Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya

[Ullopincrate]

Laws only exist in physics.

In all other scientific disciplines, a Theory is as valid as you can get.

sorry about Mendel. it was late.

False:

Two H atoms and one O atom = water. Chemistry. Law.

 

[FSM]

It really is sad that half the population of this country doesn't accept evolution.


You can't "prove" anything. People say that evolution is "just a theory" as if this diminishes its credibility. They apparently don't realize the difference between the scientific use of the word theory and everyday use of it.

 

[Ullopincrate]

It really is sad that half the population of this country doesn't accept evolution.

It's really sad that half the population does. It's even worse when people post comments without understanding the entire argument thread. Evolution within genus/species yes. big bang, primordial soup, magic single cell organism, =everything... no. We are debating an issue. You are sold on one and are being condescending to others. Myself included. Contribute or stay out of it. Don't flame for the sake of flaming.

 

[Ullopincrate]

If you want in here explain how life happened via chemical reaction because that is what evolution is based on. Your interpretation of evolution anyway.

 

[Cohazard]

If you want in here explain how life happened via chemical reaction because that is what evolution is based on. Your interpretation of evolution anyway.

That is incorrect my friend. Evolution is based on evidence found in the fossil record of animals, and only attempts to explain the change recorded in organisms, and the rise of new species on this planet.

Abiogenesis is based on the idea that life came from non-life, that the first extremely simple 'organisms' came from chemical reactions.

This is one of the many forefront areas of scientific research, because the truth is we just don't know yet.

Check out this wikipedia entry for Abiogenesis which provides several possible explanations regarding the origin of life from chemical reactions, and the problems with those ideas which science is currently trying to understand and solve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

 

[Ullopincrate]

Hello again. I read your article. It stated that "abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter." I have to keep saying this so I don't get flamed by people who don't read the thread. I believe in evolution on a genus/species level but no further.

In order for evolution from a single celled organism to work we have to have the answer to where did the single celled organism come from. Evolution can not happen without life. They can't be separated. Therefore "something" evolved into the single celled organism. This leads us back to abiogenesis .. life coming from nothing (random chemical reactions). I don't see how intelligent design is any more outlandish than this. However I posted an article yesterday on this very issue. I'll amend this post and include the link to it.

Ok here is the link and my anwer to abiogenesis which had to happen in order for evolution to even be. It would be convenient to just start with the single cell but it's biased because it tries to exclude an argument.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=45

I posted it yesterday but got no feedback.

 

[Cohazard]

I read the article, but I didn't like the approach that particular chemist took. As I mentioned already, this is the forefront of our knowledge, and science is working towards an answer or at least an understanding of that which we do not know.

The reason that intelligent design is outlandish at least IMO, is because they claim to have the answer with no evidence. There is a gap of information, information we have not acquired yet, and at that point it is just chalked up to creator.

Science knows that all it has is an idea and at least acknowledges that there are problems with those ideas, but isntead of giving up and claiming with certainty any particular explanation, there will be ongoing study to find an answer to those problems.

Sadly, it seems this is where we come to an impass in this informal debate/discussion. This is where the extent of current scientific knowledges comes to, and with more reseach and data collected, we will be able to pick up where we left off.

Keep an eye out for artificial biology....

If you wanted to keep going, we could now change the subject to the birth of stars, and the kepplar mission to find 'earth-like' planets which may sustain life equal to that found on our planet.

I'm afraid that is another forefront of research, but I am curious as to what the implications will be if we do find life outside of Earth.

 

[Ullopincrate]

I read the article, but I didn't like the approach that particular chemist took.

I didn't like the approach of a few things but I talked about them. But that's cool.

Science knows that all it has is an idea and at least acknowledges that there are problems with those ideas

This isn't to you but others.... There are problems with all of the ideas we discuss here so don't attack people because you disagree. Cohazard and I seem to be able to talk without throwing slurs.

Sadly, it seems this is where we come to an impass in this informal debate/discussion. This is where the extent of current scientific knowledges comes to, and with more reseach and data collected, we will be able to pick up where we left off.

Agree

an eye out for artificial biology....

If you wanted to keep going, we could now change the subject to the birth of stars, and the kepplar mission to find 'earth-like' planets which may sustain life equal to that found on our planet.

