give a precise definition of the following words:

Theory.

Hypothesis.

Fact.


Fundamentalists have a difficult time grasping that all scientific conclusions are considered tenative and open to modification...and that is the nature of science.  

I had an evangelical tell me years ago that he was prepared to give me a wealth of "scientific evidence" showing that Genesis was true. 

I'm still waiting.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 18, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Yeah, there's still debate about things like species selection. But it's when it affects someone's philosophy that people care, as you point out. Darwin is often listed among philosophers!



I have noticed this trend, as well.

In recent years, proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design have published a number of books that attempt to deconstruct Darwinism --- with such telling titles as _The Religion of Darwin_, _Darwin's Religion_, _The Religion of Evolution_ and so on. The going assumption being that evolutionary theory, for both Darwin and modern neo-Darwinians, is supposed to be "religious" in nature.

While there is a shred of truth to this assertion, it still remains a gross mischaracterization of the way things are actually seen and done in science.

The funniest one I've ever seen, though, was a guy they showed on _The Daily Show_ last week. It seems this fellow is running seminars near the Grand Canyon area entitled (I kid you not), "Evolution: The Anti-God Religion of Death".

 



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Yet, there are areas so much more unsettled!



Like, oh say, most subjects within Biblical scholarship??


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 18, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This just in ..
> 
> http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/16/nobel_winners_defend_teaching_evolution/?evolution
> 
> ...



See now, I kinda have mixed feelings about this here.

On the one hand, I completely sympathize with these individuals and their efforts. The public calls for a "critical analysis of evolutionary theory" is really just a thinly-veiled smokescreen that proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design are using to push their particular metaphysical agendas. As such, it should be met with considerable resistance and vocal opposition.

But, on the other hand, I also feel that there isn't enough public debate concerning different models of evolutionary process. Many in the scientific community simply accept the synthetic model in an _a priori_ fashion as "the" explanation for evolutionary development. Hell, I didn't even know there were alternative scientific models to strict neo-Darwinism until I went out and researched the subject myself! Such discussions were completely absent in both my high school and college biology classes (which included courses in anatomy & physiology, biopsychology, developmental psychology, and evolutionary psychology).

As such, I have mixed feelings about this.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 18, 2005)

someguy said:
			
		

> I belive you are refering to Darwins daughter Anne who die at the age of 10 in 1851 I belive.  Now how much this did contribute to Darwin's religious views I'm not sure yet it has been sugested that Darwin was only a Deist or Agnostic or an Atheist.  Which is accurate?  I don't know enough to guess.  That said there was a point in time that Darwin did train to be a pastor.
> I would also like to add that the death of his daughter was before _The Origin of Species._ That was published in 1859.
> I would also like to mention that Alfred Russel Wallace published his work the day after Darwin which also was about Natural selection.
> We now return you to your regularly broadcasted program.
> Peace yo



Charles Darwin, as far as I can tell, was what we might now consider a deist. He was extremely skeptical of the claims of the institutionalized religions of his day, but retained a faith in a non-intervening Divine that expresses itself through the laws of nature. In _The Origin of Species_, he specifically attributes evolutionary processes to the working of God. His contemporary, Wallace, was even more explicit on this matter (seeing God behind evolution). 

On a side note, though, Darwin and Wallace weren't the first to propose a scientific explanation of evolution. That honor belongs to Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who put forward the now thoroughly-discredited hypothesis of directly heritable traits in the early 1800's (a good half-century before _The Origin of Species_ was published). But, even before Lamarck, there were many philosophical models that incorporated what we might call an "evolutionary" perspective. Some of the German Idealists (most notably Hegel) formulated a philosophy detailing how Spirit's expression continually developed, adapted, and changed over the course of history (specifically, in outlining the progression of "Mind" from "Nature").  

In fact, according to philosopher Ken Wilber's _A Brief History of Everything_ (pp. 274-275), an evolutionary formulation was extremely commonplace by the early 1800's:

"Q: So this developmental or evolutionary notion was not new with Darwin.
KW: Far from it. The Great Chain theorists, beginning as early as Leibniz, began to realize that the Great Chain could best be understood as a holarchy that is not given all at once, but rather unfolds over enormous stretches of historical and geographical time --- starting with matter, then the emergence of sensation in life forms, then perception, then impulse, then image, and so on.
And thus, about a century before Darwin, it was widely accepted in educated circles that the Great Chain had actually unfolded or developed over vast time. And --- this was crucial --- since the Great Chain contained no 'gaps' or holes (because the plenitude of Spirit fills all empty spaces), the research agenda was to find any 'missing links' in evolution.
Q: That's where the term actually came from?
KW: Yes, any missing links in the Chain. And so there began a massive search for 'missing links' between various species. So widespread was this understanding, so common and so taken for granted, that even the notorious circum promoter P.T. Barnum could advertise that his museum contained: 'the Ornithorhincus, or the connecting link between the seal and the duck; two distinct species of flying fish, which undoubtedly connect the bird and the fish; the Mud Iguana, a connecting link between reptiles and fish --- with other animals forming connecting links in the Great Chain of Nature.' That's two decades before Darwin published _Origin of Species_!"

