1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
This just isn't the case. There are a very large number of examples of gradual change illustrated in the fossil record. The horse and the whale are good cases. You can see each step as the shape of the creature slowly changed over millions of years.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."
There is a good reason for this. Species tend to arise fastest in small isolated groups of animals, such as on islands. Because these are small, they tend not to be preserved in the fossil record. When the new species come back into contact with larger land areas, by continental drift or sea level change for example, they can spread and possibly increase in number. Continental drift explains lot of this: for example the sudden appearance of new species in South America as a result of migration from North America when the land bridge formed.
Ok, I admit I was having a bit of fun. Its amusing to see people get so involved in describing the detailed attributes (such as omnipotence) of something for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
I have. I have studied both evolution and creationism in detail for a long time.
In the past creationist have not always given the best answers to the questions from evolutionist. Doesn't make evolution any more true.
You are right. But, the fact that creationists have not given good answers is a very good reason indeed to doubt what they say.
Instead of looking into it for yourself
I have looked into it, and still am.
I challenge *you* to take the time and look into it. Its not always easy to understand, but the story of evolution is a long and beautiful one. It gives you a sense of awe and wonder at the amazing variety and strangeness of life. It explains why life looks like it is, and how it has changed and survived over billions of years. Its not a complete story yet, but its a good one. Its not a made-up story - its one that has been build up by careful observation and debate over centuries.
Creationism puts us in such a small, feeble, minor universe. Evolution opens our minds to a world that is hugely more impressive and awesome.
Leading univeristies have proven they can accually stop light, hold it in place, then speed it up on their command.
Well, firstly, that is not in empty space, which as I hope even you believe, is what exists between the stars.
Secondly, if light was stopped for a while, that would mean it took *longer* to get here from the stars, which would mean they were *even older* than millions of years!
For your argument to work, light would need to be speeded up. No-one has done that, of course.
(Also, they aren't really stopping light at all: they are simply storing the information in the light and then re-creating the light later).
Its nothing to do with strength. The species that tend to survive extinctions tend to be those that are most numerous and widespread, and those tend to be physically smaller creatures. The extinction 65 million years ago was not really the 'end of the dinosaurs', but simply the mass destruction of large creatures. After all, a particular type of small therapod dinosaur (the birds) are still around.
No - they do really mean that 80% or 95% of *species* died. We know this by counting the different types of species present before and after the extinction. It would be impossible to count the *numbers* of life-forms.
Well, interestingly enough, the Bible has itself evolved. There have been plenty of mis-translations and copying errors. Several mis-translations (like the use of the term 'virgin' birth) have led to the Bible becoming more popular and widespread. This is a good example of natural selection.
Well, actually, sorry - you can't. Try it and see. The speed of light in space is constant. Its very easy to measure, and very easy to prove it's constant all the time and in all directions - all you need is mirrors a long way apart and a stop-watch. you don't have to take anyone's word for it. Look up the Michelson-Morely experiment.
Yup, those stars really are millions of years old... sorry.
Well, if its a lie... who is telling it? Who put all those fossils there? Go look for yourself. Anyone can find fossils. Why are they there? Why do they appear to tell a very clear and simple story of evolution?
As for radioactive decay, I measured it very easily at college. Do you even know what radioactive decay is?
I don't believe in God, but why should a belief in God have anything at all to do with evolution? Surely God can create the universe and life the way he wants? Why do you have a problem with this?
If creationism were true, there would be no evidence at all for evolution. There would be no fossils, no radioactive decay evidence, nothing. That there is pretty convincing evidence for evolution suggests that either:
(1) it actually happened, or (2) God put it there as some kind of sneaky plan to fool most of us into thinking creationism is ignorant nonsense.
What really gets me is that none of the so called "scientific" origin-of-life theories are logically sound. Nor are they scientific, in the truest sense of the word - their hypotheses cannot be tested.
