Intelligent design/creationism vs evolution is always fun, even if it generates more heat than light. I've never understood who designed the designer and why, if they are so intelligent, my eyes are imperfect and I need glasses.
Only 1 in 5 Americans believe in pure evolution – and that's an upswing
According to a new poll by YouGov, the number of Americans who believe in evolution not directed by God is rising, but those pure evolutionists still only account for one in five of those surveyed. Specifically, YouGov asked its "representative sample of 1,000 Americans" how they felt about three versions of human evolution …
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd July 2013 10:24 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: @AC @ 02:10
I've always thought that conservation of energy is in contradiction to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Personally I think the 2nd law seems wrong... Why can't I extract useful energy from a closed system in equilibrium? if there is heat, there is energy, if there is energy it must be able to be converted...
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd July 2013 16:02 GMT Kubla Cant
Re: There is an answer.
The correct answer is "Turtles all the way down".
-
Tuesday 23rd July 2013 08:52 GMT Ian Bush
"I suspect most people would squirm with that question. Even if you believe the Big Bang theory, where did the energy come from to create the Big Bang? As far as I am aware there is currently no good answer for that."
Not my area of science but I was under the impression that
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html
summarises the current position
-
Tuesday 23rd July 2013 19:49 GMT sisk
@Ian Bush: That hypothesis is almost certainly false. That or our current understanding of physics is flawed. Even in that article it admits that for the hypothesis to work there had to have been a violation of the law of conservation at some point. Too miniscule to measure or not, a violation is still a violation and any violation of the laws of physics requires either an explanation of how it happened or a reexamination of those laws.
-
Monday 29th July 2013 12:39 GMT Jaybus
Yes, well the current position interpolates from mathematical models without any experimental evidence, or even an experimental design, so does not much ease the squirming. In fact, the current position is in reaction to the squirming, which is little different than the reactionary response "God did it". We simply do not like the only logical answer, which is "Damned if I know".
-
Tuesday 23rd July 2013 08:57 GMT codejunky
@An0n C0w4rd
"@mickey mouse the fith
I suspect most people would squirm with that question. Even if you believe the Big Bang theory, where did the energy come from to create the Big Bang? As far as I am aware there is currently no good answer for that."
This highlights the difference between science and religion. Science says we dont know and looks for theories which they can then find evidence and prove/disprove the theories. Religion says it knows and the answer is that he was always there so please stop asking.
-
Wednesday 24th July 2013 08:13 GMT <shakes head>
Re: @An0n C0w4rd
i would tend to disgree, while "the curch" (current dominant religion an dgiven area) tends to go with the "don't upset the apple cart", releginion itself and a creater made the ide that we could understand the world around us possible. There seems to be a disconect somwhere in these arguments. Faith /Belief does not equal relegion and what is done in the name of religion does not nessesarly match faith /belief. i vaugly recale that the original turn "big Bang " was used to try discredit creationists before we figured out that that is propable what did happen.
creationist with half a brin would not squirme at who/what made god or out of what, as the logic is not required for that discussion. it a make "world in a computer" then there is nothing that would lead me to believe that the rule inside the world constrains the maker of the system. but hay that is just me
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd July 2013 22:53 GMT DrXym
"Even if you believe the Big Bang theory, where did the energy come from to create the Big Bang?"
A perfectly legitimate answer would be "I don't know". Science is full of such gaps which is why it continues to advance and correct itself. Creationists perceive gaps as places to insert god rather than advancing knowledge in any way.
-
-
-
Wednesday 24th July 2013 00:25 GMT asdf
> or just 'poof' appeared
Strange as it is but quantum physics shows us things can just poof anywhere in the universe. As Hawking I think said it probably all started with quantum tunneling of the inflaton energy state to a nonzero value. Or perhaps a blackhole in another universe caused a white hole in this one.
-
Thursday 25th July 2013 01:10 GMT Denarius
thats science ?
ah, another version of turtles all the way down. BTW, what has the unreproducible speculations of evolutionary theories got to do with science ? One notes the ignorance of many commentards about creationist research suggests this is indeed a fixed world view issue. ie competing absolutist religions. Ironically one begat the other.
If you cant demonstrate it in a lab, it aint science, just a hypothesis. If you cant falsify it, it aint science.
-
-
Wednesday 24th July 2013 15:20 GMT Charles 9
"If god created the heavens and the earth, where did the material to construct him, or the idea of him come from?"
A proper religious sort would reply, "He didn't come from anywhere. He simply is, was, and will be inside and outside of time. Therefore, God is beyond limits and can't be described in any limiting way, including by time."
-
-
Tuesday 23rd July 2013 14:33 GMT Amorous Cowherder
AGE OF REASON by Thomas Paine
Science has principles and those principles are in nature and always have been, they may not be obvious but they are there to be found when we're ready to find them. Man nor God invented these scientific principles, they are simply an aspect of the nature of the vast universe.
He wrote that in 1793, when you could still get a severe beating for being an atheist.
Paine also wrote that God must be a complete moron if the best he could come up was that out of the entire universe he sent his only son to planet Earth to get beaten up, mocked and executed just for the benefit of making his presence felt!
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd July 2013 05:33 GMT David Pollard
Re: Only 87% of atheists?
"What else ..."
Some may have taken the view that evolution isn't entirely random. Humans clearly change the way evolution proceeds and lots of creatures choose their mates, so consciousness, in the broad sense, appears to play a part.
If 'Darwinian evolution' is taken to mean that changes are entirely random and consciousness isn't then 'pure evolution' doesn't provide a complete answer.