Evolution, just a big hoax?

THMRK · 29 Jun 2007 at 18:08

I always found the ID idea bit funny. Trying to basically offer an alternative to a damn good theory and compeltely disregarding the idea the evolution can go hand in hand with the idea of a deity.

It just seems in my mind that making up some pseudoscientific idea is a lot more work than assuming that the theory of evoultion is a good one and still having faith in God. After all, couldn't one just assume that evoultion is representative of Gods genius, and completely disregard the idea of trying to disprove evoultion?

To me, it just makes more sense if you put science at the forefront of exploration and trying to ask "how" and using religion to answer the "why" part. After all, science doesn't care about "why"...right?

Just a thought.

Nitefly · 29 Jun 2007 at 18:11

jidh007 said:
Hehe, I just dislike the fact how two parties it seems in this topic are trying to disprove one theory or the other. I don't think we know enough to disprove anything, but Dolph's right, it just displays preference in method, not about who is right or who is wrong.

I think I should've stayed out of this as well

The thread is full of comments as you mention on "proving a theory wrong", yet as far as evolution as a model stands, its flawless.

However, if anyone does get the one example which provides arguably some evidence against evolution, I will give them a cookie

Dolph · 29 Jun 2007 at 18:15

Nitefly said:
I know of one, and calling it a flaw or not is debatable. Otherwise, Try me.

I really should have stayed out of this....

I tried, I looked at this thread this morning and thought I'd stay out of it....

iCraig · 29 Jun 2007 at 18:22

Dolph said:
I tried, I looked at this thread this morning and thought I'd stay out of it....

Did my defence of scientific theory upset you?

I only preach what I've learnt so far.

Superdude · 29 Jun 2007 at 18:35

When asked "do I BELIEVE in Evolution?" I say no.

Instead I KNOW evolution exisits as shown to me by the almost undeniable evidence.

Sure it's a "theory" but an incredibly convincing one at that.

Thats all I'm contributing to this thread.

Dolph · 29 Jun 2007 at 18:39

iCraig said:
Did my defence of scientific theory upset you? I only preach what I've learnt so far.

I didn't see anything upsetting from you

What I will say is the more you learn, the less 'true' everything becomes

Dolph · 29 Jun 2007 at 18:41

Superdude said:
When asked "do I BELIEVE in Evolution?" I say no.

Instead I KNOW evolution exisits as shown to me by the almost undeniable evidence.

Sure it's a "theory" but an incredibly convincing one at that.

Thats all I'm contributing to this thread.

Do you know the results to be true or the mechanism? They are largely two seperate things. The evidence is the results, the mechanism the simplest way it could have occured. I believe the results to be true, but cannot have the same confidance that the mechanism is correct...

iCraig · 29 Jun 2007 at 18:41

Ah ok. I love science you see, but I'm never sure if I'm explaining the scientific methods properly.

Right, back to teaching people how gravity can be stopped with a bit of cheese and a glass tube. :cool:

Dolph · 29 Jun 2007 at 18:46

iCraig said:
Ah ok. I love science you see, but I'm never sure if I'm explaining the scientific methods properly.

I love science too for what it is, a method of creating models that predict how the universe behaved/will behave. For that it's wonderful, fantastic and incredible. For that, it doesn't matter whether the mechanism is truely correct (that's why newtonian mechanics are still useful for example, it's not correct, but it's accurate, same with various chemistry models).

What I don't love about science is some scientists (and a lot of non-scientists) taking all those mechanisms as truth, and claiming they mean various things that they don't.

Right, back to teaching people how gravity can be stopped with a bit of cheese and a glass tube.

Experiments rock

SteveOBHave · 29 Jun 2007 at 18:52

Nitefly said:
The thread is full of comments as you mention on "proving a theory wrong", yet as far as evolution as a model stands, its flawless.

However, if anyone does get the one example which provides arguably some evidence against evolution, I will give them a cookie

I don't know about flawless but it's pretty damned convincing - Re: my asteroid idea - it was just that an idea or an example of a theory and about as substantial as the idea of a primordial soup. Before you go all 'scoff scoff' on the subject do a bit more research. In the origin of life it is an accepted hypotheses that life could conceivably been extra-planetary or extra-terrestrial.

Be a good chap and make a big effort to not be quite so superior as I'm sure you know it can be quite offensive. Being short on time is no excuse for being insulting.

Dolph · 29 Jun 2007 at 19:01

SteveOBHave said:
I don't know about flawless but it's pretty damned convincing - Re: my asteroid idea - it was just that an idea or an example of a theory and about as substantial as the idea of a primordial soup. Before you go all 'scoff scoff' on the subject do a bit more research. In the origin of life it is an accepted hypotheses that life could conceivably been extra-planetary or extra-terrestrial.

The model is currently flawless, it predicts and explains everything pretty nicely, which is what it's supposed to do. The mechanism itself does not have to be accurate to reality if the results map correctly to reality.

The fact that there are plenty of other mechanisms that could also result in the same data doesn't change the model's validity, with the sole exception of if another model is simpler but gives the same results.

Be a good chap and make a big effort to not be quite so superior as I'm sure you know it can be quite offensive. Being short on time is no excuse for being insulting.

