h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So...

Is that explained then?

?

Just thought I would apologise for walking off in the middle of a conversation got distracted by a sick child and an 'to do' with the mod squad on the XF board amongst other things. Purpose and meaning are still rattling around though. I'm keeping up just not contributing, interesting discussion.

Hope you are all keeping well Peanut xx

*Dusts off the old, once-fiery forum*

So then, no creationists want to argue anymore I presume? Awwww. It's a crying shame because I'm sure some mutual understanding was being wraught out of the discussion...

Welcome back peanut, I hope the sick child of yours got better

Ste

Is it fair to say that both evolutionists and creationists believe in at least one of these two positions:

> something came out of nothing

> there has always been something with no beginning

Or is there, er, a 'third way'? (I don't feel like reading the whole thread again.)

Thanks Ste she did but I kind of lost my train of thought, you know it is maybe.... The only one sticking in my mind is that I don't believe in a creationist god and I try to remain open to the fact that there might be a god, god maybe inexplicably linked to the universe somehow, don't ask me how because I don't know, some wierdy quantum thing or a (real) dynamic that people sense and try to interpret, try tracking that one down. I also think that evolution is a good theory that has a lot going for it, I have a certain fascination for it anyway but its a working knowledge how we got to here, its not a belief system and it doesn't disprove the exsistance of god for me, and thats my own personal third way, way off the beaten track, and a completely different discussion

I'll let you get things back on track

Peanut xx

Nowt is ever proved in science. Leave proof for the mathematicians. Scientific 'fact' is merely consensus, and today's fact is tomorrow's laughing stock. Or at least, with the reductive nature of science, what seems like a simply fact today, is revealed in a much greater complexity tomorrow.

The thing is about this current debate right here is that evolution stands up to much deeper analysis, and explains much more, leaving far fewer FUNDAMENTAL questions.

Some folks just don't have an interest in explanation. Some people thrive on faith. It's a neurological phenomenon. If anyone knows more details they should scrawl a note on my homepage.

Evolution raises more questions than it answers. It works fine for some things but not for others. In order for a mass change, a very large number of animals would have to undergo the same mutation at the same time e.g. scales to feathers, fins to legs etc.

As for Creationists, they are very insecure inasmuch as they can't believe in God or Christ if one little bit of the Bible is shown to be false. The value of pi is not 3 even though the Bible says it is.

The first chapter of Genisis is nothing at all like the second chapter and where did the women of the Land of Nod come from? We live on a planet that requires evolution. If wedidn't we would be in Heaven

Alji

"In order for a mass change, a very large number of animals would have to undergo the same mutation at the same time e.g. scales to feathers, fins to legs etc."

That's not really true. If the sentence had started
"In order for an *instantaneous* change...", it might have been true, but would still not have much meaning as an argument against evolution, since evolution works over long timescales, mutations propagate via lines of inheritance and evolution doesn't imply instant changes in anything.

What unanswerable practical questions *does* evolution raise?

Yeah, they wouldn't have to undergo the same mutation at the same time. Beneficial genes spread virus-like within the gene pool *over time*.

My third way would be that "Something came out of something that we don't understand yet, or may never understand.". I see no harm is sometimes just throwing up your hands and saying "I dunno", rather than turning towards a deity of some kind as a rational explanation.

Peanut, I don't think evolution is a belief system, but I do think that science is one. Does that make science a religion? It does restrict one's way of thinking along very narrow, strict guidelines?

"What unanswerable practical questions *does* evolution raise?" Potholer asks. If the creationists are unwilling or unable to come up with any counter-arguments, perhaps we should start playing devil's advocate (or should that be "God's advocate") and come up with some ourselves. I hope this is what you were suggesting Potholer.

I'd personally suggest that they stick to the more cloudy areas such as the origins of the universe or how the first protein came about or the origins of the very very first life-form. The latter especially, as biologists are really only groping in the dark on that one (ref. Miller-Urey expt.).

I'm still looking to "evolve" the idea, related to creation, of how a "being" created something in the absence of time? Before the universe, there was no time. So if this being exists outside time, how does she cope with the concept of change for one?

So I'm looking for kind people to provide a few rules that would work in the absence of time (and space for that matter).

I'm unsure about calling science a belief system, since it is based on falsifiable observations, or at least good pure science is, and good applied sciences should at least strive to be.

If someone claiming a scientific discovery refuses to change their mind, or starts moving the goalposts when clear contradictory evidence is found, then they're a bad sientist.

That said, given the clearly differing understanding between various people on what evolution actually is, in the current debate I'm sure there are different views about where the goalposts actually *are*, so what one person sees a a clarification of meaning might be seen by somebody else as backtracking.

In the case of words which may have a different meaning to a student of evolution than to someone else, or where vague language is used by a scientist because they know that someone of like mind would not misunderstand them, there is definitely room for confusion but trying to be absolutely specific would probably render the conversation unreadable.

