New Orleans refugeees

[Skandery]

I love these discussions:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe:

However, I am going to disagree with you on one point. A "theory" is not as close to "fact" as you can get. In scientific terms, that would be a *LAW* - such as Newton's Law, or the Law of Universal Gravitation (F(g)=G©*(m0*m1)/r^2, where G© is the universal gravitation constant, m0 and m1 are the masses of the two objects, and r is the distance between them). If Evolution were proven, it would be "Law" or "Fact." Yet, due to the inability to establish with certainty the entire Evolutionary tree, it remains a "Theory."

Also, things like Einstein's Theory of Relativity are considered theory rather than law because of our inability to currently evaluate it with acceptable precision.

Here is where you're missing one point.  All Scientific Laws were in essence indoctrinated as irrefutable truths at conception.  Scientific Laws are definitions and parameters that define and circumscribe our entire understanding of a particular field.  When Newton discovered his laws, so to speak, it was an observation of an omni-present phenomenon without question as to origin or method.  Such as the Law of Gravity which defines the very nature of the relationship between two objects of various sizes in the Universe.  All the scientist did was figure out the math behind the observation, but there was never a question of how did gravity come about, what previous form did gravity take, all these questions were irrelevant.  The Law of Gravity is by definition FACT.  

Back to the analogy I love: If I hold a red card up to you and ask you what color it is.  Everyone's answer would be simply, "Red."  The theory in that analogy is that it is red, has always been red, will always be red.  What if I had painted a white card red, or over time it fades and becomes pink.  The law is that you used the word "Red" to describe the color you saw, because the color of the card is "Red" by defintion.  

For a Scientific Theory to become a Law, it must be experimented and proven to be true INFINITELY!  That is why the Theory of Evolution will never become the Law of Evolution, same with Cell Theory, Quantam Theory, or the Theory of Relativity.  Hence my sentence: Theory is as close to fact as Evolution can achieve.  Evolution is trying to explain the diversity and proliferation of the various species found on Earth.  There are many methods of Evolution, the one that is a "Scientific" Theory is Evolution by Natural Selection.  Natural Selection is a LAW, whether species diversification happens solely because of Natural Selection is Theory.  As you can see, there are INFINITE things that must be proven, what makes the scientific belief in Evolution by Natural Selection so strong is that so far (150 years of experimentation by the scientific method), it has yet to be proven false, EVER!

Randy:

Evolution is a theory based on observation of factual evidence? How? Evolution is a theory that is based on a number of assumptions (which is the beginning of science) but it's not provable -- that's where it leaves science. Evolution is simply a theory of "what ifs" -- evolution leaves as many questions as it presents answers. That's not science.

Randy, I'm going to give a very simple experiment to conduct.  Ask all the people in your family from your particular generation if they can roll their tongues and write the proportion down.  Positive:Negative.  Then ask all the people in your family a generation younger than you if they can roll their tongue.  Write the proportion down.  If those two proportions are different, that is the phenomenon of genetic drift.  The underlying principle behind artificial and natural selection.  The next step of acknowledging that across many generations, your entire progeny will all "evolve" into tongue rollers or will completely lose the ability is not that far.    
   
Rick:

 

  I separated my beliefs from religion long ago, since religion was logically inconsistent, and generated irrational conclusions. But this didn't separate me from a belief in a higher power, simply from man's limited definitions. If there is a God and if it is for you to know him, you're not going to find him in a book. If he/she/it exists, you're going to find God in you.

I've actually heard of a philosophy very similar to this one before and you'll never guess where from.  I used to watch a show called Babylon 5, created by Joe Michael Straczynski.  The character that was the doctor on the station, Dr. Stephen Franklin, had similar beliefs and called himself a "Foundationist."  Interesting...

[rickortreat]

And that article you directed me to shows the difference between real scientists using the scientific method, and idealogues who have a pre-concieved belief they're trying to proove- without any success.

This is the problem with idiots, they think they know something and then try to prove it.  Science says we don't KNOW anything, we have to proove what we can and go from there.

