Evolution

[[Sound_Nin]]

[quote name='Solo Tremaine'][COLOR=#503f86]Is it not just possible that God created stuff... and [I]then[/I] it evolved?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#503f86]Either way, I don't really mind. The other posts in here are far too well-constructed for me to attempt trying to form an opinion of my own.[/COLOR][/quote]

[COLOR=Navy][FONT=Book Antiqua]That is the theory of intelligent design, which is NOT the same as Creationism.
Creationism is HARD-CORE in the belief that we were created by a God, and in the case of Christianity, the world is only several thousand years old.

Intelligent design is that we were created at SOME POINT, and anything could've happened along the way, i.e. evolution.

But to the guy that started this thread:
I am SO glad I didn't get flamed like this when I started out on here. I remember similiar posts of mine that make my stomach turn to read these days.

To answer your question, yes, I believe in evolution. But I don't begin to speculate on the origin of life, because it simply doesn't matter to me and I'd really rather not argue/debate about it with people who are set in their ways.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Inculta_Bellum]

I like comparing the universe to a dice roll. God created the universe, "threw the dice", and is jut watching how it all ends up. Which doesn't make a lot of sense because I also believe in miracles. Meh.

In the end, I believe that evolution did happen, intelligent design is possibly responsible for it, and creationism is at least partly true.

[Morpheus]

[quote name='AzureWolf']Quoted for terrible interpretation. "Most" is not the same as "all." Please notice that there is a difference.[/QUOTE]

Most does not change it from being a horrendously inaccurate statement. Scientology is a cult, scientists are groups of people that test possible explanations for what happens in the world around us. Scientology sometimes directly contradicts science.

[quote name='AzureWolf']The utopian science you speak of does not exist in this world, so you are taking a leap of faith. Aside from that primer, I'm not going to waste my breath repeating the same thing I've said twice before in this thread.[/QUOTE]

Wait...

[quote name='Morpheus']No, it's not. Because scientific beliefs are tested, while religious beliefs, by their very nature, are untestable. Religious beliefs require a leap of faith to believe, while science is basically saying "This is our best [B]guess[/B], and we've tested it as much as we can at this point in time."[/QUOTE]
What is Utopian about guess? Scientists try to find the truth, and what they believe evolves as the years go on.

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Morpheus']Most does not change it from being a horrendously inaccurate statement. Scientology is a cult, scientists are groups of people that test possible explanations for what happens in the world around us. Scientology sometimes directly contradicts science.[/QUOTE]I never said Scientology and Scientists are the same. I again urge you to read this thread before posting again. I only wrote Scientology twice: once as an analogy for The13thMan, and another time where it is clearly crossed out, meaning its an error (an understandable one) and no longer part of the sentence.

Don't go about pointing out what is "horrendously inaccurate" if you don't read, because then what you write is "horrendously inaccurate." [QUOTE]What is Utopian about guess? Scientists try to find the truth, and what they believe evolves as the years go on.[/QUOTE] This goes back to the whole "Oh Dear God, why don't people read a thread before posting" problem. Utopian [B]science[/B], [B]NOT[/B] guess, utopian [B]science[/B]. My point was that people make a leap of faith when they believe in science. If you want further elaboration on that statement, I IMPLORE you to PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read what I've said in this thread before.

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Boy, quit your shouting. You ain't doin' naught but makin' yourself look like a first-class jerk.

[quote name='AzureWolf]This goes back to the whole "Oh Dear God, why don't people read a thread before posting" problem. Utopian [B]science[/B], [B]NOT[/B] guess, utopian [B]science[/B'].[/quote]
No, it goes back to the "follow the poster's connections" problem, which I've encountered with you before.

[CENTER][SIZE="1"][previous material stricken for inaccuracy; relevant thoughts to follow][/SIZE][/CENTER]
The main issue is that his definition of science seems to differ from your own, as evidenced by your rather violent reaction to the concept of science as guesswork. Instead of bashing him, then, perhaps you would be better served to attempt to probe his reasoning and [I]then[/I], if necessary, set him straight.

[SIZE="1"][CENTER][resume original content][/CENTER][/SIZE]
Moving to everyone in general, I have a thought which [COLOR="DarkRed"]AzureWolf [/COLOR]set up for me.

[quote name='AzureWolf']My point was that people make a leap of faith when they believe in science.[/quote]
Not necessarily.