Of course they can be tested. You can make a hypothesis about how cells form and you can go look for such cells in the fossil record. You can create evolving DNA and RNA strands in a test tube. You can make artificial life forms in the laboratory (this is in progress). There are many clear, simple and easy-to-understand ideas about how life can get started.
Now, instead of four billion years, they've got to explain in it 250 million years. Given that they've already posited that mankind's ancestors appeared about 50 million years ago, they're down to a mere 200 million years to go from single-celled to upright and walking.
No. The extinction killed off most species, but certainly did not reduce life to single cells. Left behind were complex plants, fish, reptiles. Its all there, clearly recorded in the fossil record.
Rather, science often illumines our knowledge of God - we discover the perfection of the Creator in witnessing the beauty of the created.
Apart from the aspects of the 'created' you refuse to look at. Surely its up to God (assuming he exists) to decide how life is created, and unless he is a huge practical joker and trying to fool us, there is overwhelming evidence that evolution is the method.
In this view, in a crowded world, species are constantly in competition with each other, and diversity is held in balance, while in the time after a great extinction, all such constraints disappear, and species are free to do as they please.
On the contrary - diversity is not held in balance while species are constantly in competition, as competition fuels evolution. There is simply more space for diversity after an exinction.
Although I am very much against Many Worlds, I believe that the criticism that the splitting has to occurr everywhere in the universe at once is false. As I understand it split propogates away from a quantum event at the speed of light. Wavefunctions repeatedly hit each other, cause splits and are in turn split themselves. There are no true entire parallel whole universes, just a very large number of local splits.
Einstein once used this criticism against Many Worlds, saying that 'it was crazy that what happened to a mouse could split the Universe'. Everett, the inventor of Many Worlds replied that 'it was the Universe which split the mouse' i.e. local splitting occurred.
It was fine for great physicists to propose these interpretations, but for anyone to accept them as "real", or to say one interpretation is more "correct" than another, is wrong-headed. What gets me is the people who then springboard off their favourite interpretation to make wild sweeping extrapolations with no scientific backing whatsoever.
This interpretation is championed by many of the leading physicists. For example Deutsch and Murray Gell-Mann.
This is not quite what it seems. The interpretation may be mathematically used by many of the leading physicists, but not that many actually believe its really true, like Deutsch.
David Deutsch is a very, very good physicist, but has a tendency to wander into wild metaphysics and believe that his ideas are proven by experiments that have many possible explanations.
There are other ways to explain this. The Transactional Interpretation replaces the assumption of multiple universes with the idea that particles can interact back and forth through time. The 'collapse' to one photon is the result of interference between so-called 'advanced' and 'retarded' waves which operate in different time directions. This may sound crazy, but the math works fine and it is no madder than 'multiple universes'. I'm not saying this is true, just that 'multiple universes' is certainly not the only, and perhaps not the simplest, explanation of this effect.
The Transactional interpretation of John Cramer has only one rule (the transaction), no Unicorns and no Multiple Worlds.
Occams razor?
Of course, to say that there are no collapses in the Many Worlds interpretation is nonsense: After all, each parallel self in each universe only sees one outcome, so for each self there has, in effect, been a collapse. Its only from the point of view of a hypothetical (and impossible) observer of the entire multiverse that there is no collapse. In a sense, the Many Worlds interpretation has a phenomenal number of collapses as each new parallel self sees a distinct outcome. That is not an Occam-compatible explanation of things.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all about how the coder writes his/her software, same with C, or Java, or anything else.
Java has SecurityManagers, so its not the same as with C or anything else. Its easy to protect against dumb coding.
In other words, they believe it's true when it actually matters, but prefer to think they don't.
No, it means they use the set of equations consistent with the interpretation. Its nothing to do with whether its 'true' or not.
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
This just isn't the case. There are a very large number of examples of gradual change illustrated in the fossil record. The horse and the whale are good cases. You can see each step as the shape of the creature slowly changed over millions of years.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."