Understand what the theory of evoloution is, simply that more complex lifeforms came about -evolved from lower forms.  If you look at human DNA, you can see strands in common with all the lower forms of life, scientific evidence that the theory is corrrect.  

Belief systems like that of the Church, don't stand up to rational scrutiny.  The world is difficult enough to understand without adding on a layer of deception, creating a false value system about appropriate behavior and supernatural consequences for for actions.

The belief in a supernatural being on the other hand, which is neither supportable nor provable, is fine since it could be true, even if the way the Church goes about it isn't.

A consequence of the church's beliefs is idiots trying to prove the unprovable, which is both a waste of their time and limited intellect.  If they actualy could apply rigorus scientific discipline to their work, they might be able to come to some reasonable conclusions.  Instead, all they do is add to the confusion.
 

[Guest_Randy]

Joe,

Evolution itself is scientific fact, demonstrated by observable, factual evidence. We've seen evidence across the course of history of species which have evolved. To this end, evolution is FACT.

In order for something to be fact, it has to be proven.  There is simply no way to prove that the history of species have evolved from single cell organisms to modern day organisms.  If this were fact, we would find transition life forms and fossils would be found in layers.  This simply isn't always the case.

During Columbus day, the world was believed to be flat rather than round -- he was laughed at when they told him that was the case.

IF evolution is true, then we would find transitional creatures in the evolutionary strain, can we?  

Also, if evolution is science -- then it can be proven, right?  Why do we just have to make assumptions that it's correct?

And that article you directed me to shows the difference between real scientists using the scientific method, and idealogues who have a pre-concieved belief they're trying to proove- without any success.

This is the problem with idiots, they think they know something and then try to prove it. Science says we don't KNOW anything, we have to proove what we can and go from there.

Actually, there were a great many things you could have gotten from that article rather than just the fact that everyone who doesn't accept evolution are idiots.  I think if you can adopt an open mind, you can actually learn something -- even when you don't agree.

Understand what the theory of evoloution is, simply that more complex lifeforms came about -evolved from lower forms. If you look at human DNA, you can see strands in common with all the lower forms of life, scientific evidence that the theory is corrrect.

So, the fact that there are strands in common with all lower life forms -- does that PROVE evolution is correct?  I don't think my science teacher would have given me an A on a experiment based on this kind of "proof."  Don't you actually have to "prove" the hypothesis rather than just assuming it's correct?  

If they actualy could apply rigorus scientific discipline to their work, they might be able to come to some reasonable conclusions.

Can you share with me the "rigorous scientific" process and discipline to which evolution has "proven" itself as truth?  And I mean "proof" -- not simply assumptions.  

I'm not here to argue on a belief system -- I didn't point you to the article because of the faith argument -- there were many other interesting points in that article.  Like the majority of people don't actually believe that we are who we are today simply because we found a way to evolve.  Life does have the ability to adapt -- and to learn but evolve?  Man, I'd like two more arms -- how do you do that again?  (before you bust an artery -- that was a joke!!!).  

I see a TON of assumptions made in the belief of evolution -- I don't see the same "rigorous scientific" process and discipline applied to the theory of evolution that I see applied by scientists to other areas.  Why is that?

In fact, I would argue this -- scientists look to defend evolution -- not prove it.  And I don't call that science.

[Joe Vancil]

Skander,

Here is where you're missing one point. All Scientific Laws were in essence indoctrinated as irrefutable truths at conception. Scientific Laws are definitions and parameters that define and circumscribe our entire understanding of a particular field. When Newton discovered his laws, so to speak, it was an observation of an omni-present phenomenon without question as to origin or method. Such as the Law of Gravity which defines the very nature of the relationship between two objects of various sizes in the Universe. All the scientist did was figure out the math behind the observation, but there was never a question of how did gravity come about, what previous form did gravity take, all these questions were irrelevant. The Law of Gravity is by definition FACT.

Wait just a darn minute there!

