USA- I believe in the Intellegence design since evolution is only small changes over long periods of time for adaptation... and you know how complex the human body is? If it evolution then I will like to know what species evolved into a human... also, the human body must be exactly as we are now (not our image, but the human body's structure) as in the heart must be placed right, bones, muscles, immune system, the BRAIN, the lungs, stomach, digestive system, respitory system, circulatory system, 23 chromosones in each cell, the types of cells, our reproduction system and so forth...
I can't even imagine what creature actually eveloved into a human... so therefore... I choose Intellegence design since it has to be being that created us, which we dont know which we call GOD... for the meantime for scientist I guess... we dont have much information...
Your opinions will be addressed whenever you enter higher education. I believed as you did until the age of 15 or so when I was introduced to such things, but in college you have the opportunity to comprehend them.
Responsible parents also clarify such things tbh. I have been comfortable with evolution since the age of 10. It's not rocket science....
Well, my family is very religious so it took me a little longer to realize how silly it is to deny evolution.
Ah, gotcha. Parenting has a lot to do with this issue it seems.
Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."
Now, having said that, it really comes down to the fact that I don't subscribe to the notion that evolution caused 100% of everything we see and know.
Most of my qualms with evolution come down to
- Creation of the universe - how did the matter come into being that created everything we know? Maybe I haven't read up enough, but I haven't found a solid argument concerning how matter even came into being (since that does go against the law of conservation) - Creation of organic matter - how did matter make the switch from the inorganic into organic? Is this even an observable thing that we can define through empirical study?
Just me though. You can believe in evolution to a point (and I agree with a decent bit of it), but there is certainly a point that it will have a major effect on your worldview - either for or against the idea of an entity being involved in the process.
Why does all this exist or happen, that is the religious question and people can debate that forever and no one will have an answer that satisfies everyone.
No, its still not religious.
Why did that rock roll down the hill? Thermal cracking caused it to weaken from other rocks and when there was enough gravitational force overcome its tensile strength it broke free and rolled down the hill until its kinetic and potential energy was spent and it came to a halt at the bottom. No religion necessary, just facts. The same for evolution, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you can insert Jesus, Allah, Bhudda, or what have you in there.
This post kind of reminds me of a saying I heard once explaining the philosophy behind religion and science and how science is apart from religion philosophically. It's not nice so if you are religious and don't want to read it, you have been warned.
I can't remember it exactly, but it was something like...
"You can go to a church in the USA and be judged for not accepting god, you can go to a Mosque in Iran and be judged for not believing in Allah, you can go back in time and be judged for not worshiping Thor. But what did all these religions have in common? E=MC2. Science is* a Universal constant, Religion is not."
But I'm sure the original was far more eloquent than that.
Now, having said that, it really comes down to the fact that I don't subscribe to the notion that evolution caused 100% of everything we see and know.
Most of my qualms with evolution come down to
- Creation of the universe - how did the matter come into being that created everything we know? Maybe I haven't read up enough, but I haven't found a solid argument concerning how matter even came into being (since that does go against the law of conservation) - Creation of organic matter - how did matter make the switch from the inorganic into organic? Is this even an observable thing that we can define through empirical study?
Just me though. You can believe in evolution to a point (and I agree with a decent bit of it), but there is certainly a point that it will have a major effect on your worldview - either for or against the idea of an entity being involved in the process.
To address your two points, neither of them are meant to have anything to do with the theory of evolution I'm afraid. Don't worry, this is a common misconception about evolution, people believe it tries to explain everything, from the point the universe came about, to organic molecules being created, to pretty much everything. Evolution is only supposed to tackle how one organism can evolve over time into another one.
...
Either way I'll attempt to address your two points.
Your first point, the creation of the universe. My view is that the evidence that supports the big bang is so overwhelming like...
Redshift measurements proving Hubble's law - Redshift measurements of galaxies proved that space is expanding, if it is continually expanding then if you work back then logically there has to be a point where it was a singularity.
