http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2...5/pr-24-05.html

It's nice to see how consistent some scientific theories are.  I mean, just when you think you finally know it all some new evidence comes along and you have to rewrite everything again.  Don't you just hate that?  

Theories are called such because it is not necessarily known whether or not they are, in fact, true. There is speculation and evidence that points towards such, but there is still doubt. As a result, theories by their very nature need to be constantly rewritten as new information is gathered, and things that were previously thought to be true or possible (or vice versa) are found to be otherwise.

Washu: That's why evolution is a theory, not a law, you nitwit.

I was giving the perfect example of a failed theory. *ahem* Enough of that.
I am glad that there is more to know, and a more clear understanding of the universe, a theory nontheless, but something to be considered.

The Theory of Evolution was hijacked by a number of atheists that intended to claim evolution was random, and as such, God does not exist.

Fact of the matter is, they can't prove anything truely random exists.

The purpose of evolutionary theory that is stated, (at least what I've been thought), and this is a rough statement, is to prove that there doesn?t need to be a super natural force to "bling"  the universe from absolutely nothing, into existence, and how things like microbes just happen to get the incentive (without no reason, and without need to) to improve themselves, by themselves. Hell I wish I can pop out a third arm, which would solve a lot of my problems. I think the idea is ludicrous because it violates numerous scientific laws and principles that dictate how science experiments and inquiries must be conducted on a regular basis. Sure, you can experiment on the idea, don't throw it away if it violates one little law, but really, look it the law of causality, then look at evolution, it just does not equate.

You can give all the explanations you want, but they will never solve science's biggest question: What happened at the instant of the universe's birth? You can trace it down as many nano-seconds and millionths of a nano-second as you want, but that still does not answer the question. I'm not saying, let's jump right into creationism, I'm saying consider it, after all it has more evidence in its ball park then evolution has in theirs. And evolution is hundreds of years older then creationism. I always study all possibilities as you do Tab, but making evolution the standard ground and foundation for all things living is a bad act of arrogance by the scientific community. You know what they say, "Me house built on the sandy ground, it will fall you see."


And I beleive evolution enthusists are exactly this way.

Anyway (whew) I accept this new theory as a good gain of knowledge, we'll just have to see what else they come up with. It may be that science was wrong about some things.

Oh what the hell, this thread is so far gone now it makes no difference.


Which only serves to further my own observations.  What one sees depends on what one is already looking for.  So often it is with life.  Science, religion...  if you go into either with explicit expectations, most often you will find what it is that you seek.  Why is it that some people read the Bible and find a message of love, peace, and forgiveness, and others find a message of damnation, judgement, and persecution?  Why is it one person looks at nature and sees the hand of God, and someone else sees random chance?  Why do some see a beautiful forest, and others see a threatening wilderness?  Are they not looking at the same nature?  Are both readers not reading the same book?  The difference lies not in the nature, nor in the text, but in the people themselves.

Regarding the dispute between creationism and evolution, I've seen absurdity on both sides.  I've seen people trying to prove that dinosaurs lived along side man prior to the flood.  I've seen people use very malformed footprints as "proof" that humans walked beside dinosaurs in order to try to "prove" the earth is no more than 6,000 years old.  Nevermind that when you look closely at the footprints they appear to be nothing more than badly formed impressions from soft mudsand, nevermind all the geologic and astronimical evidence that the universe is old (If a star is 16 billion light years away, how long has the light been traveling, exactly?).  I've also seen evolutionists completely ignore the utter complexity of life, going out of their way to avoid even admitting the possibility that life is non-random.  You want to talk about untestable theories...  I have no problem with the notion that life changes and adapts to its surroundings.  This is a fact.  Genetics proves that life is constantly changing, which would be necessary since the environment is also constantly changing.  A dynamic environment requires dynamic creatures to exist within it.  Where the problem lies is that the exact origin of life is unprovable.  The theory of evolution assumes it to be a random event.  That is just that - an unproved assumption.  If anyone has a point they want to attack, there you go.  It's never been replicated in a laboratory, but then again, gravity has not (officially) been created artificially either, yet it exists around us.  Neither has God been proven scientifically, yet if neither God nor the origin of life, or the universe, is provable, then are not both evolution's and creationism's explanations for the origin of life of equal validity in the eyes of a skeptic?