Scientific Laws are NOT indoctrinated as irrefutable truths at conception!  If you believe that, then all one would have to do is propose a "Law" of Creationism (why mess with Intelligent Design in this case?), and if the person can get a consensus, you've got the new scientific Law of Creationism.  THAT IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS!

Scientific laws are discovered, the math behind them worked out, and are never disproven.  This is what makes a law different than a THEORY, which is merely a hypothesis supported by scientific evidence.

Those theories that are proven go on to become scientific law.  Examples of this are such things as Newton's Law (F=ma), Kepler's Law (planets in orbit sweep out equal areas in equal amounts of time (welcome to music class)), and the Law of Universal Gravitation (F(g)=G©m0*m1/r^2).

Theories which have not made it to "Law" status as of yet are generally not there for one of two reasons:  1) all the gaps have not been filled in, leaving doubt where there should be none or 2) insufficient accuracy or frame of reference exists to verify the theory.

Thus, we correctly refer to the "Theory of Relativity" - which we are insufficiently able to measure, although the rough estimates show we're awful darn close with it or the "Theory of Evolution," since the evolutionary line still has gaps (in other words, we can't (yet) trace the genetic line all the way back to the origins of life).

Scientists today are more careful about using "Law" than they were previously - since too many old "Law"s break down under Einstein's relativistic models.  For example, F=ma is still considered scientific truth, but under relativity, m=m(0)*(1-(v^2/c^2))^.5 -- meaning that as velocity (v) changes, so does mass, and a=dv/dt, which measures the change in velocity.  However, for very low speeds, where v is much less that c, you can easily see that m is very nearly equal to m(0) (rest mass).  Therefore, any error term is extremely low.  I submit to you that if "Newton's Law" were proposed today, until the relativistic part was worked out completely mathematically, it would be referred to as "Newton's Theory of Force."

However, when you say "Cell Theory" or "Quantum Theory," you are proposing a FIELD OF STUDY.  This is the ENGLISH use of the word "theory" rather than the scientific use of the word "theory."  Since, in our study, we examine the evidence in our search for the truth, the word "theory" is used.  We do not refer to the study as "Law" because we are not SURE of what we'll find, nor do we refer to it as "Hypothesis" because we are working from established bodies of scientific evidence rather than developing our own.  This does not mean that what is taught there is "as close to law as you can get."  It means that we are at the border of our current understanding.

You're mixing math and science.  In Science, the proven is referred to as "Law," the unrefuted but supported by evidence as "Theory" and the supposition as "Hypothesis."  In math, the proven is referred to as "theorum," and the basic constructions as "postulates."  Do not confuse mathematical "theorum" with scientific "theory."

 

[Skandery]

Joe,

Wait just a darn minute there!

Scientific Laws are NOT indoctrinated as irrefutable truths at conception! If you believe that, then all one would have to do is propose a "Law" of Creationism (why mess with Intelligent Design in this case?), and if the person can get a consensus, you've got the new scientific Law of Creationism. THAT IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS!

First of all, why does the minute have to be darned?

If someone were to propose a scientific "Law" of Creationism, it would have to be shown scientifically AND mathematically exactly how, why, and by what relationship this particular law operates.  There is where it would break down, since there is no proof, evidence, and it does not define a traceable, calculable process in the universe.  So NO, there would NOT be a scientific "consensus".  

Scientific laws are discovered, the math behind them worked out, and are never disproven. This is what makes a law different than a THEORY, which is merely a hypothesis supported by scientific evidence.

Scientific laws are discovered, EXACTLY.  The math behind them is worked out.  In other words we are using the language of science to define a concept.  The reason they are never disproven is that they are fact, BY DEFINITION.  Search the definition of Scientific Law and you will run across phrases:

"The universe is as it is and scientific laws  are part of the tools we use to try to understand why it is as it is."

"They tend to be the quantitative aspects of theories, the bits that you can set well-structured questions on in exams, the bits that are used in practical work as 'rules of thumb'."