How can it be 'based upon falsifiable observations'?, I don't quite understand. Good science is verifiable. Indeed if it is not verifiable, then it is surely deemed 'bad' science.

If a belief system does or does not include evidence or experiemntal proof does it make it more or less a system of thought upon which to base an idea of the world around us. I agree that it wouldn't be faith (that insinuates some bypassing of scientific proof).

The ongoing debate surrounding evolution centres mainly around less fundamental questions. But a good debate is what science is all about.

Ste

Just a note to Aljiis: not all creationists believe in the Bible.

Ah, the problems of writing late at night. I meant to say
"based on *repeatable* observations, and is therefore falsifiable".

Science is based on certain beliefs and assumptions. But all assumptions that we make every day as humans. When I woke up this morning, I went to the office expecting it to not have dissolved into a blue haze while I was gone. It was an assumption, but I dont think you can blame me for it.

I would like to start out by saying that I do not 'believe' in God - any more than I 'believe' that 2+2=4, or that water is wet, or that the earth moves around the sun. Some overly philosophical people may now say that all the above can be interpretted as beliefs. They can push off, this posting is too practical and down-to-earth for them.

There seem to be alot of Evolutionists about - but are you automatically writing the Bible off as unscientific? The Bible was written by men who lived when most people thought that the earth was flat, and that the stars were a few hundred little lights on a huge dome. So how come Psalms talks about the "sphere" of the earth? And how did King David know about DNA? (Psalms 139:14 onward). But those who accept the Bible as truth say it was inspired by God, and there is plenty of evidence to support this. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society have published at least two books about creation v evolution, and other books reguarding the authenticity of the Bible, so I'm not going to repeat all their arguments here. Anyone who is interested can get in touch with them, or simply speak to the Jehovah's Witnesses next time they call.

There. Approximatly two thirds of my audience have left in disgust, and resolved never to enter into serious debate with me again - "How can someone so prejudiced possibly think like a scientist?" they ask themselves. So, some info: I took Physics and Chemistry A-levels (and was taught by evolutionist teachers), have read books by Paul Davies and Fred Hoyle, and have had long debates with my grandfather about evolution. In all this, I have found no convincing evidence that chance could have been responsible for the intricate universe we live in. I have weighed the evidence and found it come down again and again on the side of an intelligent designer and creator.

In response to someone who asked 'Does it matter?', I'm afraid the answer is 'Yes it does'. If we evolved by chance, then the order of the day is survival of the fittest. We are accountable to no-one, and life is an end in itself. Also, the is no hope of anything changing in the future - man must pull himself up by his own boot straps. However, if we were created by a loving God, then we have a hope and someone we can turn to for guidence. But we also have a responsibility. God gave us everything, and he asks for obedience in return (Micah 5:2). So you can't just refuse to think about it - or sit on the fence. Because there is reason to believe that soon Jehovah will act to "ruin those ruining the earth", and it will be clear then who's side everyone is on. Why he allowed the earth to be spoled in the first place, and why he has tolerated wickedness for so long is another debate, and all I will say here is that it is to do with the issue of universal sovreignty. Again, any questions, discuss it with the Witnesses. After all - that's why we call, to discuss the Bible and teach people about Jehovah.

And on that I'll end. I will be glad to discuss the Bible with anyone, but really it would be better to talk to people face to face. I don't have my bible with me here (I'm using the university computers), and I can't really be sure of getting back to you. Witnesses earth-wide teach the same truth, and use the same sources, to a large extent. No matter who you talk to, you will get the same information, so you can take up my arguments any witness you meet.

Cadi

Could you show me the part about DNA from your bible? Because the one I have looked in says nothing that could even remotely be about DNA in that passage. And where do they talk about the sphere of the Earth, I can only remember the circle of Earth.

And you don't think like a scientists if you says to you God is liek wet water. A scientist questions things.

Also I would like if you could just summarise evolution in a few basic sentences, just to see if you've gotten it right.

Some ancient Greeks realised the eatrh was round, and astronomy was extremely important to many older civilisations. Simply noting that the angle of the sun at midday varies at different places on a north-south line, or that the observable night sky also varies similarly is sufficient evidence to hint at a non-flat earth view, so any thinkers living or travelling in a territory that covered a sufficient north-south distance would have had the chance to have worked things out for themselves.

Unless there's strong evidence that every pre-judaic culture believed in a flat earth, what may be written in the bible on the subject isn't evidentailly useful one way or another.

I can't see any DNA reference in Psalms either, unless it's further on than 139. (Apart from one possibility that relies on a misunderstanding of the word 'wrought'.

I think it was the words "We are all written in your book" or something similar. Definite proof of DNA eh? Somebody has been listening to that "book of life" analogy for too long. DNA has more to do with a binary number system than it does with letters.