Help!Pleeeez!HSstudent needs Interview w/YOU

Hi Everyone!
I am currently a Junior I'm taking an English/Philosophy class and our current topic is Evolution. I was told to get the opinion of a scientific or religious person on Evolution. It would help me greatly if you could just answer these three questions:

1) What side do you take (religious or scientific)?

2) Why do you take this side?

and

3) Do you have a way that you can prove your theory?

Thank you for your help
-Crystal

1) What side do you take (religious or scientific)?

I do not take a side.

2) Why do you take this side?

I didnt.

and

3) Do you have a way that you can prove your theory?

Depends

Examples.In the late tetrary period of Earth, there was an animal named a uni-tat-thierium.

This large animal had many protuberance placed upon its head.

What was the purpose of all of these horns, if they had no purpose?

2.It is said, that alien hybrid babies, will overtake what is man now.

As said by a poster T-Susan on another board, she saw a time when she was exposed to an alien facility, to where a large headed alien hybrid girl, chased her down in this facility and stuck her in the arm, with a hypodermic that would lessen her apatite.>In the future.

So as a localization in time, as this seems to be coming, are all alien hybrid babies, who become youth, either drug attics, suffer from anorexia?
Also, how does being frail affect their play-time?

3.If more lesbian senators and congresswimen are now successfully running and getting elected to office, is this an evolutionary trend, to where more than likely a lesbian political figure will have become elected to office, because this seems to be an in-case norm?

We do know that a recession in the genetic sence, of the male hypothalamus gland, may be the reason for male homosexuality.
This factor causes men to peruse less woman and be more intrested in men.

So if this is true, then is being a lesbian in political office, a gene trend, or is this social archetype?

In other words, does evolution dictate that since less people are needed, then same buttress factors, to nonpromote the conjugation of proliferation, become a popular adage, in evolutions eyes?

To Crystal_07

Serious questions deserve serious answers

1. As a scientist I know that the fact that evolution has occured on Earth is as well supported by evidence as the theories of relativity and gravity. The theories that explain the processes and causes of that evolution are always subject to change as our understanding changes. But just like a change in the theory of gravity does not mean that the apple stops falling until things get straightened out, a change in our understanding of evolutionary processes does not mean the fact that evolution has occured is changed.

2. Science has no interest and has no mechanism to prove or disprove the existance of a supernatural being. By definition such a being is beyond natural laws, and natural law is all that a science can speak to. The most that any scientist can ever say about the nonexistance of anything is "I find no evidence of the existance of..." Religious belief is not incompatible with a scientific viewpoint. Many of the early scientists were priests or monks, many scientists today are deeply religious. The recent contraversy between Creation Science and Evolution creates the false impression that science and religion are at odds when that is not the case. Creation Science is based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis in the Bible. The Supreme Court declared it a religious belief, not a science and struck down laws mandating it's teaching in public schools as a science though attempts continue. Those pushing this concept represent small minorities of believers. Public opinion sometimes shows majorities supporting them, but the day science is determined by public opinion science will cease to exist.

3. Science can never"prove" anything 100%, but when evidence reaches the levels which the evidence for evolution has reached it is accepted as "fact". Theories explaining the various processes and causes which explain those facts can change as we reach better understanding of the facts. Apples may tommorrow begin to rise instead of falling but the likelyhood is very small. Our confidence in the facts of evolution is of the same order.

Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination.

Grumpy

Why you cant include God as part of the answer.

The result of Betty Andreessen reporting that she was having contact with subhelpers of God, was to have her house buzzed by a Black Hawk Helicopter.

So thre answer is, if you profess you know God, you will always be harassed in this environment.

So go to the problems themselves.

The answers to the example questions posed.

Number one:Since the Unitattherium had horned protuberances placed upon its head, you must find evidence of a Unitattherium dig, where the Unitattherium is probably using these horns.

Or, you must time travel back in time and see the Unitattherium in the daily routine?

The second result of your travel, might be such an expression as, "Oh well' he does not seem to be using those horns, oh well???

2, Is in the future the alien hybrid, next to its machinery looks sullen.

Or one day this hybrid starts to play and gets rough in her play and breaks this arm, or that arm.

3.The answer is, there is not enough time for a definitive solution, so you must interpose yourself into the statement.

The result would be your a senatorial aid, for a lesbian senator, so you keep your eyes ahead of you, if your straight and when it comes to hugs, or talk of love life, you'd rather not hear.

You have to go to the bathroom and you don't have the time to hear it.

Hi Crystal,

Another viewpoint:

1. I take the religious side.

2 & 3. I recently posted Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution in another area of this forum - I am re-posting it here because it answers both questions.

