Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Creationists and Evolutionists: Can Both Be Right?  (Read 2900 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

TheAntiChrist

  • Semi-Super User!
  • *
  • Feedback: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1337
    • http://www.geocitie.com/markquinton/Atheism.HTML
Creationists and Evolutionists: Can Both Be Right?
« Reply #20 on: December 15, 2004, 03:42:23 PM »

i really wish people wouldn't use the more than 1 user trick. oh, I was wandering, are you the owner?
Logged
For any christian who wants to leave their homeground chatting room. Try this site out.
Here is a site for Atheist.
Puddin Power!!!

eeen

  • User
  • *
  • Feedback: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Creationists and Evolutionists: Can Both Be Right?
« Reply #21 on: December 15, 2004, 03:54:46 PM »

it's irrelevent (or disingenuous, given your knowledge of evolution) to ask what isn't stepwise. Any motion can be broken into theoretical steps. The stepping in evolution is "ratcheted", where "good" changes are incorporated and bad ones are ignored. Don't think about progression of individuals; think of progression of the shared gene pool.

An example of this type of progression would occur when you only accept offers for superior jobs. It doesn't matter what stream of jobs are offered, you either stay put or move towards that VP position. The "other" type of progression is represented by the case where you will accept any job offer at all: as you randomly jump from job to job, you are likely to end up doing the most common sort of job, like flipping burgers, and it is this kind of degenerating randomness which creationists pretend is in effect when they argue about the extraordinary unlikelihood of proteins forming.
Logged
Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Anthony Horvath

  • Administrator
  • sntjohnny? I'm sntjohnny!
  • *
  • Feedback: +28/-41
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8493
    • http://www.sntjohnny.com
Creationists and Evolutionists: Can Both Be Right?
« Reply #22 on: December 15, 2004, 04:09:56 PM »

No, I would say its disengenous to form a theory based on stepwise processes, because in fact if you wanted to, you really could explain anything in that way.

Even quantum physics is based on the concept of there being 'discrete' steps, right?  And that was one of the examples given, right?
Logged
Today's Favorite Quote:  "The UN is like GI Joe - an organization with the goal of world peace. Difference being one of them actually achieves their goals."  EndBringer

Yesterday's Fav: "I love when it all comes down to semantics, because that usually means I get to pwn someone."  Sir Somebody Something, Deep Truth, Trent, Solaris Paradox

TheAntiChrist

  • Semi-Super User!
  • *
  • Feedback: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1337
    • http://www.geocitie.com/markquinton/Atheism.HTML
Creationists and Evolutionists: Can Both Be Right?
« Reply #23 on: December 15, 2004, 04:18:53 PM »

*Does not bang head on computer*
Logged
For any christian who wants to leave their homeground chatting room. Try this site out.
Here is a site for Atheist.
Puddin Power!!!

Sir Somebody Something

  • Predominant User
  • *
  • Feedback: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 893
Creationists and Evolutionists: Can Both Be Right?
« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2004, 09:46:07 PM »

Quote from: TheAntiChrist
*Does not bang head on computer*


 :smt023 Good for you! We lose far too many atheists that way.

As for my opinion on the matter, I think that evolution may well have been a part of God's design (and I'm Christian now, for those who may have missed the topic I posted). It certainly makes more sense than just saying He snapped His Godly finger and they all just popped out of the ground. He would have taken time with it, perfected his brushstrokes, as it were.

You can't rush art, after all.
Logged
Sir Somebody Something,
Nameless Knight of the Kingdom of Heaven

"Put on the full armor of God... and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."
- Ephesians 6:11-17

Anthony Horvath

  • Administrator
  • sntjohnny? I'm sntjohnny!
  • *
  • Feedback: +28/-41
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8493
    • http://www.sntjohnny.com
Creationists and Evolutionists: Can Both Be Right?
« Reply #25 on: December 16, 2004, 07:08:51 AM »

Just noticed this question to me from TACKY-

No, sir, I am not TheOwner.
Logged
Today's Favorite Quote:  "The UN is like GI Joe - an organization with the goal of world peace. Difference being one of them actually achieves their goals."  EndBringer

Yesterday's Fav: "I love when it all comes down to semantics, because that usually means I get to pwn someone."  Sir Somebody Something, Deep Truth, Trent, Solaris Paradox

Phil

  • Predominant User
  • *
  • Feedback: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 858
    • http://angelfire.com/journal/Philsviews/index.html
Creationists and Evolutionists: Can Both Be Right?
« Reply #26 on: December 16, 2004, 12:37:06 PM »

And I am not Delta Blues.  I don't use sock puppets.
Logged
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" - Homer Simpson

"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. "

Thomas Paine

'Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.'
(Charles Darwin)


My webpage

Anthony Horvath

  • Administrator
  • sntjohnny? I'm sntjohnny!
  • *
  • Feedback: +28/-41
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8493
    • http://www.sntjohnny.com
Creationists and Evolutionists: Can Both Be Right?
« Reply #27 on: December 16, 2004, 12:46:54 PM »

lol

Nice.
Logged
Today's Favorite Quote:  "The UN is like GI Joe - an organization with the goal of world peace. Difference being one of them actually achieves their goals."  EndBringer

Yesterday's Fav: "I love when it all comes down to semantics, because that usually means I get to pwn someone."  Sir Somebody Something, Deep Truth, Trent, Solaris Paradox

physicist

  • User
  • *
  • Feedback: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Discrete Steps In Quantum Physics
« Reply #28 on: December 27, 2004, 12:10:04 AM »

Descritizing time is not fundamental to quantum theories.  

In quantum theories without gravity, time is continuous.  In string theory, time is continuous.  In loop quantum gravity there is an area operator which can, in restricted scenarios, take on discrete values.  But, there is never anything fundamental about the discreteness of the spectrum.
Logged

TheAntiChrist

  • Semi-Super User!
  • *
  • Feedback: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1337
    • http://www.geocitie.com/markquinton/Atheism.HTML
Creationists and Evolutionists: Can Both Be Right?
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2005, 05:10:56 PM »

Quote
Descritizing time is not fundamental to quantum theories.

In quantum theories without gravity, time is continuous. In string theory, time is continuous. In loop quantum gravity there is an area operator which can, in restricted scenarios, take on discrete values. But, there is never anything fundamental about the discreteness of the spectrum.

I know this is way off subject, but can you explain to me in short about string theory. Nova bores me.
Logged
For any christian who wants to leave their homeground chatting room. Try this site out.
Here is a site for Atheist.
Puddin Power!!!

physicist

  • User
  • *
  • Feedback: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Creationists and Evolutionists: Can Both Be Right?
« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2005, 11:51:22 AM »

I doubt that I can give better summaries than are on these webpages


www.superstringtheory.com

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/

If you have a weak math background read "The Elegant Universe"

If you have a medium background try Zwiebach's (sp?) string theory book.  By medium I mean multivariate calculus, diff. eqs., and linear algebra.

If you have a strong background the sky is the limit.  I suggest beginning with:
Polchinski  Vol's 1 and 2
Greene, Schwartz, and Witten Vol's 1 and 2
Johnson's book

The last 5 are the standard references which most grad students try to learn the subject.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up