There is a good reason for this. Species tend to arise fastest in small isolated groups of animals, such as on islands. Because these are small, they tend not to be preserved in the fossil record. When the new species come back into contact with larger land areas, by continental drift or sea level change for example, they can spread and possibly increase in number. Continental drift explains lot of this: for example the sudden appearance of new species in South America as a result of migration from North America when the land bridge formed.
Ok, I admit I was having a bit of fun. Its amusing to see people get so involved in describing the detailed attributes (such as omnipotence) of something for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Let me start by saying that there ARE things that God cannot do.
Ah. So not all-powerful then (see definition of omnipotence below).
He cannot sin or do anything that goes against His Godly character.
Not even if he wanted to?
However, He would not set out to do these things.
Has he told you this? If so, when and where?
The definition of omnipotence, therefore, is the ability to do anything that one sets out to do.
Actually no.
The definition of omnipotence is:
"Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force".
I'm no expert.
I am.
But you need to hear both sides of the story.
I have. I have studied both evolution and creationism in detail for a long time.
In the past creationist have not always given the best answers to the questions from evolutionist. Doesn't make evolution any more true.
You are right. But, the fact that creationists have not given good answers is a very good reason indeed to doubt what they say.
Instead of looking into it for yourself
I have looked into it, and still am.
I challenge *you* to take the time and look into it. Its not always easy to understand, but the story of evolution is a long and beautiful one. It gives you a sense of awe and wonder at the amazing variety and strangeness of life. It explains why life looks like it is, and how it has changed and survived over billions of years. Its not a complete story yet, but its a good one. Its not a made-up story - its one that has been build up by careful observation and debate over centuries.
Creationism puts us in such a small, feeble, minor universe. Evolution opens our minds to a world that is hugely more impressive and awesome.
The truth is hard sometimes. But doesn't make it any less true..
Yes, it is hard. You certainly seem to be having a lot of trouble with it.
Leading univeristies have proven they can accually stop light, hold it in place, then speed it up on their command.
Well, firstly, that is not in empty space, which as I hope even you believe, is what exists between the stars.
Secondly, if light was stopped for a while, that would mean it took *longer* to get here from the stars, which would mean they were *even older* than millions of years!
For your argument to work, light would need to be speeded up. No-one has done that, of course.
(Also, they aren't really stopping light at all: they are simply storing the information in the light and then re-creating the light later).
Its nothing to do with strength. The species that tend to survive extinctions tend to be those that are most numerous and widespread, and those tend to be physically smaller creatures. The extinction 65 million years ago was not really the 'end of the dinosaurs', but simply the mass destruction of large creatures. After all, a particular type of small therapod dinosaur (the birds) are still around.
No - they do really mean that 80% or 95% of *species* died. We know this by counting the different types of species present before and after the extinction. It would be impossible to count the *numbers* of life-forms.
Well, interestingly enough, the Bible has itself evolved. There have been plenty of mis-translations and copying errors. Several mis-translations (like the use of the term 'virgin' birth) have led to the Bible becoming more popular and widespread. This is a good example of natural selection.
You can slow light down and speed it up
Well, actually, sorry - you can't. Try it and see. The speed of light in space is constant. Its very easy to measure, and very easy to prove it's constant all the time and in all directions - all you need is mirrors a long way apart and a stop-watch. you don't have to take anyone's word for it. Look up the Michelson-Morely experiment.
Yup, those stars really are millions of years old... sorry.
Well, if its a lie... who is telling it? Who put all those fossils there? Go look for yourself. Anyone can find fossils. Why are they there? Why do they appear to tell a very clear and simple story of evolution?
As for radioactive decay, I measured it very easily at college. Do you even know what radioactive decay is?
I don't believe in God, but why should a belief in God have anything at all to do with evolution? Surely God can create the universe and life the way he wants? Why do you have a problem with this?
You seem to be missing the point...
If creationism were true, there would be no evidence at all for evolution. There would be no fossils, no radioactive decay evidence, nothing. That there is pretty convincing evidence for evolution suggests that either:
(1) it actually happened, or
(2) God put it there as some kind of sneaky plan to fool most of us into thinking creationism is ignorant nonsense.
