Creation vs. Evolution

[niky]

While I am on the evolutionist's side, I also subscribe to the possibility of The Matrix Theory.

Somebody somewhere in an alternate universe, one day long long ago, could have very well created our Universe on his computer, programmed a few basic bacteria and other one-celled organisms, as well as the basic rules of genetics, then let the system run itself for several billion years.

Why even go to that much trouble? Why not program in the basic laws of the unified theory, run a Big Bang sequence, and see what kind of Universe arises from it? If you don't like the results, tweak a few parameters, reset, run again.

The question is... why would the programmer go to the trouble of writing the code for bacteria very specifically after writing the code for the physical laws that allow organic matter to exist in the first place? Why not just run the simulation through, instead?

The problem with ID is, they counter that such complexity cannot arise from non-complexity... but anyone who has stayed up for hours upon hours tweaking code in Conway's Game of Life understands how you can get some impressively complex patterns merely by inputting some relatively simple rulesets.

You don't need to program the Matrix. You enter the most basic of quantum rules, then allow things to run their course. Of course, you'd need an extremely powerful multi-dimensional computer to run a simulation of the entire observable universe.

 

[Dotini]

Here's an article which says death may not exist, based on the notion that energy may be neither created nor destroyed, and quantum factors such as multiverses.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-death-exist-new-theo_b_384515.html

A brief passage:
"Consider an experiment that was recently published in the journal Science showing that scientists could retroactively change something that had happened in the past. Particles had to decide how to behave when they hit a beam splitter. Later on, the experimenter could turn a second switch on or off. It turns out that what the observer decided at that point, determined what the particle did in the past. Regardless of the choice you, the observer, make, it is you who will experience the outcomes that will result."

 

[DK]

Elegance, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Which is why I love Skylines. On topic, I find the Book of Genesis to be complete and utter rubbish. Do you know how little we knew about the world when the Bible was written? Back in those days, unexplainable phenomena where attributed to a higher being, i.e. God.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Here's an article which says death may not exist, based on the notion that energy may be neither created nor destroyed, and quantum factors such as multiverses.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-death-exist-new-theo_b_384515.html

A brief passage:
"Consider an experiment that was recently published in the journal Science showing that scientists could retroactively change something that had happened in the past. Particles had to decide how to behave when they hit a beam splitter. Later on, the experimenter could turn a second switch on or off. It turns out that what the observer decided at that point, determined what the particle did in the past. Regardless of the choice you, the observer, make, it is you who will experience the outcomes that will result."

...but we still evolved, right?

 

[Dotini]

...but we still evolved, right?

I'm moved by evidence that we've...DEvolved.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we humans have recently acted so selfishly, self-destructively, stupidly and unsustainably, that I'm forced to ponder this unwelcome development.


Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[Joey D]

We might have de-evolved in some aspects, but physically I'm pretty certain we have evolved just by looking at pre-homo sapiens.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm moved by evidence that we've...DEvolved.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we humans have recently acted so selfishly, self-destructively, stupidly and unsustainably, that I'm forced to ponder this unwelcome development.

Just because our ability to act "self-destructively, stupidly and unsustainably" has only recently become obvious, it doesn't mean that those traits weren't always there to begin with, and hence the emergence of these facets of our character are not an indication that we are somehow "devolving". It is in our nature to be selfish just as much as it is for any other species to act in their own interests. But although it may now be in our interests to live within sustainable limits, I don't believe that it is 'in our nature' to do so. Given that the whole web of life is a competitive struggle to survive and actually requires us to exploit natural resources to do so, I would argue that it is infact in our nature to disregard long term sustainability in favour of a shorter term survivalist view. Whatever the case may be, this approach has certainly paid massive dividends for our species up until now, and could do for some time to come yet. But at the same time, it is no guarantee that this approach is always going to be the best for us, and it is my feeling that as our massive success at colonising the planet continues unabated, it will become exponentially harder for us to successfully meet the sustainability issues we face.

 

[Danoff]

I'm moved by evidence that we've...DEvolved.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we humans have recently acted so selfishly, self-destructively, stupidly and unsustainably, that I'm forced to ponder this unwelcome development.

Are you suggesting that other animals exist on some higher level of development than we do? Other animals act more selfishly, stupidly, unsustainably, and depending on your use of the term, self-destructively than we do.

 

[Dotini]

We might have de-evolved in some aspects, but physically I'm pretty certain we have evolved just by looking at pre-homo sapiens.