See, there's two types of science. Operational science is what is taught in primary and secondary classrooms; it is the hands-on science that can directly test and prove or disprove relationships, identities, and theories. There is no faith involved with operational science, so [COLOR="DarkRed"]AzureWolf[/COLOR]'s claim there is wrong.

To illustrate—and simultaneously remove a fallacy used erroneously by many Christians who attempt to define faith—I will take the classic example of a chair. Some of you may be familiar with this example, and please trust me when I say I am not attempting to cast aspersions on faith itself, because faith is an act in which everyone engages every day. The common use of this example is flawed for its general intended purpose. That is my only point.

Now, I have seen many a youth pastor take a normal. functional chair and begin a small spiel about how they do not know whether or not the chair will support them when they sit. They say that they must "have faith" that the chair will not collapse under them; this is how they attempt to showcase "faith". This is incorrect. In fact, the example has bothered me as long as I have seen it used, but not until recently did I realize why.

I can us operational science to prove that the chair will support me any time I decide to sit in it. I naturally hypothesize that the chair will support me. I then check the chair for any structural flaws and clear any other persons from the immediate area, removing possible confounding variables that might falsely disprove my hypothesis. Once done, I sit. If the chair holds, I was correct, and my hypothesis proved for that experiment. I may decide to retest at any time to ensure the accuracy of my results.

However, I cannot use operational science to prove/disprove my theories on origins. For that, I must rely on [I]historical[/I] science, which is the study of past tendencies to predict and possibly define future outcomes. The drawback to historical science is that there can be no universally conclusive experimenting done, so there can be no elimination of variables. This is not meant to imply that historical science is inherently flawed, because it is not. There have been numerous methods developed to reduce the inaccuracy and uncertainty of historical science—statistics is quite useful to this end.

Still, with the poor supply of data extending far back enough into the Earth's history, any theory on origins cannot be conclusively proven. Therefore, I submit that [COLOR="DarkRed"]AzureWolf[/COLOR]'s statement about science itself requiring faith, while not completely right, is not entirely wrong either.



I wonder who'll be the first to ask "how was the chair relevant". :p[/FONT]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Second, he quoted you on a prior statement:[/font][/quote]

[color=deeppink]Actually, Morpheus was quoting himself there.[/color]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Oh. Oops.

Well then. It seems I must retract myself. It was [I]not[/I] [COLOR="DarkRed"]AzureWolf[/COLOR]'s logic [COLOR="DarkRed"]Morpheus[/COLOR] was using. I shall strike the necessary material. I shall also read more minutely henceforth.

Still, there is something to be said for tact....[/FONT]

[[Sound_Nin]]

[QUOTE] My point was that people make a leap of faith when they believe in science.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=Navy][FONT=Book Antiqua]When you believe [U]anything[/U], you make a leap of faith.
Think of it like a brick wall with missing bricks.
Those are the things we don't know.
Science and religion alike fill in those gaps with either 'God' or 'Science'. Not respectively, of course.

(I'm starting to come up with analogies for everything. o.O)
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Boy, quit your shouting. You ain't doin' naught but makin' yourself look like a first-class jerk.[/QUOTE]I hope you realize the irony of this statement. If not, I'll tell you politely before I remove one of your gold stars: don't call me "boy."[QUOTE]No, it goes back to the "follow the poster's connections" problem, which I've encountered with you before.[/QUOTE]I'm betting there's only one thread you can think of (I [B]DARE[/B] you to find more than one, otherwise you aren't really being scientific about it, using one instance out of hundreds as your proof that I'm to blame), and even that thread was convoluted before I joined in.

But I'm not surprised that you're holding a grudge from one small instance.[QUOTE][CENTER][SIZE="1"][previous material stricken for inaccuracy; relevant thoughts to follow][/SIZE][/CENTER]
The main issue is that his definition of science seems to differ from your own, as evidenced by your rather violent reaction to the concept of science as guesswork. Instead of bashing him, then, perhaps you would be better served to attempt to probe his reasoning and [I]then[/I], if necessary, set him straight.[/QUOTE]Incorrect completely. If you can put down your grudge and look at the exchange, you'll see that Morpheus thought I was talking about guessing when I was talking about science. Now if you are implying that Morpheus thinks guessing is the same thing as science, then that makes you sound like a first-class jerk. Morpheus is not an idiot.[QUOTE][SIZE="1"][CENTER][resume original content][/CENTER][/SIZE]
Moving to everyone in general, I have a thought which [COLOR="DarkRed"]AzureWolf [/COLOR]set up for me.