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 18, 2005)

Chicago Tribune said:
			
		

> It is important to many creationists that man and dinosaur lived simultaneously because they believe there was no death in the world until Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden. If the Genesis story is false, they say, then there would be no need for Jesus Christ to redeem the sins of the world.



Um, can you say _allegory_?? Geez.   

I mean, fer crissakes, the philosophical notion that we are living in a "fallen" or "descended" state is hardly a novelty of Christianity. This is essentially the same understanding in the Buddhist _samsara_ and the Hindu _maya_, among others. Even Christianity by and large derives its "fallen" terminology and metaphysics from the writings of Plato (who famously proclaimed the body to be a "tomb of the soul" and formulated the Allegory of the Cave).

Yet, none of these philosophies has to resort to non-historical fantasies and mythologies to support its philosophical framework. Christianity (or, at least certain varieties of it) is unique in this regard. 



			
				Chicago Tribune said:
			
		

> Thus, at the Museum of Earth History, Genesis dictates gentle, vegetarian dinosaurs sharing Eden with Adam and Eve [...]



I'm suddenly reminded of the comments of _The Daily Show's_ Lewis Black (and I'm paraphrasing here)...

Yes, because those rows of eighty 7-inch daggers in their mouths would have been of enormous help in hunting down and killing the most elusive prey of them all: plants!

 



			
				Chicago Tribune said:
			
		

> "Another exhibit confirms that dinosaurs, like all land creatures created on Day 6, were on Noah's Ark. The exhibit maintains that the ark could accommodate them because it was huge--450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high--and only smaller, adolescent dinosaurs were put on board.



Is there actually any Biblical reference to dinosaurs in Noah's ark?? And, if so, is there any reference to them only being adolescents??

I mean, it just amazes me the elaborate qualifiers and justifications these guys cook up to make their mythological fantasies "fit in" with real life...



			
				Chicago Tribune said:
			
		

> "Such literal interpretation is essential, Sharp said, because "if we lose Genesis as a legitimate scientific and historical explanation for man, then we lose the validity of Christianity. Period."



Yes, because apparently, Roman Catholicism and orthodox Judaism (both of whom do _not_ regard Genesis as a literal account of history) have their own traditions dead wrong.   



			
				Creationist Guy said:
			
		

> I'm glad I haven't eaten anything yet today because I feel like throwing up.



Personally, I find it all more amusing than I do upsetting.

Laterz.


----------



## someguy (Sep 18, 2005)

Ah yes Noah's ark...  I should just walk away buuuut.  The size of the ark is just to funny.  
Gen 6 :15 "This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits."
A cubit is usually 1.5 feet I belive.  Actually it's the length of your arm from elbow to finger tip but the standard conversion factor is 1.5 feet.
That means that the ship was about 450 feet long 75 feet wide and 45 feet in height.  
Now lets think for two seconds about this.

"And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.  Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.  And you shall take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and for them. "
So maybe Dinosaurs are also counted.  2 of every kind of them.  After all it wouldn't be cramped in the least to have 2 of every knind as it is.

I thought that it was a a story but now after thinking about it suuuuure 2 of every kind of animal can fit into something that size  as well as enough food for everything to eat for around half a year.
I'm done.


----------



## qizmoduis (Sep 19, 2005)

someguy said:
			
		

> Ah yes Noah's ark...  I should just walk away buuuut.  The size of the ark is just to funny.
> Gen 6 :15 "This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits."
> A cubit is usually 1.5 feet I belive.  Actually it's the length of your arm from elbow to finger tip but the standard conversion factor is 1.5 feet.
> That means that the ship was about 450 feet long 75 feet wide and 45 feet in height.
> ...




Ask a creationist for a definition of the word "kind" in scientific terms.

Be prepared to keep your face straight.  It might catch you by surprise.


----------



## Ray (Sep 19, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Is there actually any Biblical reference to dinosaurs in Noah's ark?? And, if so, is there any reference to them only being adolescents??


Would dinosaurs be "clean" or "unclean" beasts?