Joey, according to my reading in paleoanthropology, Heidelbergensis carried more height and more muscle than modern humans, and are credited with larger skulls than Neanderthal, who themselves often had larger brain cases than modern humans.

A complete adult skull found in Ethiopia, H. sapiens idaltu, and dating to 160,000 years ago, had a huge vault of 1450cc, above the modern average. Science Vol 300 13 June 2003, p164.

Good fossils of our ancestors are rare and hard to come by. It's likely that unrecovered specimens of these species could turn up with even more impressive specifications.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[Joey D]

Joey, according to my reading in paleoanthropology, Heidelbergensis carried more height and more muscle than modern humans, and are credited with larger skulls than Neanderthal, who themselves often had larger brain cases than modern humans.

A complete adult skull found in Ethiopia, H. sapiens idaltu, and dating to 160,000 years ago, had a huge vault of 1450cc, above the modern average. Science Vol 300 13 June 2003, p164.

Good fossils of our ancestors are rare and hard to come by. It's likely that unrecovered specimens of these species could turn up with even more impressive specifications.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

I believe you're right with the brain size, it's been a while since Anthro 101 for me. However, Homo Sapiens still evolved and were better because we are still here and the other genus of Homo are extinct. In the survival of the fittest, we were the fittest and while we might not have had as large of brain we used our's better to combat various challenges. Perhaps I should have been clearer with my comments.

And you are right, the fossil record isn't nearly what it should be for our ancestors which is a shame. I'd really like to know all I can about where I came from. We are making some pretty good discoveries though.

 

[CTznOfTime]

To answer to the first question of this thread:

EVOLUTION ...

(just like the car, which was created by Mitsu, then got evolved to #X)

So we were created as chimps, then we evolved from there on...
Adam and Eve were in fact what you would see in the zoo


I believe in the separation of the church and the state... more than what it is now...

even thought my background is based on two religions: catho and buddhism

I believe that religion (any of them) are great to fill the mind of little and weak ones...
... to help and guide them through life...
Religion is not useless, it's very needed indeed ... but it should NOT be imposed.


now Merry Christmas everyone

 

[Joey D]

So we were created as chimps, then we evolved from there on...
Adam and Eve were in fact what you would see in the zoo

That's not even possible. We couldn't have evolved from chimps. We did however evolve from a common ancestor, which I suppose you could call Adam and Eve.

 

[homeforsummer]

That's not even possible. We couldn't have evolved from chimps. We did however evolve from a common ancestor, which I suppose you could call Adam and Eve.

Though Adam's and Eve's parents wouldn't have been Homo Sapiens...

 

[Sureboss]

Their dad was most likely Tiger Woods.

 

[Dotini]

I believe you're right with the brain size... However, Homo Sapiens still evolved and were better because we are still here and the other genus of Homo are extinct. In the survival of the fittest, we were the fittest and while we might not have had as large of brain we used our's better to combat various challenges.

Joey, while not in any way wishing to quibble or contradict here, it should be pointed out that the Heidelbergensis species flourished over much of Europe, Asia and Africa from about 800,000 years ago to about 200,000 years ago, at a minimum. Ice ages came and went, yet there they were. That's quite a record of longevity, survival and adaptability, one which we modern humans, in our humility, ought to respect, admire and be hopeful of emulating or even exceeding some day several hundred thousand years from now.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[Touring Mars]

We're not doing too badly either - we've been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and our population has risen to almost 7 billion on the planet at any given time - that is atleast a couple and possibly more orders of magnitude more than any of our closest evolutionary relatives have ever managed. In an incredibly short space of time - only thousands of years - we have transformed from hunter-gatherers to beings capable of leaving the planet and of probing the depths of the cosmos - unparalleled achievements in the entire history of life on Earth. I reckon it is very important to maintain a sense of humility and respect for our evolutionary roots, and to never forget that we stood on the shoulders of giants to get where we are today... but let's not sell ourselves short at the same time. For all life and planets with life might be as common as muck in the universe, we are certainly not - not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Dotini]

Agreed. And extremely well stated, Touring Mars. All we need to do is avoid hubris and nemesis, and we'll be fine.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[homeforsummer]

and our population has risen to almost 7 billion on the planet at any given time

And indeed, the population has risen to that figure by a couple of billion in the past sixty years and is expected to reach 10bn within the next forty or fifty years...

 

[Dotini]

And indeed, the population has risen to that figure by a couple of billion in the past sixty years and is expected to reach 10bn within the next forty or fifty years...

In 1950 world population was 2.5 billion. So it has grown by 4.5 billion in 60 years. In that year US population was 150 million, and is now 300 million.