It seems to me that the major cause for disagreement between the two theories is that evolutionists really don't like Christians, and the Intelligent Design group disagrees with the claim by evolutionists that we were not created.

Reasons to vote against evolution - and vote for an Intelligent Design Model we can all live with:

Why it is difficult to believe evolution: The evolution theory contradicts and defies scientific law. It does not even pass simple scientific experiments based on scientific principles.

Evolution cannot be true because it begs the question: When did it stop? What caused it to stop? If it hasn't stopped, then why are there no living beings that are half-man and half-ape? Why don't any other living things exhibit the intelligence of a human being? Why is man so unique among all the creatures?

The evolutionists claim that evolution was slow and steady over time, but we have never seen any organisms in the middle of transition. This observation alone completely destroys the evolution theory because there is no modern evidence
currently going on to indicate even a remote possibility that this is going on.

The only reason I can see why evolutionists continue to refute reality is that by losing the scientific foundation that developed over the last 100 years or so, they would be forced to re-examine the way they view themselves within the
context of their world view.

Evolution is a theory that many cling to because they do not want to accept the ID alternative, but that does not mean evolution is true.

Evolutionary Science or Evolutionary Biology,in contrast with the Science of Physics and Chemistry, is a historical science. Darwin introduced the historical distinction into his brand of science. The evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are not appropriate techniques for explaining these types of events and processes. Instead, one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative (not real) reconstruction of the particular scenario (assumed or believed) that led to
the events one is trying to explain.

It is important to understand the significance of this historical-empirical distinction.
Contrary to purely empirical sciences whose conclusions are held to rigorous objectivity by “laws and experiments,” the explanations of a historian are held to no such standard or discipline.
Hence, the evolutionist groans and moans about ID not following scientific principles, but do not follow these principles themselves. Where is the rigorous objectivity you hold yourself to?

Hence, the evolutionist is no more than a history buff who is reading the wrong history book. Now, if historicity is allowed - then I have just punched another hole in the evolution theory. And I can think of a pretty good history book that's a bit older than anything Darwin wrote.

The evolutionist is in error to insist that intelligence forces never played any role in the creation of life or its diversity. This is clearly a presupposition, a problematic assertion that cannot be tested by experiment or direct observation. Again, you fail your own scientific rules of law.

An Intelligent Design Model we can all live with:

The experience of metaphysical knowledge, self-awareness, self-reflection, moral consciousness, freedom, and spiritual experience, falls within the authority of philosophical analysis and reflection; something we all share; while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to God's plan.

How something works and how it came to be are vastly different questions.

There is a fundamental distinction between undirected natural causes and intelligent causes.

Intelligent design can do things that undirected natural causes (natural selection, random chance) cannot. Random chance can bring up a huge amount of possible numbers during a lottery game, but it cannot arrange the numbers in a specific pattern or sequence. To obtain a specific pattern or sequence requires an intelligent cause. As all who play the lottery know, there is always a chance that your 'intelligently' picked numbers may come up and that's why we play. But we cannot predict which numbers will come up.

DNA shows us how things work. Each packet of information contains specific instructions. Signs of intelligent design.

Intelligent Design is empirically detectable. For most people, design detection is an intuitive process that occurs without deliberation. Taken for granted, if you wish. However, no such assumption should be made when trying to prove ID through empirical science. You cannot pre-suppose a current organism to be naturally intelligent. You must first prove why it is intelligent. In other words, intuition is not enough to suppose intelligence. You must have proof of intelligence to make even that statement. So the next question should be - what is intelligent about this organism, where do you find this intelligence, and how do you duplicate this intelligence. You would also ask - can ID be ruled out here and can random chance be ruled out as well.

To determine if something has been intelligently designed you must first know if the organism has a function, and if so - what is its function. secondly, you would ask - is this function necessary to its survival. If not, then why is it there.
Does it enchance the philosophical? Again, is this a necessary function. Would you want to be without all of your faculties?

The final test would be to determine if this or that function could have occurred by chance. If it is a simple function, then yes, perhaps it could have occured by chance. However, if it is not a simple function, say...something like oh, the
universe...........
The Designer could have thrown a bunch of chemicals in a big bowl and then set it afire. The chemicals, over beelions and beelions of years, would produce you. But the Designer would have left the results to chance - much like flipping a
coin. Except - even in the chance game of flipping a coin - there are expected results - and only 2 possibilities.
Or....
The Designer could have designed the universe - with a purpose and a function. An immediate function to be noticed is the stabilization of our universe, with the immediate purpose of creating a system capable of supporting life.

