Skip to comments.
How Quantum Physics Can Teach Biologists About Evolution
New York Times ^
| July 5, 2005
| Cornelia Dean
Posted on 07/06/2005 6:51:06 PM PDT by infocats
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-154 next last
1
posted on
07/06/2005 6:51:06 PM PDT
by
infocats
To: infocats
What frosts me is how creationism is always, always, defined in the Christian terms of a 6,000 year old universe.
People, there are other religions and therefore other thoughts and theories on creationism with much different time frames. For example the Vedas teach that time is cyclical, with the outer cycle existing 311,040,000,000,000 years, which is also the age of the universe.
http://www.salagram.net/cycleOages.html
To: infocats
Gerald Schroeder, The Science Of God
3
posted on
07/06/2005 7:06:52 PM PDT
by
onedoug
To: infocats
Let me guess. The NYTimes published this to make the anti-evolutionists look bad.
4
posted on
07/06/2005 7:10:14 PM PDT
by
Moonman62
(Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
To: infocats
"...small-bore problem...."
Very punny!
To: Moonman62
the various inaccuracies such as They cite radiocarbon dating to show that Earth is billions of years old, not a few thousand years old, as some creationists would have it leads me to believe the nytimes published this to make the nytimes look bad.
6
posted on
07/06/2005 7:12:51 PM PDT
by
bobdsmith
To: Moonman62
Let me guess. The NYTimes published this to make the anti-evolutionists look bad. It doesn't take the NYTimes to do that.
7
posted on
07/06/2005 7:14:42 PM PDT
by
Ichneumon
To: bobdsmith
the various inaccuracies such as "They cite radiocarbon dating to show that Earth is billions of years old, not a few thousand years old, as some creationists would have it" leads me to believe the nytimes published this to make the nytimes look bad. Sheesh. As the old saying goes, "the first requirement of dog training is to make sure that you know more than the dog"...
8
posted on
07/06/2005 7:19:19 PM PDT
by
Ichneumon
To: infocats
To: Northern Alliance
Don't forget the Scientologists who believe that we are the product of 75 million years of evolution after aliens mated with monkeys.
10
posted on
07/06/2005 7:19:56 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: Northern Alliance
People, there are other religions and therefore other thoughts and theories on creationismHare Krishna websites ?????
11
posted on
07/06/2005 7:22:59 PM PDT
by
Podkayne
(Islam is a lie. Allah is not Jehovah. Burkas are evil.)
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: infocats
I doubt the laws of quantum mechanics and the process of deriving them can be related to anything else outside physics without considerable stretch. Especially biology.
13
posted on
07/06/2005 7:29:14 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
To: infocats
"[B]iologists argue about the degree to which evolution moves smoothly or progresses in fits and starts, a Gould-ian theory called punctuated equilibrium." The "Punctuated Equilibrium" hypothesis is fundamentally inconsistent with the theory of evolution which requires movement of specie development in minute increments.
The principal problem with the theory of evolution is the absence of any single fossel supported record which is consistent with the theory under circumstances where many such fossel records should be found. Hence Punctuated Equilibrium--it happened in sudden giant steps. That sounds a lot more like God than it sounds like Darwin.
As far as the time argument is concerned, the dating mechanism depends on a clock calculated by the decay rate of Carbon 14--there is not only no evidence that the decay rate of Carbon 14 has been constant throughout the ages; there is a fair body of evidence that it has not. If not, the clock is wrong and we have no idea how long the ages are.
14
posted on
07/06/2005 7:32:52 PM PDT
by
David
(...)
To: Podkayne
Funny you mention the Krishnas. I was down at the Capitol for the festivities on the 4'th, and the Krishnas had a set of pavilions and such set up on the Mall before the show began in the evening - one of their more prominent displays was their version of a refutation of evolution. Not too far from that, there was also a large display inviting one to consider the "science of reincarnation" ;)
15
posted on
07/06/2005 7:32:54 PM PDT
by
general_re
("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
To: general_re; longshadow; VadeRetro; Junior; RadioAstronomer
Am I supposed to ping the list for this goofy article?
16
posted on
07/06/2005 7:38:06 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
To: Ichneumon
[the various inaccuracies such as "They cite radiocarbon dating to show that Earth is billions of years old, not a few thousand years old...]
Anyone with a background in physics (or any other science) can read ANY science or technology story disseminated by the standard media outlets and just laugh and laugh and laugh at the gross misunderstandings journalists have about the subject.
Even the "science correspondents" are horribly incompetent at reporting science.
17
posted on
07/06/2005 7:39:38 PM PDT
by
spinestein
(The facts fairly and honestly presented, truth will take care of itself.)
To: PatrickHenry
As someone pointed out, the author doesn't quite understand radiocarbon dating. FWIW, Google tells me that the author is the science editor of the NYT. It's your call, but "goofy" seems to capture it pretty well :)
18
posted on
07/06/2005 7:41:51 PM PDT
by
general_re
("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
To: David
[...there is not only no evidence that the decay rate of Carbon 14 has been constant throughout the ages; there is a fair body of evidence that it has not.]
Wrong.
19
posted on
07/06/2005 7:42:15 PM PDT
by
spinestein
(The facts fairly and honestly presented, truth will take care of itself.)
To: general_re
[As someone pointed out, the author doesn't quite understand radiocarbon dating. FWIW, Google tells me that the author is the science editor of the NYT.]
An even more incompetent boob is Ira Flatow from NPR's "Science Friday". He's supposed to be their science guru, but the questions he typically asks his guests reveal his ignorance about the products and findings of science as well as the methods of science.
20
posted on
07/06/2005 7:47:43 PM PDT
by
spinestein
(The facts fairly and honestly presented, truth will take care of itself.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-154 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson