Creationism/Intelligent Design

BaldFriede wrote: No, they are not; in fact they have nothing to do with each other. The wave/particle paradoxon of light came up with Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect (for which he received the Nobel Prize). Until then everybody had believed light is a wave, and indeed there are many phenomenons like refraction and phase shift where it behaves like a wave. But the only explanation for the phtoelectric effect is that it is a particle. The uncertainty principle has to do with momentum and position of a particle and how exactly we can measure both.Here an explanation of the wave-particle duality of light:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_dualityHere an explanation of the uncertainty principle:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

    
again the photoelectric effect was there because the scientist creates the surrounding, forcing the photon to behave like a particle (if it could, and it could).

before that no experiments were done (succeeded) properly to determine the particle aspect of the photon, so it was the Observer (einstein) who determined that the wave model always used before wasn't the only state for the photon to be in.

from the given links some quotes:

particle-wave duality:
This confusion over particle versus wave properties was eventually resolved with the advent and establishment of quantum mechanics in the first half of the 20th century, which ultimately explained wave-particle duality. It provided a single unified theoretical framework for understanding that all matter may have characteristics associated with particles and waves.


Uncertainty principle:
Fundamentally, the uncertainty principle is a result of wave-particle duality.

"As funny as it is, you’re the one who can’t defend your position and provide a plausible explanation of the origins of Matter except for a promise that some day this explanation will be provided"-IVNORD

    In earlier times this argument surely could have been used in regard to the position of Earth in the universe? The fact that scientists are always open to new evidence is one of its great strengths.

Psychedelia wrote: "As funny as it is, you’re the one who can’t defend your position and provide a plausible explanation of the origins of Matter except for a promise that some day this explanation will be provided"-IVNORD     In earlier times this argument surely could have been used in regard to the position of Earth in the universe? The fact that scientists are always open to new evidence is one of its great strengths.

    You didn’t get my point

You can not claim to be a materialist and not be able to define matter.

IVNORD wrote: You didn’t get my point You can not claim to be a materialist and not be able to define matter.

tuxon wrote:     But don't scientist do the same way with the bible, calling it irrelevant for it isn't scientifically proven.

Anything with no evidence behind it is scientifically irrelivant.  The bible has no scientific evidence behind it, so it is irrelivant.  Anyone who uses the bible as evidence towards anything is not in any way being scientific. 

However, there are also hundreds of millions of years of fossils.  In addition, there is the irrefutable existance of many species on this planet.  By careful study of this evidence, scientists have come up with a scientific theory on the origin of species.  To say that this theory is not based on solid evidence, while somehow Creationalism is, is foolish, and frankly, quite ignorant. 

rileydog22 wrote: tuxon wrote:     But don't scientist do the same way with the bible, calling it irrelevant for it isn't scientifically proven. Anything with no evidence behind it is scientifically irrelivant.  The bible has no scientific evidence behind it, so it is irrelivant.  Anyone who uses the bible as evidence towards anything is not in any way being scientific.  However, there are also hundreds of millions of years of fossils.  In addition, there is the irrefutable existance of many species on this planet.  By careful study of this evidence, scientists have come up with a scientific theory on the origin of species.  To say that this theory is not based on solid evidence, while somehow Creationalism is, is foolish, and frankly, quite ignorant.

Majestic_Mayhem wrote: inpraiseoffolly wrote: Majestic_Mayhem wrote: Psychedelia wrote:   Majestic Mayhem, your argument that an explosion wont make a fully functioning airoplane is completely flawed as evolution is not a sudden process which quickly makes the desired result. It is more likable to a huge mountain that must be climbed which can only be taken slowly and in stages. Well, yeah I understand that. I'm not even talking about evolution here.  The whole universe coming into being is not evolution per se. Evolution and the "coming into being" of the whole universe as we know it is completely different. What I'm trying to say here is that the universe is not created by a large chaotic explosion... Can you give me some evidence other than that you can't understand it for this argument?  that is not evolution. There are 2 kinds of evolution. One of  which is  natural selection. It's a process, it's happening and it is without a doubt, true. But the notion that men evolved from some primeval goo is impossible.  It's impossible?  On the contrary, you don't want to believe it, because you want to think that humans are special.  Well, we are special, thanks to communication and higher brain function, but that doesn't change the fact that we evolved from monkeys, who evolved from smaller mammals, who came out of fish, who came out of primeval goo, or something along those lines.  As I've said earlier on this thread, logic compells me to believe that there is an intellegent creator. Faulty logic that relies on lack of understanding of how the world work as a premise.  Not only that, you're "logic" fails to explain how the creator came into being.  Saying he has always been there simply isn't an answer in any way.  It raises more questions than it answers.  It's a bit ironic, don't you think,that some scientists even try to prove that life can exist without intellegence, yet, there they are, using all their wisdom proving it. Everything out of nothing is just plain impossible.  Just because science doesn't have an answer yet doesn't mean that it's impossible.  And anyway, by your own "logic," God out of nothing is impossible... Monkeys are monkeys and humans are humans. Saying that were related to monkeys is like saying a watermelon is related to a cloud,  they are both 98 percent water. The missing link is still missing. In fact the word missing link is a misnomer. It should be missing linkS. There are thousands of them. Consider a mouse trap. All the essential parts are there. Take one out, and the mouse trap wont work. Same is true with the simple cell. Take one out, and there will be no cell at all. It won't function. That can't happen by accident. Another example is this post. This post doesnt happen by accident or chance. I took the time to type it, and press the post reply button for you and other members to read it. Somebody authored this post. it's much easier for me to believe that the harmonious coordination of our bodie's anatomy and physiology is not a product of blind chance. it's screaming intellegent design. You can't see me, right? But I suppose you believe that I exist, and is actually the one typing this message. I won't even discuss how to prove God by logic here.

