Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[Ethelred]

Going to get Lucy here again. I couldn't even remove the buggered code from the original post. It may just be that the post was too bleeding large.




YES YES YES. Its exactly the same code that I wasn't allowed to chage the original to.

See that hip. On chimps the angle between the ball part and the main femur is 90 degrees so chimps can't put their feet underneath them. That is why chimps lurch from side to side when they walk. Its why Lucy is said to have walked erect.

Too bad her knee isn't there. Another fossil from stata a little older than Lucy was found has the knee only and its as human like as Lucy's hip joint is.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
What do you do when you have two incompatible yet undeniable phenomena? You can expand and/or contract one and/or the other theory, add additional complexity (which will most likely happen on the relativity side... quantum theory has quite enough complexity already, thank you very much ) or formulate an additional theory.

Or combine the two, such that they different effects are paramount at different scales. Planck seemed to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe pretty well when considering black body radiation. Perhaps a similarity exists for the extremes of GR and QM.

[MrBaggins]

The issue is that General Relativity has no method for dealing with uncertain states. All evidence indicates that General Relativity is Quantum Theories b-i-t-c-h You cannot integrate a deterministic single state directly into a uncertain multistate reality. GR has to be somehow integrated with QM and then modified by QFT.

Did you read my post on page [EDIT not 16] 17, near the middle, regarding QFT.

[MrBaggins]

To be syntactically correct, QM already has a way of dealing with a larger scale... a quantum field.

No one thinks that a grouping of Quanta are GR effects, they are QF effects.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Ethelred
How about you and Bagggins and Zack start up a thread entitled

Noah's Big Assed Boat

That would be a more appropriate thread.

(Thread title freely stolen from a thread on the Maximum PC forums.)

Well, I never!

To get back on topic, the Theory of Evolution should be included because it is the wonder that creates unlimited spam on internet forums.

[loinburger]

Baggins: I thought that Superstring theory was supposed to be the next big thing that encompasses GR and QM.

[MrBaggins]

No.. GR deals with singulaties. QFT deals with infinites.

Superstring is just a way of describing a quantum, and its apparent 90% or so connection to a particle.

You shouldn't mix the terms.

[Jack_www]

Man, every time I go away and come back and look at this thread there is 5 pages that have been added to it!!! I dont even have enough time to read through it all!!!!

[Lung]

Different thread, same crap!

While i wholeheartedly give compliments to Ethelred for his unfailing dedication to correcting to perpetuated falsehoods of the creationists, there really need not be any discussion at all. All of the creationist arguments used here have been taken from creationists who blatantly lie to fulfill their own agenda, which bible = undisputed fact (in their eyes); therefore all arguments to the contrary must be discredited in any way possible. However, as they are on the wrong side of the truth fence, their only option is to lie. How very unchristian!!

Why should the evolutionists defend evolution against blatant falsehoods when the creationist protagonists are only interested in defending the bible regardless of the truth?

All of the creationists who post on this thread are lying hypocrites. Give us something intelligent to discuss, or SOD OFF!!

As for Jack_www, i think the answer you're looking for lies in what you want to believe. If you want to believe that the bible is unquestioningly true, then you will believe it so. If you're prepared to see the truth, you will see it somewhat different to what you have been led to believe.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Lung

Why should the evolutionists defend evolution against blatant falsehoods when the creationist protagonists are only interested in defending the bible regardless of the truth?

The biggest reason to keep arguing those creationists is to prevent anyone to actually believe them. I once actually thought that watchmaker analogy made perfect sense! After reading it with some sense in my head it didn't make sense anymore.
If no one tells the "truth" about evolution some one might think that those creationists have a good point. No one can ever turn a creationists head so that they could see the Light and Truth, but at least we can prevent them from spreading their propaganda with our resistance.

Creationist version of my post:

The biggest reason to keep arguing those evolutionists is to prevent anyone to actually believe them. I once actually thought that evolution theory made perfect sense! After reading it with some sense in my head it didn't make sense anymore.
If no one tells the Truth about evolution some one might think that those evolutionists have a good point. No one can ever turn an evolutionists head so that they could see the Light and Truth, but at least we can prevent them from spreading their propaganda with our resistance.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by loinburger
Baggins: I thought that Superstring theory was supposed to be the next big thing that encompasses GR and QM.

The new 'big thing' is M-theory and d-branes. Instead of the fundamental objects being strings, people are toying with the idea of them being higher dimensional membranes. It is conjectured (although not yet proven) that all the different string theories which have been found are just different limits of this new M-theory.

Another interesting development out there at the moment is the concept of extra dimensions. These come in two different flavours: large extra dimensions and 'Randall-Sundrum' or warped extra dimensions.