Which of these do you choose?
The argument was what he can do, not what he wants to do.
God is all powerful and there is nothing that He can not do.
As a great philospher once asked: "Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?"
If he can he's not all-powerful.
If he can't he's not all-powerful.
So the conclusion is.....
What really gets me is that none of the so called "scientific" origin-of-life theories are logically sound. Nor are they scientific, in the truest sense of the word - their hypotheses cannot be tested.
Of course they can be tested. You can make a hypothesis about how cells form and you can go look for such cells in the fossil record. You can create evolving DNA and RNA strands in a test tube. You can make artificial life forms in the laboratory (this is in progress). There are many clear, simple and easy-to-understand ideas about how life can get started.
Now, instead of four billion years, they've got to explain in it 250 million years. Given that they've already posited that mankind's ancestors appeared about 50 million years ago, they're down to a mere 200 million years to go from single-celled to upright and walking.
No. The extinction killed off most species, but certainly did not reduce life to single cells. Left behind were complex plants, fish, reptiles. Its all there, clearly recorded in the fossil record.
Rather, science often illumines our knowledge of God - we discover the perfection of the Creator in witnessing the beauty of the created.
Apart from the aspects of the 'created' you refuse to look at. Surely its up to God (assuming he exists) to decide how life is created, and unless he is a huge practical joker and trying to fool us, there is overwhelming evidence that evolution is the method.
In this view, in a crowded world, species are constantly in competition with each other, and diversity is held in balance, while in the time after a great extinction, all such constraints disappear, and species are free to do as they please.
On the contrary - diversity is not held in balance while species are constantly in competition, as competition fuels evolution. There is simply more space for diversity after an exinction.
Although I am very much against Many Worlds, I believe that the criticism that the splitting has to occurr everywhere in the universe at once is false. As I understand it split propogates away from a quantum event at the speed of light. Wavefunctions repeatedly hit each other, cause splits and are in turn split themselves. There are no true entire parallel whole universes, just a very large number of local splits.
Einstein once used this criticism against Many Worlds, saying that 'it was crazy that what happened to a mouse could split the Universe'. Everett, the inventor of Many Worlds replied that 'it was the Universe which split the mouse' i.e. local splitting occurred.
It was fine for great physicists to propose these interpretations, but for anyone to accept them as "real", or to say one interpretation is more "correct" than another, is wrong-headed. What gets me is the people who then springboard off their favourite interpretation to make wild sweeping extrapolations with no scientific backing whatsoever.
Well said!
This interpretation is championed by many of the leading physicists. For example Deutsch and Murray Gell-Mann.
This is not quite what it seems. The interpretation may be mathematically used by many of the leading physicists, but not that many actually believe its really true, like Deutsch.
David Deutsch is a very, very good physicist, but has a tendency to wander into wild metaphysics and believe that his ideas are proven by experiments that have many possible explanations.
There are other ways to explain this. The Transactional Interpretation replaces the assumption of multiple universes with the idea that particles can interact back and forth through time. The 'collapse' to one photon is the result of interference between so-called 'advanced' and 'retarded' waves which operate in different time directions. This may sound crazy, but the math works fine and it is no madder than 'multiple universes'. I'm not saying this is true, just that 'multiple universes' is certainly not the only, and perhaps not the simplest, explanation of this effect.
The Transactional interpretation of John Cramer has only one rule (the transaction), no Unicorns and no Multiple Worlds.
Occams razor?
Of course, to say that there are no collapses in the Many Worlds interpretation is nonsense: After all, each parallel self in each universe only sees one outcome, so for each self there has, in effect, been a collapse. Its only from the point of view of a hypothetical (and impossible) observer of the entire multiverse that there is no collapse. In a sense, the Many Worlds interpretation has a phenomenal number of collapses as each new parallel self sees a distinct outcome. That is not an Occam-compatible explanation of things.
Affirms that something that very closely resembles many-worlds interpretation exits at least for a short period of time
No, not according to some interpretations, such as the pilot wave and transactional.