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yes, because those rows of eighty 7-inch daggers in their mouths would have been of enormous help in hunting down and killing the most elusive prey of them all: plants!


As a "believer" I see nothing in genesis that leads me to believe that dinosaurs needed to be vegitarians...if it was "deduced" because the fall brought death into the world, then eating plants would kill the plants. Unless, I suppose, they were "fruit"-arians;

Although the biblical account names the number of years that Adam was alive, I don't necessarily believe that a person who was immortal (until the fall) would have bothered counting. So why not six billion years or whatever before the fall.

I also don't necessarily believe in creation from nothing. I believe that the matter was already there and that it was "organized" so to speak into the earth.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I mean, it just amazes me the elaborate qualifiers and justifications these guys cook up to make their mythological fantasies "fit in" with real life...


 Yeah. Ref my qualifiers and justifications [above] that justify my mythological fantasies.


----------



## someguy (Sep 19, 2005)

Well actually I suppose if Noah was a giant then it could have worked.  By giant I mean oh say 100 feet tall or so.  Yup Noah was a giant.  It has been decided.


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Sep 20, 2005)

Perhaps it's my fault for not being very clear on my position when I posted last. There seems to be some confusion, because Heretic quoted me and referred to me as 'Creationist Guy'

 Quote:
Originally Posted by *Creationist Guy*
_I'm glad I haven't eaten anything yet today because I feel like throwing up._


 hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
 (*gasp*)
 hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 Maybe I should have used the proper HTML tags [sarcasm][/sarcasm] or [mocking][/mocking] in my post; I am 100% NOT in favor of teaching any sort of creationism.

 When I said I felt like throwing up, it was because of the notion of having a museum with a creationist theme, not because of any threat to christianity (which I care nothing about beyond wishing it would just go away).

 Clear?


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 20, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Would dinosaurs be "clean" or "unclean" beasts?



What are you asking me for?



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> As a "believer" I see nothing in genesis that leads me to believe that dinosaurs needed to be vegitarians...



The problem is that, according to the Genesis account, nothing died until God evicted Adam and Eve from the Apartment of Paradise.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> if it was "deduced" because the fall brought death into the world, then eating plants would kill the plants. Unless, I suppose, they were "fruit"-arians



They may very well argue that these creature were originally fruitarians.

On the other hand, it is far more likely that they will argue that plants aren't really "alive" in the Biblical sense and thus "don't count". Go figure.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Although the biblical account names the number of years that Adam was alive, I don't necessarily believe that a person who was immortal (until the fall) would have bothered counting. So why not six billion years or whatever before the fall.



Ummm.... maybe because anatomically modern _homo sapiens_ have only been around for less than 100,000 years?? In fact, conservative estimates place it closer to 50,000 years, around the same time as the so-called 'cultural explosion'.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> I also don't necessarily believe in creation from nothing. I believe that the matter was already there and that it was "organized" so to speak into the earth.



Depends, really. Are you referring to the origins of Earth or the origins of the physical universe??



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Yeah. Ref my qualifiers and justifications [above] that justify my mythological fantasies.



Yes, I would say arguing that Adam could have lived for six million years because time would have been floppy to him would definately fall into the realm of justification.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 20, 2005)

Shizen Shigoku said:
			
		

> Clear?



 :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Sorry, man. My bad.

In my defense, that 'Creationist Guy' bit was from an earlier draft of my post in which I copy-and-pasted that text for all my quotations. I must have not been paying attention when I composed the final part of the post.

Laterz.


----------



## Ray (Sep 20, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> What are you asking me for?


Because I thought you knew everything


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The problem is that, according to the Genesis account, nothing died until God evicted Adam and Eve from the Apartment of Paradise.


I skimmed Genesis before posting the message that I saw nothing in the account that said everything was immortal; Maybe I should have read it closer but I did see that Adam & Eve were immortal until the fall.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Ummm.... maybe because anatomically modern _homo sapiens_ have only been around for less than 100,000 years?? In fact, conservative estimates place it closer to 50,000 years, around the same time as the so-called 'cultural explosion'.


Okay, so maybe Adam was alive for 100K years...if you're immortal then why count? 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Depends, really. Are you referring to the origins of Earth or the origins of the physical universe??


I'm referring to the origins of the earth. 


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yes, I would say arguing that Adam could have lived for six million years because time would have been floppy to him would definately fall into the realm of justification.


Thank you. It's never a disappointment to read your opinion.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 21, 2005)

The world formed on the back of a giant turtle.  What's the turtle sitting on?  It's turtles all the way down.


----------