I believe human biomass on Earth is exceeded only by that of termites.

Probably the greatest immediate threat to global population is the melt of glaciers on the Himalayan massif. This would cause the great rivers of China, India and Southeast Asia to run dry. I would doubt that global human population will ever make it even close to the 10 billion mark.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

I believe human biomass on Earth is exceeded only by that of termites.

Not even close. There's twice as much biomass in krill as people, three times as much livestock, ten times as much in the crops we grow and ten thousand times as much in all plants.

Termites outweigh humans by about 45 to one. Ants by a similar proportion. Rats by a good 7 to one.

 

[homeforsummer]

In 1950 world population was 2.5 billion. So it has grown by 4.5 billion in 60 years. In that year US population was 150 million, and is now 300 million.

In the words of G.W.Bush, I misunderestimated.

 

[Dotini]

Whatever the source of our creation, surely Man's highest purpose here on Earth is not to compete with termites and rats. I submit it is rather to spend the maximum amount of time playing with our family and friends. The enjoyment of food and beverage, racing, art, music and literature should take a high place on our list of things to do. Work, "progress", and technology should never be ends in themselves. Work, in a more ideal world, could and should consume no more than three hours a day.

I spend most of my money on women, booze and racing cars. The rest I just waste.

In joy,
Dotini

 

[Sureboss]

Work should be fun, if you don't enjoy it, find something you do enjoy.

 

[Danoff]

Work should be rewarding to you. You should do what you find meaning in.

Sitting around all day masturbating (I'm using that figuratively to include stuffing your face, playing video games, playing music, watching television,... oh and masturbating) is not a meaningful way to spend your time. Some masturbatory activities are necessary, of course, to ensure that you enjoy your life, but the goal should generally be a meaningful pursuit. The end result of one's life should be more than squandered resources, otherwise you have wasted your talents.

 

[Dotini]

I've had a wonderful and rewarding career in aerospace. I'm retired now, and enjoying life like never before. Retirement is great! It's something I hope everyone gets a chance to do. Too bad so many pension funds are upside down.

One of my favorite things to do is to spend time at my fishing cabin on Hood Canal. Its perched on a bulkhead, with a deck cantilevered right out over the beach strewn with oysters and clams. After feasting on fresh harvested salmon and blueberries, Linda and I enjoy watching the sun set over the majestic Olympic mountains just across from us. It's something the Indians round these parts have been doing for thousands of years.

For those of us coming up in the 60's, the future we bought into was one of limitless growth, affluence and wide-open freedom, equality and opportunity. "Progress is our most important product", intoned Reagan the television adman for General Electric. Peace was to be assured through the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. A lad out of high school could hire on at the local plant or mill, and expect to raise a family with a stay-at-home wife, pay off a house and a cabin, and have a late model muscle car. Just between you and me, the future wasn't quite what they told us. Now the kids are off on their own. The strong do as they will, the weak suffer what they must.

 

[wfooshee]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying the life you created for yourself hasn't evolved as expected???

 

[Public'sTwin]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying the life you created for yourself hasn't evolved as expected???

It's a little more sociological than that. But yes—that is one part of what he was inferring—but I think his ultimate point is that no one's future guaranteed: to rip Sarah Connor, "No fate but what you make."

 

[wfooshee]

It was meant as a joke. See, I used create and evolve in a sentence together. Ha ha. Should have included a smiley . . . .

Just a note from a post I saw in the thread about Ida, justifying a lack of "belief" in evolution (as if evolution was a belief system):

The bible...............enough said !!!!!

This is the same thinking that put 3 airplanes into buildings and another into the ground some 8 years ago.

Do NOT think I'm calling you a terrorist. I'm pointing out the danger of blind faith as an explanation: "This is so because it says it right here."

They have scripture that tells them all non-believers are evil and must be converted or wiped from the face of the earth. That scripture tells them their acts are justified in the eyes of God, or rather, Allah. They hold an unreasoning belief in the truth of their scriptures, same as you do, but it's different scriptures. Which, if any, is correct?

You cannot say yours is correct because it's "actually true." You cannot say that because you were raised with it that it's more real than theirs.

We actually have similar scripture that tells people of Jewish ancestry that they are the chosen people, God's own, which he shall make masters of all that there is. These scriptures have been used to justify any number of acts against "non-believers" for thousands of years. The Old Testament is full of stories of the chosen people driving out all before them to claim that to which they are entitled by God.