Evolution also assumes that man evolved from apes owing to physiological similarities.  It cannot be explicitly proven that humans are actually apes.  It can be inferred, but it cannot be proven concretely.  What amazes me is that the most educated men will classify humans as having evolved from animals yet at the same time will profess that only man is capable of cognitive thought, reason, and self-awareness; that is, sentience.  You want to talk about arrogance?  There it is.  To me either man is an animal, making all animals capable to some degree of the same things man is, or man is a fluke, something set apart from animals.  If the former is true, then man is guilty of horrible ethical crimes against nature owing to his treatment of life on this earth.  If the latter is true, then it begs the question:  What made man, and why, since he obviously is not an animal, but something completely different?  And if man was made by God, and is then a steward of the Earth, then he has still been a very poor caretaker.  I see the same arrogance professed from many pulpits about man having been created "in God's image", therefore being higher than other forms of life.  In the same sermon they will preach about man's fall from grace.  Well, excepting myself of course, what other animals ever fell from grace with God, according to scripture?  Again, pride and arrogance, putting man at the center of the universe.  To me this equation is consistent on both sides of the aisle.

What is lost in all of this is the actual search for truth.  Why can't the Earth be billions of years old?  Does not the bible say that "A day to the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day?"  On the same token, who says God could not have created life initially, and maybe added some things along the way here and there, and yet still allowed it to change and evolve to adapt to its surroundings?  Are we, who are mere creatures, audacious enough to try to dictate to God how He runs His own universe, saying it must be this way or that?  And as a scientist, who has the evidence justifying such a dogmatic premise that demands life having to originate from random chance?  Let's compare notes between geologic history and the Bible, shall we?

In Genesis, 1:20, on the 5th day of creation it says the following:


The literal hebrew for "whales" here means "big fish" or "sea monster", not the mammalian variety, for clarification, but look at this closely.  Does science not say that animal life on land began in the sea?  Do we not see land creatures, birds, great sea monsters (plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs anyone?) being brought forth from the sea?  Is this not similar?  If this is a picture of the entire 5th day, how do we know it was instantaneous, hmm?  Also in 2 Baruch in the Pseudepigrapha, it speaks of Leviathan and Behemoth (mentioned in Job chapter 40, which describes a creature very similar to a sauropod dinosaur) being made on the 5th day.  Well, there's your missing dinosaurs for all the skeptics who would ask, and on the 6th day, God again creates "living creatures after their kind".  Why do this if the waters had brought forth life already?  Could this difference between the 5th and 6th days be the dividing line between the "age of reptiles" and the "age of mammals" denoted by science, since man also is made on the 6th day?  How do we know a day to the Lord is not indeterminate?  Who's to define it, save for God Himself?  How do we know that the record of Creation in Genesis is not actually a reflection on what science has discovered?  And if it is, what a marvel that should be, for then science would have come damned close to having proven God!  But then... perhaps that's what everyone is afraid of, on both sides, since everyone is far too comfortable nibbling over details and feeling self-important instead of looking for deeper truths.  Look into the mirror and I will show you what you fear most, for it lies not without, but within.

See, there are so many things that could be congruent between science and religion, if one opens their eyes to possibilities.  That was the entire point of my post was to open that door.  Instead what do people find?  They find attacks on their way of thinking, or a reason to attack someone else's.  Well, let me share a little bit of Phoenix's wisdom with you, what little I will claim to actually have.  Very few minds are ever changed by attacking someone's beliefs.  Putting someone on the defensive will never, ever get them to agree with you.  The mind has to be open first before it can change, and even then you have no right to decide for someone.  They have to make up their own mind.  It is better to just share knowledge openly and let someone draw what conclusions they may.  Let people see what they see.  Share what you know, and learn from what others have to share as well.  If they don't see things the same way as you, that's their business.  