"We cannot expect to find 'laws' of complex systems, and I think that the attempt to do so can lead to serious error."

"Scientific Law - A logical, mathematical statement describing a consistency that applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena when specific conditions are met. Examples of scientific laws: Faraday’s Law of electromagnetic induction, Coulomb’s Law of electrostatic attraction, Dalton’s Law of partial pressures, Boyle’s Gas Law."

Search the definition of Scientific Theory and you will run across these definitions:

"An explanation supported by many tests and accepted by a general consensus of scientists."

"a statement that postulates ordered relationships among natural phenomena."

"An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. In turn, theories may be redefined as new hypotheses are tested. Examples of theories: Newton’s Theory of Gravitation, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Mendel’s theory of Inheritance, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity."

And perhaps the best explanation of laws and theories and how a theory might become a law is this one.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

However, when you say "Cell Theory" or "Quantum Theory," you are proposing a FIELD OF STUDY. This is the ENGLISH use of the word "theory" rather than the scientific use of the word "theory."   

This is wrong, I am using the scientific definition of theory when I refer to Cell and Quantum Theory.  Neither of those things are a "Field of study", they are explanations of phenomenon that have been repeatedly observed and describe a relationship that can help scientists make accurate predictions

The term scientific theory and law, you have to remember, have a little different connotation depending on whether you are talking about Chemistry, Biology, or Physics.  Chemistry and Physics will have an easier time transforming theories into laws based on their heavy emphasis on math.  Biology on the other hand has infinite variables to deal with which is why the Theory of Evolution has an infinite way to go to becoming the Law of Evolution.  So back to my original point, Theory is as close to fact as an explanation of a biological phenomenon can ever hope to achieve.  And it is still a testament to how difficult a task it is for a theory to become a law that Quantam Theory (chemistry) and the Theory of Gravitation (physics) are still not considered laws even with mathematical backing and a wide body of evidence that confirm the relationships.  

 

[rickortreat]

Randy,

Since evolution occurs over a very long period of time, relative to human existance, evidence of evolution is very hard to come by.  In other words, you don't see a new species comming about every day.

All we have in the case of evolution is theory backed by observable evidence, what we can see in fossil records, DNA, biological catalogues and the like.  In addition evidence of evoulution is not a clear, straighforward thing.  The assumption that we should be able to see transitional forms in a fossil record from Ape to Man for example, isn't nessarilly valid.  Why is it impossible for biology to make a "quantum leap" forward?  The differences in DNA between a chimpanzee and a monkey differ by less than 4%, but we're talking about billions of sequences here, just a slight tweak here and there, and instead of a chimp, you've got a human being.

I would suggest that human beings are at the leading edge of evolutionary development on the planet.  Yet, human beings appear to be the same in terms of capacity and ability as they were five thousand years ago.  Five thousand years seems like a lot to a human being, but it's nothing to nature.

So in order to proove evolution you have to be able to observe it in action, all we are able to observe are small modifications in existing creatures, that gradually become larger over a period of time.  I admit that isn't much, but it is the best we can do within the confines of scientific study.

But intelligent design has no evidence behind it at all!  Every creature on the earth could have come about from a single celled organism, the first self replicating entity, which though mutation developed into a myraid of other forms.  We know that nature has produced a multitude of different forms, many of which no longer exist in the world.  If there was intelligent design, why are there so many failures?  It seems far more likely that nature uses a blunt approach, generating a number of different forms, some of which will be successful and survive, and some of which, which fail miserably.  

I would say that for intelligent design to become successful, it would have to explain this observable evidence, wouldn't you?  What happened to all the dinosaurs if they were introduced through intelligent design?  They were around for mllions of years, far longer than man has existed, and here we are, and they don't exist anymore.  Was that a failure of intelligent design, or was it a limitation, that the oragnisims couldn't adapt to the changeing environment of the world?  