See, there's two types of science. Operational science is what is taught in primary and secondary classrooms; it is the hands-on science that can directly test and prove or disprove relationships, identities, and theories. There is no faith involved with operational science, so [COLOR="DarkRed"]AzureWolf[/COLOR]'s claim there is wrong.[/QUOTE]Unfortunately, this is absolutely irrelevant to anything I've said. I don't recall talking about what people are TAUGHT in schools, only what they BELIEVE. So in this case, you are completely wrong that I set you up, or that this has anything to do with - well, anything.[QUOTE]To illustrate...I will take the classic example of a chair...

I can us operational science...

However, I cannot use operational science to prove/disprove my theories on origins... For that, I must rely on [I]historical[/I] science...

Still, with the poor supply of data extending far back enough into the Earth's history, any theory on origins cannot be conclusively proven. Therefore, I submit that [COLOR="DarkRed"]AzureWolf[/COLOR]'s statement about science itself requiring faith, while not completely right, is not entirely wrong either.

I wonder who'll be the first to ask "how was the chair relevant". :p[/FONT][/QUOTE]I'll be the first to ask, and also add you are completely wrong. If you (I know, I nag about this, but it's important) read the thread, you'd have realized that I have no qualms with using science - or what science is. I have qualms with people believing science blindly.

And thank you for showing me you know kindergarten science terms, and the pros and cons of them too! Although I'm not sure how "what is science" (or what science people are taught for that matter) addresses the problem of people blindly believing it.

*sigh* Again, anything following "studies show" is taken as immutable truth by too many people, which is absurd and pathetic. But if you can't set your burning rage for me aside, read my previous posts to understand this, and respond properly, there's little point to discussing anything with you.

Look, I'm not saying gravity doesn't exist, or that you can't figure things out using science (another DARE I give you to find in this thread), but I am saying that people use science just as people use the church in the past: just something to believe in without question.

Wow, I think that's the fourth time I've said the same thing. Amazing...

As a side note, add me to your ignore list if I've annoyed you SO MANY unbearable times. ;-)

[[Sound_Nin]]

[QUOTE] As a side note, add me to your ignore list if I've annoyed you SO MANY unbearable times. ;-)[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=Navy][FONT=Book Antiqua]
I doubt anyone is going to cry themself to sleep just because you have a different opinion, or even because you're a tad on the annoying side. :]


[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Inculta_Bellum]

[QUOTE]Look, I'm not saying gravity doesn't exist, or that you can't figure things out using science (another DARE I give you to find in this thread), but I am saying that people use science just as people use the church in the past: just something to believe in without question.[/QUOTE]

That's a good point. People are willing to believe just about anything if it's in a "professional" scientific study. Everyone knows that hydrogen is flammable, right? Wrong. Science tells everybody that hydrogen is flammable. There are plenty of people who will never see a tank of hydrogen explode, but they believe it will because the laws of science say that it wil.

I think the main point that AzureWolf's trying to get across is that people don't know something unless they've done it or seen it themselves. Otherwise they've just heard about it from "experts" and believe it to be true without any physical proof. I hope this all makes as much sense as it does in my head.:animeswea

[The13thMan]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]I?ve fallen a good deal behind in this topic, I?ve been busy. So forgive me if I restate something someone else has stated or miss something somebody directly addressed towards me.

I have a problem with people comparing the faith required to believe in the existence of a supernatural being and the faith required to believe in a physical law or theory of science. They are not at all synonymous. They are as different as apples and Chinese finger traps. The faith required to believe in God (or any other deity) is more like blind faith. You?ve got very little to go on and absolutely no hardcore evidence for it. Of course, that alone is debatable, but that?s a different matter. With science there is very little ?faith? involved. It?s like saying it requires faith to believe that I have 5 fingers or that the sun is actually a giant ball of fire and not a tiny marble of? I dunno, that stuff that makes fireflies glow.

This is basically the same problem I have with AzureWolf?s statement that people believe blindly in science. Anybody that?s done the research doesn?t believe in science blindly, they believe in science after observing many things for themselves. But perhaps he is talking about those out there that preach and point to science without ever looking at any of the stats for themselves. Those people aren?t much better than the creationists and others out there - the blind followers of science just happen to have made the mistake of being correct. =D

Azure, to your statement of people simply saying ?studies show? and then believing anything that follows, I can understand your stance. I know and have witnessed many many times where the media will take the bottom line of a scientific study (often times poorly performed or preliminary ones) and spout it as truth. It?s a real pain to see, but by no means should we blame science or the scientists. We should blame the sheeple out there that accept everything without question and don?t care enough to look with their own two eyes.