Since flipping a coin only has 2 possibilities and no one can ever guess with 100% accuracy even how a coin will land - then I conclude that a lack of evidence of Intelligent Design is not only obviously false but scientifically improbable, if
not impossible.

*******************
quote:
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NC...rrisCalvert.pdf

Similarly, if life is an accident, why not alter it to suits our needs? If we can,
why not make human clones? Why not abort unwanted children? Why not euthanize the “useless” aged? Why not end a challenging marriage? Why not cheat on our taxes? Why not “steal, kill, and destroy?” Ordinary people intuitively recognize that with no overarching, inherent purpose in life, anything that is consistent with the purposes created in our own minds is acceptable. “If there is no God, all things are permissible.” However, if (and there is no bigger if) life is not just an accident or occurrence, but is something that has been designed and made, then life must have an inherent purpose. If purpose pervades life, then we pursue actions contrary to that purpose at our peril.

Manipulating our genes to produce “designer humans” may conflict with an intended but currently unknown purpose of standard procreation and may result in disasters unimaginable. How extensively should we tinker with life when we do not know its intended purpose?

The bioethical implications of ID are clear, not only for individuals, but for
culture as well. Who will tell us whether we should clone humans, traffic in human
organs, inflict capital punishment? Who will sit at the head of the cultural table?
Who is even allowed at the table? Naturalistic science tells us that it will provide the
“facts,” and it will tolerate theologians and philosophers as they opine about purpose and meaning.

But materialistic science has already concluded that there is no inherent purpose in life, so what true role remains for religion? Why give any credence to individuals who have deluded themselves into the false notion that life has purpose? They are like the couple that must be invited to the party for political reasons but whose quaint views are ignored. What if life really is designed and truly has purpose? What then for science? If so, then religion not only deserves a place at the table, it may deserve to be at the head. /end quote

*****************************************************

I hope this helps you with your assignment.

Best regards,
SoLoved

Crystal_07 Posted: Sep 19 2005, 12:02 AM

"Hi Everyone!
I am currently a Junior I'm taking an English/Philosophy class and our current topic is Evolution. I was told to get the opinion of a scientific or religious person on Evolution. It would help me greatly if you could just answer these three questions:

1) What side do you take (religious or scientific)?

2) Why do you take this side?

and

3) Do you have a way that you can prove your theory?

Thank you for your help
-Crystal"

1) I take the scientific side.

2) I wanted to understand how things in nature worked since I was a small child. After military service when the GI Bill made college readily accessible to me, I earned a B. Sc. degree in Physics. At the junior level in college following significant mathematical training, I felt that I was really understanding how things worked, a feeling that has never left me during the subsequent 55 years of my life.

3) Scientific theories do not get proved; there is not even a formal definition of what "proof" means. There is rather, an effort to determine whether something that someone thinks a theory should yield is not in fact true, then the theory is said to have been "falsified." Failure to be falsified builds confidence in a theory. Even more strongly, if a theory leads to a prediction that no other theory has made and the prediction is found to be true., scienetists develop very high confidence in a theory.

The theory of evolution is supported by the fossil record, by the universality of the genetic code, and the fact the genetic information (the genome) of critters shows evidence from their ancestors. The fact that there are not a lot of "transistional" fossils (when one spcies or phyla evolves from another) results from the fact that probabl at least 99.99% of all living creatures to no leave fossils because they don't get buried before bacteria and scavengers dispose of the carcasses. Intelligent Design and Creationist anti-evolution folks try to make a big deal about the relative lack of "transition fossils".

If you can get hold of Professor Mark Ridley's book "Evolution", second edition, (Blackwell Science, 1996, ISBN 0-86542-495-0 case paper) on pages 582 through 587, describes the evolution from reptile to mammal which occurred over a 50 million year period.
---------
I hope that what I have presented is of help to you, Crystal, even though it may not quite be what you expected. There is a method of emailing me through a gadget that appears with what I've posted.

what does evolutionary theory say about Polonium218 halos found in granite rock?

Polonium218 is very unstable and quickly changes into another state almost instantly, so if granite rocks were formed over billions of years by the cooling of molten rock, how did the polonium218 not dissipate?

If Po218 was in the rock at the time of its formation, why did it not decay? Are the radioactive decay constants false? Or was the granite formed immediately0?

Here

any contradictory evolutionary evidence would be greatly appreciated, but I don't think there is any, unless you say that radioactive decay isn't constant, or that the earth was formed instantly.

Crystal,

I hope you will analyze and do some critical thinking about what SoLoved has said here he/she lays out exactly why ID/Creationism is not science...