I don't think he was being superior, his post is perfectly accurate, with the correct terminology and caveats to define exactly what it means. A flawless scientific model accurately predicts all emperical data, that's all. It doesn't imply an accurate mechanism, and it should never be assumed that it does.

RDM · 29 Jun 2007 at 19:07

photoshop said:
Being an engineer,

photoshop said:
Gravity is 9.81m/s, always has been 9.81m/s, and always will be 9.81m/s.............thats ID and not Evo

I am assuming you are an engineer that didn't do physics?

Gravity is not 9.81m/s as that is a velocity while gravity isn't a velocitiy it is an acceleration, so would be 9.81m/s2. Additionally Gravity is only 9.81m/s2 on Earth, it is greater or lesser depending upon the mass of the attracting body.

Nitefly · 29 Jun 2007 at 19:07

SteveOBHave said:
I don't know about flawless but it's pretty damned convincing - Re: my asteroid idea - it was just that an idea or an example of a theory and about as substantial as the idea of a primordial soup. Before you go all 'scoff scoff' on the subject do a bit more research. In the origin of life it is an accepted hypotheses that life could conceivably been extra-planetary or extra-terrestrial.

Be a good chap and make a big effort to not be quite so superior as I'm sure you know it can be quite offensive. Being short on time is no excuse for being insulting.

You mean the panspermia hypothesis. What does that have anything to do with the primorial soup?

My original 'scoff' was that the primordial soup does not say that earth is a closed system. That would break the laws or thermodynamics, which is a different argument against evolution altogether. The idea of the primordial soup is that the Earth is not a closed system, not the other way around, unless I have misread you.

However, I do apologise as I probably did come across as pompous.

caeteez · 29 Jun 2007 at 19:09

Why does it matter how life began? I admit, it is a mind bending question that is intriguing to understand, but its so easy to get wrapped up in it.

We are here, so just live your life and be happy with it. Spending time engaging in where we come from and why we are here just makes you loose direction in regards to your own personal future.

I for one support the scientific theories on the origins of life, but I don't let them take up time in my life. Its unlikely that we will know anything about the origins of life for a very very long time/ever, so running round in circles with endless theories is just a brain ****.

RDM · 29 Jun 2007 at 19:10

scorza said:
Criticise it for what it is - pseudoscience, not for what it isn't (the Book of Genesis).

Being intellectually honest though we know how and why ID exists, it exists to try and get some form of creationism taught in schools in the US, it exists to try to get around the seperation of Church and State that the US has.

It is psuedoscience, backed by the Christian right, to introduce creationism by the back door.

titchard · 29 Jun 2007 at 19:42

iCraig said:
Spot on. If things were any other way, we wouldn't even have a 'way'.

Well, only the way in which we exist - if the universe was created on different values, life could still evolve possibly around, iron and mercury as there main substances (as opposed to carbon and water).

We only think that life exists on carbon / water planets as we need that - surely in harsher environment life finds a way.

Rich

krisboats · 29 Jun 2007 at 19:50

RDM said:
I am assuming you are an engineer that didn't do physics?

Gravity is not 9.81m/s as that is a velocity while gravity isn't a velocitiy it is an acceleration, so would be 9.81m/s2. Additionally Gravity is only 9.81m/s2 on Earth, it is greater or lesser depending upon the mass of the attracting body.

I thought that was how it went but didn't want to say anything incase i was wrong

SteveOBHave · 30 Jun 2007 at 14:42

Nitefly said:
You mean the panspermia hypothesis. What does that have anything to do with the primordial soup?

That's the one. Exogenesis is not directly related to the primordial soup/sea theory at all, however it is (unless I have entirely the wrong end of the stick) an alternative theory for the origin of life and therefore of a relevant subject.

My original 'scoff' was that the primordial soup does not say that earth is a closed system. That would break the laws or thermodynamics, which is a different argument against evolution altogether. The idea of the primordial soup is that the Earth is not a closed system, not the other way around, unless I have misread you.

However, I do apologise as I probably did come across as pompous.

My bad. 'Closed system' was a poor choice of terms to describe what I was trying to get across. The impression I get from the primordial sea theory is that life developed on it's own on this planet. Accepting that life has had to have developed in this manner somewhere sometime in this universe then it is a perfectly logical assumption to make that there is a remote probability that it occurred on Earth in exactly the same manner.

For some reason I find it a bit easier to believe that the seeds of life on this planet resulted from a pre-existing source and developed from when the planet became accommodating. I wont even begin to pretend that I have even the most remote grasp on the statistical values of the probability of either of these theories occuring but the latter seems to me to be of a higher value.

Dave · 30 Jun 2007 at 14:54

RDM said:
. . . while gravity isn't a velocitiy it is an acceleration . . .

Well, gravity is a force, not acceleration. Acceleration due to gravity is an acceleration.

I'm an engineer who does do physics, and is quite pedantic at that

This post is to be ignored, I'm just being pedantic to "get one back" for a fellow engineer.

Combat squirrel · 30 Jun 2007 at 16:22

Well iv already said what needed to be said earlier and also linked the previous thread on the same topic, but saw this and just had to post:

Sorted