It isn't clear if man will continue to survive either,  we may kill ourselves off as our stupidity overwhelmes our capacity to understand how we affect our environment.  We rely on the burning of fossil fuels to provide the energy we need to live.  This is a finite resource, what happens when there isn't any left to make into fertilizer for crops?  We may survive but not be able to sustain a population of 6 billion as we do now.

The other problem with intelligent design is where or who is the designer?  If he went to all the trouble of creating us, wouldn't he be watching to see how his design turned out?  And if we are the product of intelligent design, why are we so apparently flawed?  Continually making mistakes as we first build civilizations which then inevitable collapse.  We've made a huge amount of history in five thousand years, and the political borders are still unstable today. We don't even know what we knew back then, so much of that knowledge was lost in fires, destruction and forgotten languages.

If this is intelligent design, how do you differentiate between that and random growth?

I have an open mind, I recognize that I know very little, but apparently enough not to be a sucker who mistakes myth for facts!

[Guest_Randy]

I have an open mind, I recognize that I know very little, but apparently enough not to be a sucker who mistakes myth for facts!

So in order to proove evolution you have to be able to observe it in action, all we are able to observe are small modifications in existing creatures, that gradually become larger over a period of time. I admit that isn't much, but it is the best we can do within the confines of scientific study.

See, this is where I really struggle with the concept of evolution -- because it can't be proven scientifically, then it's accepted.  Do you not see that?  It's like "this is the best answer we have so let's just accept it as fact."  But that ISN'T science -- that is just an assumption.  If it's JUST an assumption -- then don't present it to everyone as fact.  

I have an open mind, I recognize that I know very little, but apparently enough not to be a sucker who mistakes myth for facts!

See, I really think you have to be a sucker to believe in evolution.  Do you know why the "quatum leap" theory was applied to evolution?  Because they couldn't FIND any transitional creatures so they had to come up with another theory.  Spontaneous evolution is a fairly recent addition to the theory of evolution.  

However, as for your being a sucker who mistakes myth for facts -- ever checked out what the odds are for the "big bang" theory?  Then continue those odds for every "spontaneous" change in evolution.  It leaves the realms of science and begins to look quite wild in probability.  And that's what I find amazing -- that scientists who spend the rest of their life insisting on facts and reason -- will ignore the kind of odds against evolution and simply accept it.  

Personally, I believe it takes as much faith to accept evolution as it does intelligent design.

[WayOutWest]

Personally, I believe it takes as much faith to accept evolution as it does intelligent design.

This is where you lose credibility with me Randy.

There are facts and evidence behind the theory that man evolved from a more primitive form of primate.  There are fossils of gradually changing forms of primates.  Primates that started off on all fours to upright walking ones, primates with gradually increasing cranium sizes, gradually changing jaw structures etc....  

There are gaps in the evidence in the theory that we evolved, but there isn't a COMPLETE LACK OF EVIDENCE like there is behind the idea of creationalism.  

While I do believe there is a higher itelligence out there, it is pretty easy for me to KNOW that it's not the sexist, judgemental, violent and jealous being that is written about in the various religions.  It's just SOOOOOOOOOOOOO obvious that the "God" written about in the various books is the creation of MAN, I'm just so amazed that people cannot see that God was created in man's image.  There are so many small minded triats attributed to "God" in all religions, way to many to be ignored.  I think some day the one we call "God" will show up shaking his head(s) pissed off as hell and set the record strait.  Our first reponse after our scolding will be "oops".

[Guest_Randy]

WOW,

My comment was meant as much as intelligent design as it shows a tremendous amazement for the belief in a system that science itself should have difficulty believing.  Why?  Because it can't be reproduced (I'm talking big bang) -- because scientists are baffled that it could possible happen -- but yet they believe in it.  Even though the odds of it happening are far beyond anything a scientist should endorse.  

There are definately some facts and evidence -- however, as many holes and questions as there are answers from evolution.  My amazement is that scientists seem to look to prove it rather than seeking other answers.  Isn't the idea that scientists are always open to other ideas and theories?