CMBR measurements - Cosmic background radiation, very shortly after the Universe came to be photons were created and destroyed rapidly, then the process stopped. The left over photons can be monitored in the microwave section of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is, in part, what makes an un-tunued TV hiss.
Galactic evolution - The further we look into space the less evolved the galaxies we observe are. Logically the less evolved they are the further back in time you are looking. We now observe early objects in space that are 13Billion+ years old.
As for the matter point I believe that reading around topics like gravitational fluctuations may hold some answers for you.
Personally though I don't see the big bang as infringing on the idea of a creator in any kind of way. If I was a theist, I think I would take the big bang as just a method of creation.
Your second point about organic matter. Again this isn't meant to be covered by evolution. This is however covered by abiogenesis, which is still formed mainly of hypotheses, therefore it hasn't had conclusive studies done as of yet; Although evidence supporting it is fairly abundant, a quick google would answer a lot of questions.
But the gist of it is that amino acids can form via natural chemical reactions, these in turn formed proteins and so on and so forth until it became life. Chemistry is not my thing though so I can't explain it well, perhaps this video will do better...
(Oh and in that video he mentions this video called "ever seen a dog turn into a cat" it is a brilliant video, I often use it as an example to show what macro evolution is when the "macro micro argument comes up" it's worth watching link)
- Creation of the universe - how did the matter come into being that created everything we know? Maybe I haven't read up enough, but I haven't found a solid argument concerning how matter even came into being (since that does go against the law of conservation) - Creation of organic matter - how did matter make the switch from the inorganic into organic? Is this even an observable thing that we can define through empirical study?
Organic matter is nothing special. We see it all over the universe, it even rains organic compounds on Saturn's moon Titan (methane or CH4, its just one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms bonded together). Organic compounds are just the results of chemical reactions, and you do not need a living thing to create organic matter from other atoms.
Creation of the universe, of course, is more 'out there' and I highly doubt anything anybody says will sway your mind. But anyway... Think about potential energy. Consider a rock and put on a table, it has potential energy which is not physical and is nothing more than a definition of its relative position, but when it hits the ground that energy is converted into more physical forms, and you can actually use it to make more mass (energy and mass can be converted to each other, but remember that its a c^2 relationship so a little mass goes a long way). What about the whole universe? Everything we know may be a conversion of that non-physical state to something in 'existence.' And with the universe accelerating away from each other when gravitational energy should be pulling them together, it seems like the universe is correcting itself of its blip and returning to a zero sum energy state. Or maybe the universe is a combination of positive and negative energy, where the sum of everything is nothing (zero) but positive and negative energy states exists a part from one another. Whatever the answer is, it makes so much more sense to me to use the same scientific reasoning that has gotten us this far than to try and apply a human-like entity to the equation.
Look up quantum fluctuations. The basic idea is that the positive energy that is expanding the universe is (almost) cancelled out by the negative gravitational energy contracting the universe. This makes the overall energy of the universe (almost) zero.
An equation derived from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is: uncertainty in Energy * uncertainty in time >= hbar Where hbar is Planck's constant diveded by 2pi.
This means that even something with zero energy (a perfect vacuum) has energy fluctuations, and therefore has mass fluctuations. The universe could be an energy fluctuation from a vacuum (i.e. nothing).
(Although this sounds outrageous the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is an absolute fact of the universe and it does allow for vacuum fluctuations (it happens billions of times a second all around us)).
Macro-evolution is no more defensible "proof-wise" than Intelligent Design is.
Actually that is utterly false and a sign of lack of education. Macro evoluion is evident in most cells of your body. Did you know that the mitohoondria in regular cells were actually their own separate cells? They evolved to work symbiotically with all living cells, thus making it available for cells to live more easily allowing for other types of evolution.
Evidence of mitochondria being a separate cell once upon a time:
-Has its own DNA.
-Have their own ribosomes.
Adn those are the 2 basic reasons I remember from basic High School Biology years ago. As far as I remember I can't think of a single defensible argument for ID other than "I don't know so this must be it."
@gurgle
You call evolution blasphemy. I call existance of ID as a sign that US educations is utter shit.
Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."