Science = a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study. (www6.nos.noaa.gov/coris/glossary.lasso)

One other thing about science is that it generally has the ability to make useful predictions.

However ID/Creationism is a good subject to discuss/debate in a philosophy class. Please be aware that much of what he/she has written is false and easily proved so with a quick look at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

One example of this is his/her misrepresentation of the fossil record. People who do not study such things usually have a lot of trouble comprehending the huge time frames involved in Earths evolutionary history. We are talking hundreds of millions or perhaps even billions of years. Most ID/Creationists have trouble thinking beyond 6000 years. One last thing you should be aware of is that most ID/Creationist people like to pretend that evolutionists believe that they have the ultimate answer to the origins of man. In fact scientists are still studying this question and finding new things all the time. On the other hand ID/Creationists are actually the ones who are proclaiming the ultimate answer and refusing to look at any real evidence. Remember what the 6000 year old book says GODDIDIT!

Scientific

Only a rational and skeptical examination and investigation of our world can reveal the laws, mechanisms and phenomenon that govern our existence.

Religion and its derivatives ID and CS (Intelligent Design and Creation Science) are based on nonsensical claims of myth and presumptions put forth as legitimate hypotheses. ID and CS addresses topics not related to our development and origins such as moral laws, our “purpose” or the purpose of our existence and other intangible items of myth such as spirits and souls.

ID and CS constantly make unscientific claims and demands of legitimate scientific theories. Remember, evolution does not seek to address subjects like morals, purpose and law. Religion seeks to be the final word on everything the life of man. So do any of the so-called theories that are derived from religion.

Already addresses sufficiently by Grumpy.



Guestimating,

As requested....
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted
A Review of "Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological
and Cosmological Perspective" by Robert V. Gentry

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

scientific.

I can give alot of answers here. Mainly because the Evolution Theory is the best fit for all the presented facts available. And still more proof is found everyday. Besides, the Catholic Church has accepted evolution as a valid way of how life was created and formed. And at least the Catholic Church nowadays is pro-scientific research, because science is the only way to learn and understand the wonders of the world. ID and creationism on the other hand is only about stopping the progress of humanity and trying to put humanity back in the dark ages where people were tortured and burned alive when they ask questions that the ruling theists can not answer.

It is not my theory, but the known facts and evidence are best supported by this theory. Every single creationist or ID statement has been clearly countered by basic facts. But ID and Creationists refuse to consider anything that does not pay lip service to their delusional ideas. This makes the ID and Creationists supporters the servants of Satan, because they try to shackle the God given will of humanity by their lies and illusions.

Stop? Since when has evolution stopped? The animals you see among you, you claim that they are a certain species, this is acceptable. But to say that each and every one of them is the same is simple folly. These animals are in constant flux, every one of their changes is evolution at work, when evolutionists say 'slow' they mean slow. Just because the changes are so minute, you cannot saw that they are not there. The reason for other animals not having the same intelligence as a human being (assumption) is chance, simply that. You might as well ask why there are no other living things with the size of a blue whale. Thus, why can God not work through this process? It does make sense...

Stop? Since when has evolution stopped? The animals you see among you, you claim that they are a certain species, this is acceptable. But to say that each and every one of them is the same is simple folly. These animals are in constant flux, every one of their changes is evolution at work, when evolutionists say 'slow' they mean slow. Just because the changes are so minute, you cannot saw that they are not there. The reason for other animals not having the same intelligence as a human being (assumption) is chance, simply that. You might as well ask why there are no other living things with the size of a blue whale. Thus, why can God not work through this process? It does make sense...

You didn't read my pooooosssstt.

I said when did it stop, what caused it to stop, IF IT HASN'T STOPPED...

We don't have a problem with micro-evolution. (minute changes in dogs...)

I do have a problem with your statement "Just because the changes are so minute, you cannot say that they are not there"

An equal but opposite statment is even more true:

Just because you cannot see the Designer does not mean He is not there!!!!!

Chance is not sufficient to explain the differences between humans and animals.

Certainly God could have done a lot of things - like work through evolution.
But He didn't. The Bible tells me so. HaHaHa

SoLoved aka Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer

This has been thoroughly discredited.

See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

and

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html

and

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/lor...s/polonium.html

Arthur

Unless those of you who are studiously ignoring the original set of questions posed by Crystal have convincing evidence that they are written by a poseur, then shame on you for answering each other rather than Crystal by reducing this topic to the ceaseless, frequently pointless postings that too many PhyOrg Forum topics have become.

Help the young lady, assuming that she is for real, rather than completely ignoring (or forgetting) what she requested.