Except that there is no proof for Creationists. We might as well throw away History books that deal with the time period covered by The Bible if we're going to teach Creationism. You also open up the doors to EVERY relegion, meaning there would have to be one class to deal with every idea of how the Universe was created and how man came to be. We'd hear about Animixander's everchanging world, Zeno's unchanging universe, etc. etc.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Lincoln
How does “autocatalysis” and a random order of RNA produce a code along with a translation process?
How did the “the translation mechanism” come into existence?
You suggesting the self organization of tRNA. How did about 20 of them form themselves to match both the coded instructions in DNA and the appropriate units of the ribosomes?
According to QT, complex structures can form if they are necessary for a later structure. The complexity or probability is irrelevent.
Structures need to be formed to carry information, so they were.
What is, was.
Comment
-
Oh good it finally worked. Who said I was computer illiterate
Anyway that is a tRNA molecule for those not familiar with what we are talking about. Notice the unique folding that exposes the correct order of "letters" so that translation is possible. These little fellas transfer the information from DNA to the ribosomes. Maybe I can get a picture of one of those for further illustration.
Comment
-
Whilst I don't oppose the idea of the Theory of Evolution, I do agree in part that today a lot of what we generally accept as "public scientific knowledge" is actually taken on faith.
For example, the scientists tell us something about gender differences in humans - say, that women have a higher pain threshold than men or something. We shrug and say "okay" or if it's really interesting, we tell the rest of our friends about it. But what proof do we have? We must rely on the alleged findings of a small and by no means comprehensive fraction of society.
In the end, we come to trust scientific theories in pretty much the same blind faith that people once trusted religions.
I'm not complaining about this - for a start, I see a few very important differences (people don't often come to violent conflicts because of scientific differences, whereas religion sometimes causes them) - but I also think it's an interesting thing to keep in mind."lol internet" ~ AAHZ
Comment
-
True to a certain degree but theres a big difference. With science it has to be a repeatable experiment, and is subject to disproval.
If a theory can get through a long time without being disproved by a repeatable experiment, then it is more highly valued.
Of course, this doesn't mean that theories aren't superceded by other further reaching theories... thats less common, however. Generally speaking it happens when a macroscience explains something that someone thought was a discrete science.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Whilst I don't oppose the idea of the Theory of Evolution, I do agree in part that today a lot of what we generally accept as "public scientific knowledge" is actually taken on faith
(etc.)
How are you supposed to argue with somebody who says that the world works such-and-such a way because God told him so?12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum
Comment
-
Krazy>
Because God also told him there was this guy called Noah.. who deforested the land for miles around, to build this boat, and he managed to get 2 of every creature, plant and bug and managed to sustain and breed them on this boat.........
There's another word for that... delusional
Comment
-
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Whilst I don't oppose the idea of the Theory of Evolution, I do agree in part that today a lot of what we generally accept as "public scientific knowledge" is actually taken on faith.
Aristotle said the speed of falling objects was proportional to their weight. Galileo said they fell at the same rate. Galileo's theory can be verified, Aristotle's falsified.
Fossil evidence can also be verified. There are geological strata; there are fossils; and certain fossils only show in certain strata. I myself have verified this, as have countless others.
People once refused to believe in the atom. The atom's existence could only be shown by inference. But the physicists built the atom bomb. Quite a dramatic confirmation.
There are thousands of experiments that do not require elaborate equipment to perform. But every experimental test of evolution has only strengthened the theory.
Humans are already manipulating genes. Like the atomic bomb, genetics will change everything so there will be no doubting. Evolve or become extinct.
Comment
-
WOW. I was going to go into depth on one or two things, but this thread is all over the place, so I think my little thoughts would just be lost in the din.
Early in the thread Draco aka Se7eN said he wanted some fossil evidence or proof. Click this link, dude:
It is a link to a page concerning ichthyosaurs. Ichthyosaurs are a study in miniature on evolution. The fossil record practically speaks for itself. There is no need to worry, you don't have to be a graduate student to understand the concepts and the writing on this site. It is fairly light stuff.
If you find this interesting, maybe you will be willing to research some more fossil evidence on your own. It is fascinating."In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed. But they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love. They had 500 years of democracy and peace. And what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
—Orson Welles as Harry Lime
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jack_www
Recent observations that have been made show the Universe is extremely complex in nature.
Various formations exist, that could not have formed by gravity alone.
Thus great amount of energy was needed to organize the Universe, second law of thermodynamics.
If someone created Universe, we can come up with a very simple explanation as to where this energy came form, a Creator.
Anything you can say the Universe must have also applies to a creator.
Also with the theory of relativity, the equation E=mc^2, energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared, this can be reversed as has been done in particle accelerators that energy can be used to form matter. Thus showing how the Creator of Universe could transform His energy into the matter that is in the Universe today.
'We don't know therefor a unknown magical god did it.'
The vast majority of Creationist claims boil down to that.
Lately they have been hiding the additional thought that they think the creator is Jehovah. Duplicity thy name is ICR.
The creation model, there is no problem with the fact that the earth is billions of years old. The term used in Genesis that is translated “day” can represent long periods of time. Also the explosions of life we see in the fossil record fit very nicely with this model, if they were created they would appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no links to previous forms of life.
Insects, such as flies and beetles, remained unchanged since there appeared in the fossil record millions of years ago.
Where are those gigantic insects of the Permian for instance. Extinct thats where. Not exactly perfect creations were they?
This can be said for the different forms of life we see in the world today, since they appeared in the fossil record, they have changed very little.
They only problem is that many scientist who believe life was created have not come up with a model which they can use to make predictions as to what we will find and see if they come true.
Comment
-
Jack that Document you attached was from twelve years ago. Its obsolete.
For instance.
the strongest piece of evidence for the big bang has turned on it. Matter is not found to be spread out uniformly. Correspondingly, the leftover radiation from the big bang should be inhomogeneous. Unfortunately, the results from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite, recently launched to investigate the microwave background, has revealed that this wash of radiation is relentlessly uniform. So it conflicts with the theoretical big bang predictions.
He has some good points there but some of them are no longer valid. Twelve years is a long time in science these days. Not quite as long as internet time but a lot longer than when Darwin was born.
Comment
-
Yeah. Large-scale inhomogenities have been verified in the last little while. Remember discussing it with fellow student few years back.12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum
Comment
Comment