To the scientist, I would say, open your eyes.  Stop ignoring what you don't want to see for fear it may lead you where you do not wish to go.  If God lies at the end of that path, then you must follow it regardless of your feelings.  True science is unbiased discovery through dispassionate observation.  One can certainly be passionate about the results, but ignoring some facts and highlighting others is doing a great disservice to all humanity.

To the devout Christian, I would say, open your eyes as well.  Stop ignoring what science has to offer.  Stop seeing what you want to see in the Bible, and read what it really says.  Don't limit your thought to what is preached by men.  Look to the Word of God, as it is written, not how someone else has interpreted it for you.  If you truly believe there is a Father in Heaven, and a Holy Spirit to guide your thoughts and actions, then allow that Spirit to guide you as you read.  Then you will see with different eyes, and perhaps understand much more than you ever thought you could.


The only real enemy is ignorance, and those who seek to suppress free thinking.  I think it's obvious that those kind of people exist on both sides of the broader discussion.  They're only dangerous when they're in control, and I would warn that they are even more dangerous to you when you find you are in agreement with their way of thinking, or when you at least find their school of thought preferable to the one you are opposed to, for then you are less likely to question them, and put them to task.  If one is not free to explore all possibilities, then it is a tyranny, whether they think like you or not.[/color]

Heh, reminds me of a bit my father was fond of.

*picks up random object*
"You want to see the Word of God?"
*drops object*
"There you go."

Whatever the opposite of 'randomness' is, is irrelevant. "If you are not with us, you are against us" is not only a fallacious slogan in politics, but outside of it aswell! :]
Evolution can be easily framed within a determinate world and just as well in a fully free ('quantum') environment. It can be part of a designer's plan, whether that be an alien race or a god, or perhaps it might fit into some wholly new concept of the world that we simply haven't thought of.


I have read it, and it's quite a page-turner. Amusing as they are, I've had my fill of Brown's writing gadgets - I know his books are popular and also that they're not high class literature - but that's all besides the point. What's important is that the good man writes thriller novels, not academic level disciplinary research literature. I assume you've read his big hit the Davinci code - and hopefully the later released fiction and fact lists regarding it - which has some very nice viewpoints, that will certainly help to dislodge the misogynist thoughts in some people, which I think is great. However, it is no history book and no trustworthy theological study, as the author hastens to point out (after he's made a fortune on it, that is). I therefore would argue that it is not 'as described above' :]



For these and similar questions, quite adequate theories are available, but you have to make an effort to shake off the intuitive link to every day life: "better themselves" is a decidedly human effort, which no person can undertake without a society to chalk up its progress in (arguably, this is an interesting philosophical problem that is logically still in debate) - that is the folk-meaning of the term. A simple word such as "development" does not carry any such connotations at all - in fact, it doesn't say anything about the value of change, which is essential in getting the whole picture. Also, the words "outside source" are rather vague: outside of what? (I know what you mean, don't respond to this, I'm merely indicating some problems with the way in which the question is posed) - these words can throw up misconceptions of how "'spontaneous' mutations" have their place in the proposed model.
Ask the right question or the same question in the right way, and you will have avoided many pitfalls of presupposition, for yourself and your audience. Take for instance the fallacy of the complex question: "When did you stop beating your wife?". This one is easy to spot, but when you are engrossed in a discussion about something as hard to understand as a cosmic theory (or the theory of evolution), this kind of thing can slip through unnoticed by both parties more often than not.

The opposite of "random" is "order"
ie: chaos/law

Randomnity is practically impossible to prove. Visibly, a 'random' set of numbers and those derived from a pseudo-random equation would be identically chaotic. If you know the equation, and you know the seed, any 'random' number generator is entirely predictable. The more complex the seed and/or equation, the more random-seeming it becomes.

In the case of fractals, it forms recognizeable patterns spiralling, arcing, etc. off into infinity.

/offtopic