I'm afraid that is another forefront of research, but I am curious as to what the implications will be if we do find life outside of Earth.

With the exception of birth of stars which would lead straight back to the Big Bang Theory, I wouldn't mind talking about these things too but there is even more unknown (at least to me) in these areas but I think they are all connected. I think the idea of an earth like planet is entirely possible. Or should is say "I want to believe" (nod to X-Files woot!!) I have been a star gazer all of my life. An amateur (extreme amateur) astronomer. The sky absolutely puts me in awe... What's out there ...... It's overwhelming.

 

[Modest_Man]

Bordering on the off topic, but like I said, gravity is not a law. It's a theory. Until it's measured for every atom and every star it's a theory. As of now, it is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Which makes it a theory. Same thing applies to your 2H + 0 = water.

Everything becomes clear if you assign their proper meanings to words like "theory", "law" etc. in a scientific context. In particular "theory" is not an insult (as in the silly saying "it's just a theory"). A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. In experimental sciences, a theory can never be "proved", it can only be "disproved" by experiment. This is precisely was makes a theory scientific. A statement that cannot be disproved by experiment may still be highly respectable but it's simply not part of any experimental science (it could be mathematics, philosophy or religion, but it's not physics). Now that we have the basic vocabulary straight, we may discuss gravity itself:

Gravity is a physical phenomenon which is obvious all around us.

As such, it's begging for a scientific theory to describe it accurately and consistently. The rules within a theory are called "laws" and the inverse square law of the Newtonian theory of gravitation does describe gravity extremely well. Loosely stated:

"Two things always attract in direct proportion of their masses and in inverse proportion of the square of the distance between them."

However, the Newtonian theory does not provide the ultimate law for gravity. We do know that General Relativity (GR) provides more accurate experimental predictions in extreme conditions (e.g., a residual discrepancy in the motion of the perihelion of Mercury is not explained by Newtonian theory but is accounted for by GR).

Does this mean Newtonian theory is "wrong"? Of course not. Until we have a "theory of everything" (if such a thing exist) ANY physical theory has its range of applicability where its predictions are accurate at a stated level of precision (stating the precision is VERY important in Science; an experimental prediction is MEANINGLESS if it does not come with a margin for error). The Newtonian theory is darn good at predicting the motion of planets within the Solar System to many decimal places... That's all we ask of it and that's what makes it so valuable.

Even General Relativity is certainly NOT the ultimate theory of gravitation. We know that much because GR is a "classical" theory, as opposed to a "quantum" theory. So, GR is not mathematically compatible with quantum phenomena which become obvious at very small scales...

Science is just a succession of better and better approximations. This is what makes it nice and exciting. If you were to insist at all times on "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" in a scientific context, you'd never be able to make any meaningful statement (unless accompanied by the relevant "margin for error"). As a consistent body of knowledge, each theory allows you to make such statements freely, knowing simply that the validity of your discourse is only restricted by the general conditions of applicability of a particular theory. Without such a framework, scientific discourse would be crippled into utter uselessness...

 

[Cohazard]

I didn't like the approach of a few things but I talked about them. But that's cool.


With the exception of birth of stars which would lead straight back to the Big Bang Theory, I wouldn't mind talking about these things too but there is even more unknown (at least to me) in these areas but I think they are all connected. I think the idea of an earth like planet is entirely possible. Or should is say "I want to believe" (nod to X-Files woot!!) I have been a star gazer all of my life. An amateur (extreme amateur) astronomer. The sky absolutely puts me in awe... What's out there ...... It's overwhelming.

Well that's why I posted the link to an explanation and ideas behind Abiogenesis. I haven't had enough time to read into abiogenesis yet, and because the evidence is incomplete, I don't want to argue in support of it until more facts have been establsihed by research.

You might be interested to know that a scientist (I forget which discipline, sorry) used a super computer to crunch the numbers behind data input regarding the speed of life evolution, the estimated age of the universe, stars, etc... The question being asked, was how many advanced intelligent civilizations could there be?

The answer that the computer came up with is at least several hundred, but as many as 300,000 in our galaxy alone! Imagine the shock the whole world will go through if Keppler really does find a planet similar to ours.

Will it be empty ready for us to move in in case this planet is in danger (comet, super nova sun, etc...), or will we be face to face with eyes looking back at us? We'll see....