The comparison with a mousetrap is nothing but nonsense. A mousetrap is something that was built at once, without developping. Also evolution is not teleologic, while your argument is. Nobody is there to say "Let's build a mousetrap by evolution"; on the contrary, the outcome of evolution is completely unknown in the beginning. It might be a mousetrap, but it might also be can-opener. And then evolution works slowly, step by step. I will give you just one example that definitely shows evolution works:
In older reptiles the jaw was formed by two bones named articulare and quadratum. During the evolution of reptiles two other bones, the squamoso and the dentale, were included to form the jaw, and articulare and quadratum shrank in size, until they no longer were needed for the jaw. They still exist in human beings of today though, where they are the two little bones incus and malleus in the human ear. This process of evolution is very well documented by fossils. And this is just one example.
I wonder what you mean by "missing link". In fact there are many so-called "missing links", and each day new ones are found. If one found a missng link, you would probably ask "and what is the missing link to that?". I suspect you want a generation-for-generation documentation, like a pedigree. "Horatio the Bloodsucker, T. rex, begat Theodore, Ludmilla, Anastasia, Eleonora.... and Edmund with his wfe Dorothea nee Sharpclaw". Well, palaentology can't provide that, and if you knew anything about how little the chances are that an organism turns into a fossil after death (not to mention the chances of finding such a fossil), you would not talk of "missing links" like you do.
Anti-evolutionists always behave as if "mutation" was the only principle of evolution, and their arguments are always pointed at that part. Mutation alone certainly could not create an evolution; there would just be random changes with no pattern evolving at all. What anti-evolutionists tend to overlook is "selection". Many experiments have been made that very well prove that random changes + selection indeed very quickly forms patterns. And nature had a lot of time...


Edited by BaldFriede - January 26 2007 at 09:08

mosni lamf wrote: IVNORD wrote: You didn’t get my point You can not claim to be a materialist and not be able to define matter. In the same vein, would it be possible to claim to be a theist without being able to define god?

    Absolutely. This is the beauty of the situation. Theists admit they don’t know what God is as He is above human comprehension. In religion, Judaism and Islam even prohibit any play of imagination on the subject by by banning any depiction of God, mental or physical. This is a luxury a materialist can’t afford since Matter, by their own admission, is around us, we can touch it, feel it, perform scientific experiments with it, etc. Yet when it comes to a scientific definition of matter, no clear word has ever been uttered. Karl Marx, who’s revered as a paramount materialist thinker, defined it as “eternal in time and space,” apparently surrendering to the impossibility of clarifying it and practically deifying matter with this vague statement. So any of you who considers himself to be smarter than Marx is welcome to try

Sean Trane wrote: However, I would've liked to hear your point of view (not the one of our colleagues Folly and his buddy, >> I read theirs and grew immensely tired >>> sorry you two, but it is like starting the debate over from ground zero) in my answer about life being a complete and utter fluke and you saying I was pessimistic and I saying I was optmistic.

    That was more of a joke. If it was a fluke, we might not be talking here. That’s the pessimism.
Anyway, with my understanding of God’s creation of the substance, I tend to consider predetermined design to be prevalent in such important matters as existence of life, and free will to be reigning in non-global processes. Thus, I think of Evolution as designed by God, but the near-extermination of bison in North America as done by man. Although I must confess, the problem of free will and determinism is the most difficult for me and presents a temptation to be opportunistic, which I succumb to from time to time, albeit inadvertently, as I try to be honest.       

Sean Trane wrote: As I said, I am not hostile to its existence, but let's face it the people who affim it exists, don't know anymore than the ones who say it doesn't.

True. It’s called the Great Mystery of Life

Sean Trane wrote: And since I prefer rationality to irrationality, and only choose to believe what can be proven (rather than believe something that can't be disproved), you'll see that I chose atheism (and part of TBB) in full conscience.

Rather you chose to believe that it COULD be proven. As I said before, it all comes to the point what you want to believe in.

BaldFriede wrote: Sean Trane wrote: And since I prefer rationality to irrationality, and only choose to believe what can be proven (rather than believe something that can't be disproved), you'll see that I chose atheism (and part of TBB) in full conscience. The non-existence of God can't be proven either, so how come you believe in that? If what you say is true, then agnosticism, not atheism, should be your position.