The large extra dimensions theories postulate that there are extra space-time dimensions which are curled up really small so that we can't see them. This is still well within experimental bounds (I think the experimantal limits are something on the scale of a micron for the radius of compactification - amazingly big!). The nice thing here, is that the extra dimansions being curled up, brings the Planck scale right down to possibly as low as 1TeV (in the reach of the LHC which is being built presently). This is why there has been recent interest in the idea of creating black hols in collider experiments.

The RS theories are a bit different. There, they also have extra dimansions but we are contrained to live on a 4d surface imbedded in higher dimensional space-time. Gravity is similarly constrained to another surface but its affects propagate in the 'bulk' and reach us in diluted form (which is why gravity is so weak).

To be honest, I don't like these models much. One should be aware that the problems with Quantum Gravity are greatly exaggerated in popular lore. We already have a theory of Quantum Gravity called Supergravity (basically a local version of Supersymmetry), which people use to make predictions for what will be seen at colliders being built right now. It has some problems (most noticably, there is no factorization of scales - the theroy is intimately dependent on what happens at higher energies), but as I pointed out, our current low energy theories also have big problems.

The string theories, M-theory, (but not extra dim) are mainly attempts to solve these problems with Supergravity - not to replace them. In fact Supergravity tends to drop out of these theories naturally at lower energy (all string theories, for example are supersymmertic).

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Lung
How very unchristian!!

Why should the evolutionists defend evolution against blatant falsehoods when the creationist protagonists are only interested in defending the bible regardless of the truth?
. . .
As for Jack_www, i think the answer you're looking for lies in what you want to believe. If you want to believe that the bible is unquestioningly true, then you will believe it so. If you're prepared to see the truth, you will see it somewhat different to what you have been led to believe.

Many arguments are semantic. When each party uses words in different ways, then they can argue forever without a resolution. For instance, is the Bible "true?" I believe it is truthfully told, but cannot be interpreted simplistically from a scientific point of view. The writers of the Bible were not scientists, nor were they interested in the scientific point of view (Science hadn't even been invented yet!) They told what they knew to be true. Noah's world did flood. He was warned and survived. Did the globe flood? Of course not. That is not what the Bible says, no matter how many times the fundamentalists try to assert otherwise. Does the earth really have a foundation and a corner stone? Of course not. They were speaking in terms Job could understand of the purpose of life and the reason for human suffering.

Meanwhile, science has made huge progress in explaining the natural world. And as a Christian I am amazed how people who consider themselves Christians will distort the truth to justify God. Everyone knows of the persecution of Galileo. How can we repeat the mistake of arresting a pious old man who tells the truth? Do modern Christians realize they are playing the part of the Pharasees? God needs no human justification.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar. If iron rules Caesar's world, so be it. And render unto God that which is God's. His world is ruled by truth.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Did the globe flood? Of course not.

True. Try telling that to a fundamentalist. Some of them even think Noahs Ark has been photographed by US spy satelites.

That is not what the Bible says, no matter how many times the fundamentalists try to assert otherwise.

Actually it DOES say it. It says ALL the crawled on the Earth died and it even says that was the intent of Jehovah. It says the highest mountain was covered which clearly requires everything lower to be covered as well.

Have you actually read Genesis? It really says those things.

Does the earth really have a foundation and a corner stone? Of course not. They were speaking in terms Job could understand of the purpose of life and the reason for human suffering.

Job could have understood other things just as easily. Sounds like in your view the Bible needs a rewrite. Just try not to get strung up doing it.

Meanwhile, science has made huge progress in explaining the natural world. And as a Christian I am amazed how people who consider themselves Christians will distort the truth to justify God.

Want to discuss Exodus? You should the fundamentalists squirm when I quote the Bible accurately instead of use the kiddy versions they are thinking of.

In the Kiddy version of the Flood Noah warns his neighbors. Not in the Bible though. In fact Jehovah makes it very clear that Noah and his family are the only humans he wants to survive.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar. If iron rules Caesar's world, so be it. And render unto God that which is God's. His world is ruled by truth.

Which has nothing to do with the Old Testament and the reasons for fundamentalism. If the Bible is just the word of men it has no more meaning then any other religious document. That is why the Fundamentalist insists its all exactly true. If it isn't all true then it just the writing of men. Ignorant men at that.

Why believe anything in the Bible if you don't except it all?

Barring the occasional mundane items that can be proved that is.

[Ming]

Gee... How did I miss this thread going past the 500 post limit...

Oh well... case closed. If you want to continue the discussion, just start a new thread and provide a link back to this thread in the first post...

Have fun.