[Joe Vancil]

I've got some thoughts for a few folks out here, but I'm under a mad crunch today.  I'll try to get back to you, but no guarantees.

Quick synopsis:

Skander:  I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's not from a reputable scientific text, I can tell you that.  The words "I think" in one of your quotes have NO BUSINESS in any sort of scientific discussion.  As I've said before, semantics are important when discussing science.  No true scientist would make such a mistake.

Also, whoever is talking about the "Theory of Gravity" is a fool.  Newton's *LAW* of Universal Gravitation establishes gravity as FACT (as we know it).  It is *NOT* the THEORY of Universal Gravitation.  Darwin's and Einstein's work are referred to as THEORY, but Newton's is *NOT*.  (I can't speak to Gregor Mendel's work;  biology is your field, not mine.)  Again, this makes me question your sources.

Rickortreat:  I agree that "Intelligent Design" has no (current) evidence behind it.  That's why I would refer to it as a "hypothesis" rather than a "theory," and encourage everyone else to do the same.

Randy:  Evolution *IS* supported by scientific evidence, and that creatures do evolve is scientific fact.  However, I agree with you in that this doesn't come close to meeting the standards required for us to say with reasonable certainty that all life evolved from the initial same creature(s).  That's why the Theory of Evolution is still regarded as a Theory when asked to determine origins of life.  Some distinguish between Evolution and evolution:  big E versus small e.  The small e evolution is scientific fact.  The big E Evolution, which is about the origins of life, is still in question scientifically.

WayOutWest:  I believe mankind's first reaction after the "scolding" will be defiance..."Who are you to tell us how to live, just because you're GOD?"  Seems to be the general way of thinking of most people.  
 

[Skandery]

Randy,

See, this is where I really struggle with the concept of evolution -- because it can't be proven scientifically, then it's accepted. Do you not see that? It's like "this is the best answer we have so let's just accept it as fact." But that ISN'T science -- that is just an assumption. If it's JUST an assumption -- then don't present it to everyone as fact.

I know you are mostly in a discussion with Rick and WOW but have you actually read any of my posts with my conversation with Joe.  I'm just curious because if you have I really don't see why you keep repeating this idea over and over.  "Scientists can't prove evolution so they defend it blindly and just accept it as fact".  Randy this idea is a TERRIBLE mistake.  Read some of my posts on what evolution is, which part is scientific law, which part is scientific theory, what the definitions of each are and where we draw conclusions, Please.  

I had gathered you for a mostly rational thinker, which is why I'm flabbergasted that you just keep repeating this innane conception you've got that Scientists are maliciously forcing evolution down everyone's throats without a shread of evidence.  

Listen the reason that Evolution as a whole still remains a theory is because all of the holes haven't quite been figured out, BUT there are many many parts to evolution that do happen and do apply to many different species in the past and the present.  And their is monumental evidence to CONFIRM WITHOUT A DOUBT, that evolution does play a part in proliferation of species since organisms first came about on our planet.  

Scientist perform experiments with Drosophila (the fruit fly), an organism that has a generation of just over two weeks.  They have artificially selected for certain traits and physical characteristics and have actually created brand new documented species from the orginal template.  They've done the same experiment with various forms of bacteria.  Ethics, religious and moral obligations keep them from doing it on humans, or else you might see some Randy out there walking around with 3 arms.    

The ONLY question that remains is to what extent does evolution play a part and can we find an organism that doesn't conform to the model.  We, so far, have not found a single organism that doesn't conform, NOT EVEN PEOPLE.        

[Guest_Randy]

I had gathered you for a mostly rational thinker

Hmm, I'm not sure that I've ever claimed to be a rational thinker -- and Lurker would certainly disagree with you here.

Read some of my posts on what evolution is, which part is scientific law, which part is scientific theory, what the definitions of each are and where we draw conclusions, Please.

Honestly, I didn't read your posts -- call it a lack of time or the desire not to be bored by Joe's long ravings on dissecting words.