[/FONT][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf] This begs me to ask you your own question: Do YOU know what science is? Entropy is NOT complexity! It is randomness! You may think it's semantics, but if complexity didn't mean thinks like computers, AI, and other things that call for energy, you might have a point.
And holy hell, that's NOT at all what the second law says about the gas and boxes. It says it will be in ALL possible situations, but closer to 70% of the time will be within equilibrium, 29% of the time it will be close to equilibrium, and the other percent is shared (not equally) by different gradients and extremes (including being only in one box, or even in a corner). Those percentages may be off, but the point is it fluctuates into all possible states, but the amount of time spent is different. Hence, that's what the second law says: randomness.

And advancement DOES defy entropy. Living organisms actually contradict entropy: their existence reduces entropy. The only saving grace is that more advanced (less entropic) beings have a tendency to generate more heat, waste, and entropy, so their net output is more entropy.

Please don't preach science to others if you don't know what it is yourself. I'm not even going to bother with your evolution one... Good lord...

Like I told Retribution, it's not exactly science I'm concerned about, it's people's blind faith in it (or I guess wrong understanding of it too).[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]
Oh wow, you totally dissed me and I didn?t know! Ok, let?s see if we can get this worked out.

Admittedly, my understanding of entropy is very new, I was only introduced to it last year in my chemistry class. So in my defense, I?m a nub. =D Perhaps complexity was off, I think I was trying to relate it in layman?s terms. You?re right, it?s the randomness. It says so very clearly in the small passage I quoted about entropy.

Ok, in response to what you said about the gas and the boxes. I don?t believe I mentioned anything about the percentages and how it fluctuates over time. I also have never heard about the physical law that states that after reaching equilibrium gas likes to dance around, away from equilibrium, all of its own. Now, in my ignorance, I very easily could have missed this. So, I?m going to put it on you to prove that it will do that. Go find a quote or some link that I can look at on my own. I?d really appreciate it.

It?s just that in all that I?ve learned so far about the physical laws of natures is that typically, when crap?s left alone, it?ll move towards a state of equilibrium. Never have I heard anything about a closed system moving away from equilibrium in the slightest on its own. It requires some work to move away from equilibrium. But I could be misunderstanding what you said or I could just flat out be wrong. Educate me. =D

Your next paragraph confuses me because it seems very blatantly to contradict itself. You say that living organisms defy entropy and then they don?t? Well which is it, man!? What I?ve learned is that they do not defy entropy, and it?s basically for the reasons you stated, if I understand what you stated correctly. I think when people say living organisms defy entropy they generally are overlooking the fact that our system includes things like the sun and the Earth. My biology teacher used the example of the science building we were in. If the building were left alone for years it would eventually start breaking down and rotting away. This is an increase in entropy. It requires energy from an outside source to reorganize the building and make it pretty again.

Another way to describe the second law of thermodynamics is by examining energy. Total energy = usable energy + unusable energy. When energy is converted from one form into another, some of that energy becomes unavailable to do work. The unusable energy that is lost in the conversion is considered to be lost to disorder, which is where entropy comes in. Entropy is the measure of disorder of a system.

My friend, I am trying to understand science, this is part of the process. We learn more from our mistakes than our successes. And my mistake of using the word complexity over randomness wasn?t a huge one, like you believe. When I think of randomness I think of complexity. Which seems more complex to you, when all my altoids are in my little altoid tin on my desk or when they?re spread out all across the galaxy? I guess part of the reason I see complexity and randomness to be somewhat similar is because of what I?ve been exposed to in information theory. But that?s irrelevant.

Also, AzureWolf, what do you do? I know it shouldn?t be important and it wouldn?t nullify anything you?ve said before if you were, say, a preacher. I was just curious.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='AzureWolf'] I don't recall talking about what people are TAUGHT in schools, only what they BELIEVE. So in this case, you are completely wrong that I set you up, or that this has anything to do with - well, anything.[/QUOTE]I understand what you are trying to say here, but Allamorph has a point. We [I]believe[/I] what we are [I]taught.[/I] Whether it's in a classroom or from someone telling us [[SIZE="1"]word of mouth[/SIZE]] or from what we read. In the end, It's not that huge of a leap of faith to believe in science, because we have grown up in a world where science has been responsible for so many things that [I]are [/I]provable.