SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - The Creation vs Evolution debate thread...

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - The Creation vs Evolution debate thread... (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=158450)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolas (Post 1211294)

I do not believe in random chance, i dont think serious evolutionist think on that, because if you studied books of science on how the animals evolved they evolved to good, not to have deformations or things like that, if all is random there is no way the body of animal could get better only by chance.

It is not only by chance. Mutations are random, natural selection is not. In the long run beneficial traits are selected for by environmental and predatory attrition.

Just because you do not know what evolution is is not does not make it any less true.

Quote:

I do not believe in random chance

Throw a dice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1211426)

Throw a dice.

:up: Excellent!

I can recommend doing some research on "The Heike crab" as an example of human caused "evolution".

If man can influence such a change in a few hundred years, it is not unreasonable to expect nature to influence other similar changes over millions of years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1211288)

It has everything to do with random chance and nothing to do with intelligent design.

And that random chance is the link that could be interpreted in a metaphysical way. Or the mere fact that there is existence in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1211426)

Throw a dice.

God doesn't play dice! ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 1211474)

Another example is the peppered moth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shearwater (Post 1211512)

Another example is the peppered moth.

I had totally forgotten about that moth. Good example!

Kind of weird reading this type of thread again....

I believe WWII happened..I believe the Civil War happened...I believe most of what has been written historicaly about world events going back to scrolls written by Muslims,Buddahists or Jews.....the telling of stories by people is what life is all about.

Every person makes his own choices and beliefs based on his own life experienices and what ideas he chooses to entertain.

Personally I love hearing stories of others....I have met 3 people in my life now who have been clinically dead and the most recent was hit by a drunk driver,head cracked open...was dead on the table....was told he'd never walk etc etc....he walks into our meeting every day.

Point I am trying to make is the stories past down through history sure are going to have embellishments along the way but to discount things merely on the basis of them sounding unbelieveable is kinda selling yourself short.People have some KICK ASS stories ...true stories.

I believe Lazurus was raised from the dead...I believe in the power of faith in Christ almost enough to walk on the water with him...I also find it kinda of funny when people throw around figures like billions of years like that is some "Big" thing ...to God a being who claims immortality what is time?

Time is a frame of reference in imortality....evolution I believe is just a word describing Gods work anyways ....my personal theory....

One is forced to live on some faith....our soldiers have faith in theyre brothers to watch they're backs...I also have faith that the sun will rise tommorrw...if it does not then I have faith in God that the reason it is not, is that it may be time for a change. :sunny:

Well have a good day peeps.

Enjoy the ride.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shearwater (Post 1211512)

God doesn't play dice! ;)

Heh, very apt. Even Einstein was blinded by religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shearwater (Post 1211512)

God doesn't play dice! ;)

How would you know?

Quote:

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis (Post 1211624)

Heh, very apt. Even Einstein was blinded by religion.

Nooo!
Einstein's 'god' is a metaphor for, or a personification of the
meta-physics that fall into philosophy, rather than science.
He is saying that the laws of the universe can no be random, not that
there is a god and he doesn't gamble.

Besides, despite Copenhagen, Einstein may well be right. it is empirically
impossible to find evidence of true randomality as opposed to hidden
non-random mechanisms.

Einstein, religion, God. I think this late letter by him clears any questions on the issue. And yes, the letter is authentic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Guardian 13th May 2008

An abridgement of the letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind from Princeton in January 1954, translated from German by Joan Stambaugh. It will be sold at Bloomsbury auctions on Thursday

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. Einstein

... I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things. With friendly thanks and best wishes

Yours, A. Einstein

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ience.religion
translated from the german

Well you know how scientists like to use doublespeak slang when they talk to each other... :up:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum (Post 1212046)

Oh, I was just being flippant. I know he didn't subscribe to any regular religion like Christianity or whatever. I heard that he defined God as "the natural laws of the universe" or something like that? Perhaps I should have said he was blinded by his "faith".

Quote:

Besides, despite Copenhagen, Einstein may well be right. it is empirically
impossible to find evidence of true randomality as opposed to hidden
non-random mechanisms.

Interesting, I didn't know that. But that doesn't make him right, when you consider what he was saying. Wasn't he was disagreeing with the theories of quantum mechanics? But they actually hold water whether or not the (apparent) randomness seen in the behaviour of sub-atomic particles really is random (as opposed to being governed by hidden non-random mechanisms) don't they? Making him wrong either way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis (Post 1212204)

Wasn't he was disagreeing with the theories of quantum mechanics?

That's never been quite my impression. I think he just found QT a
little 'superficial' or incomplete. He thought that probability fields and
"spooky action at a distance" where superficial in the way that gravity
was a superficial "spooky action at a distance" before Einstein.
He didn't disagree the QM explained results. He said it is a
"surprisingly good representation of an immense variety of facts", he
just thought there was a better way to explain them without using a
statistical approach, unless probability is used to describe what we
know about a system, rather than what the system is actually like.

The parts of QM his hunches disagreed with are almost all impossible
to be proved wrong. It's also impossible to prove that any theory is
complete, whilst it is not impossible to show that a theory is
incomplete. So if anyone is going to have the last laugh, it's Einstein.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum (Post 1212275)

Good to know.
I was under the impression that QT does not necessarily imply action at a distance. A quick browse of my old friend Wikipedia tells me I'm right (or at least that Wikipedia agrees with me ;)) and that action at a distance is implied only if you assume that Einsteins hidden variables do exist. Which puts Einstein in a bit of a tight spot if you ask me. His theory is only correct if his reasons for believing it are incorrect. So, funnily enough, he's still wrong either way.