I think Joe put it pretty well (okay, I did read one of his posts, lol).  I'm not distinguishing the BIG E from the little e.  Because I see they are all tied up within the context of evolution (i.e. the big bang).  This idea IS being forced down people's throats -- it's in every science textbook that I've ever seen.  Now, I don't have a problem with presenting this as a theory -- but they don't write it that way in a textbook -- they write it as fact.  Even though the odds of it actually happening are great enough that it SHOULD cause a scientist to question it on every step!  

As for evolution being accepted -- the concept of evolution gained great acceptance before science began to even prove it's existance.  While I'm certainly not a scientist, I do love history.  Go back and read about Darwin -- but his ideas didn't gain support until about 100 years later -- scientists began accepting his premise before even having proof that it was right.  I don't know whether you call that rationale thinking or not -- I'm not sure that I would call it science.  

I grew up with the understanding that science was based on facts, not on presumptions.  While I do agree that there are facts -- there are also a great number of presumptions.  And those presumptions aren't even presented as presumptions -- they are often presented as fact.  Perhaps I'm not rationale enough not to struggle with that.

[rickortreat]

Randy

Why do you insist on indicating that scientists believe this or that.

The big bang is an old theory, and there is new evidence to suggest that it isn't correct.  In fact the limits of human understading about the true nature of the universe are quite substantial, but we do what we can with what we have.

Not only are you not rational, but you're also lazy, as some of the posts by others on this thread are facsinating and if you took the time to read them, you might develop a better understanding of your own.

The fact that you side-stepped all of my questions about intelligent design theory tells me that you either don't believe in it, or are very uncertain about it.

One more point:  What does beliving in Intelligent Design do for us?  Does is enable us to figure out the next step in biogical evolouton on the planet?  Does it somehow enable us to talk with the designer and ask him what's life all about?  NO! It doesn't do anything to further our understanding, and it gets in the way of serious scientific study and research.

And before you disparage that any further, recognize that if it wasn't for science and the separation between church and state, we'd still be living in the dark ages, and we wouldn't have the internet.

 

[WayOutWest]

Randy,

Why are you trying to tie the big bang to evolution?   So should I tie the KKK or Hitler to the idea of creationalism?  Pretty IRRATIONAL if you ask me, actually if you asked me I say it was STUPID.  But you know me to a certain extent.

FYI, evolution is going on with people as we speak.  Most notably, our ears are evolving.  The ability to survive was dependent to a degree on our ability to hear, along other PHYSICAL traits.  Of our many senses, our sense of sound is nearly impossible to fool.  Back in the "day", being able to hear and smell was just as important as being able to see.  At night our sense of sight was pretty useless, we needed our hearing to protect us from danger.  Our sense of sight is the EASIEST to defeat/fool, so we needed all our senses to survive both day and night.  In the modern world our sense of hearing and smelling is NOT required to survive.  So people with smaller ears are able to survive and propogate.  Since our sense of hearing is getting more and more underutilized our ears will eventually getting smaller and smaller to the point they will just become earholes.  It will take a long time but it will happen unless something major changes in our enviroment.

You can also find PROOF of evolution in amimal breeding, I won't get into the dicussion of slave breeding in humans cause that usually deteriorates rather quickly.  Just look at what dog breeders are able to do, the contraversial challenge to the German Shepard standard is a perfect example of selective breeding creating an evolutionary change to an animal.  The selection is by choice, in nature the selection would have been dictated by survival.

Randy, I also question the "ostrich head in the sand" approach you are taking in this discussion.  You want to harp on one INVALID/UNREALTED point to dismiss the entire debate.  The point is not relative and I think everyone can see that and it makes you look like some close minded zealot.

[WayOutWest]

WayOutWest:  I believe mankind's first reaction after the "scolding" will be defiance..."Who are you to tell us how to live, just because you're GOD?"  Seems to be the general way of thinking of most people.

Actually now that I think about it, I think our first reation will be denial.  My kids have been experts at it since they could speak.

Our first words to "God" will be "uh uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" while WE shake our heads in the univeral NO method.