You also can't say that the Bible abhors terrorism, or that Christians don't practice terrorism, so it has to be a better way of thinking. Well, bring that up with the next Irish family you meet. The IRA think of themselves as Christian. So does the Ku Klux Klan here in America. What's more terrorist than their behavior in the 40s, 50s, and 60s?

Please, please, please learn to think and to question. The Bible is not the be-all and end-all of World Knowledge. It can't be. Too many internal contradicitons.

Realize also that Science is not anti-faith. It's anti-ignorance. I've said before in this thread what I think of organized religion's record with Science. Declaring the earth to be a sphere would get you ridiculed, at least. Publishing a paper stating the earth is not the center of the Universe would get you branded (perhaps literally) as a heretic. Publishing observation of moons around Jupiter would get you imprisoned. You (personally, you, Nicksfix) have no problem with any of these observations today, even though the church of that time would have whipped you or imprisoned you for just saying it aloud. I mean, how could anybody of reasonable intelligence possibly insist otherwise???!?!?!

We've been out in space. We've seen that the earth is a ball, and it revolves around the sun, not the other way around. We've explored the Jupiter system, the Saturn system, we've landed on the moon, Venus, and Mars. How could anyone have ever insisted that the earth was flat, or that it was spherical but the center of the Universe, or that there was nothing but the earth, moon, sun, 4 planets, and a bunch of fixed lights?

Well, the church, those of blind faith said that, and they punished those who said otherwise. For centuries.

They also say evolution is bunk.

Why are they right this time????!!!?!??!?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It was meant as a joke. See, I used create and evolve in a sentence together. Ha ha. Should have included a smiley . . . .

Just a note from a post I saw in the thread about Ida, justifying a lack of "belief" in evolution (as if evolution was a belief system):



This is the same thinking that put 3 airplanes into buildings and another into the ground some 8 years ago.

Do NOT think I'm calling you a terrorist. I'm pointing out the danger of blind faith as an explanation: "This is so because it says it right here."

They have scripture that tells them all non-believers are evil and must be converted or wiped from the face of the earth. That scripture tells them their acts are justified in the eyes of God, or rather, Allah. They hold an unreasoning belief in the truth of their scriptures, same as you do, but it's different scriptures. Which, if any, is correct?

You cannot say yours is correct because it's "actually true." You cannot say that because you were raised with it that it's more real than theirs.

We actually have similar scripture that tells people of Jewish ancestry that they are the chosen people, God's own, which he shall make masters of all that there is. These scriptures have been used to justify any number of acts against "non-believers" for thousands of years. The Old Testament is full of stories of the chosen people driving out all before them to claim that to which they are entitled by God.

You also can't say that the Bible abhors terrorism, or that Christians don't practice terrorism, so it has to be a better way of thinking. Well, bring that up with the next Irish family you meet. The IRA think of themselves as Christian. So does the Ku Klux Klan here in America. What's more terrorist than their behavior in the 40s, 50s, and 60s?

Please, please, please learn to think and to question. The Bible is not the be-all and end-all of World Knowledge. It can't be. Too many internal contradicitons.

Realize also that Science is not anti-faith. It's anti-ignorance. I've said before in this thread what I think of organized religion's record with Science. Declaring the earth to be a sphere would get you ridiculed, at least. Publishing a paper stating the earth is not the center of the Universe would get you branded (perhaps literally) as a heretic. Publishing observation of moons around Jupiter would get you imprisoned. You (personally, you, Nicksfix) have no problem with any of these observations today, even though the church of that time would have whipped you or imprisoned you for just saying it aloud. I mean, how could anybody of reasonable intelligence possibly insist otherwise???!?!?!

We've been out in space. We've seen that the earth is a ball, and it revolves around the sun, not the other way around. We've explored the Jupiter system, the Saturn system, we've landed on the moon, Venus, and Mars. How could anyone have ever insisted that the earth was flat, or that it was spherical but the center of the Universe, or that there was nothing but the earth, moon, sun, 4 planets, and a bunch of fixed lights?

Well, the church, those of blind faith said that, and they punished those who said otherwise. For centuries.

They also say evolution is bunk.

Why are they right this time????!!!?!??!?

Since the Bible states: "God is love" and that "faith works by love", and also that God hates hands that shed innocent blood.

How can your assessment be correct?

Obviously there is something at work in what you describe other than "faith".

Its also obvious what that something is.

Granted it is perpetrated under the banner of "Religion".

BTW "evolution" is most assuredly a "belief" system.

"Too many internal contradictions", hum?

 

[Famine]

BTW "evolution" is most assuredly a "belief" system.

*sigh* No it isn't.