Skip to comments.
Evolution debate: State board should reject pseudoscience
Columbus Dispatch ^
| February 17, 2002
| Editorial
Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 861-880, 881-900, 901-920 ... 1,421-1,440 next last
To: cracker
From the title, I assumed the State Board was supposed to reject evolution...
AMPU
To: Nebullis; AndrewC
Einstein hoped that underneath the Heisenberg principle there was still real determinism lurking. You'd never be able to get to it, but he hoped/assumed that, say, an electron still had a real, finite position with real momentum, etc.
He was wrong. In the absence of a definite interaction, the electron is like a little wave. It can go down two tunnels at once as a wavefront and make interference patterns with itself coming out both tunnel ends. Or, you can detect which way the electron goes, and the interference patterns vanish.
The experiment is usually done with photons, but Feynman discussed an electron version in his lecture series. Anyway, the un-collapsed wave function is like Schrödinger's alive/dead cat. It's as indeterminate as you can get.
To: Nebullis
If only evolution researchers shared your intuition!Isn't Shapiro an "evolution researcher"?
883
posted on
02/26/2002 5:09:11 PM PST
by
AndrewC
To: AndrewC
What I am left with after this conversation, is that you accept evolution as the evidence supports it. Yet, you argue against the side which presents this evidence instead of the side which denies it. I'm left wondering if you really know what you believe, or if you simply know what doesn't feel good, emotionally.
To: Nebullis
In that sense, there is no such thing as random in evolutionI'm glad we agree. I never put up the straw man. "Random" mutation is mentioned by Darwinians.
885
posted on
02/26/2002 5:15:29 PM PST
by
AndrewC
To: AndrewC
Isn't Shapiro an "evolution researcher"?Not primarily, but he certainly has an interest in it. He shares your desire to eliminate the indeterminate.
To: Nebullis
Now you're gonna get it. But most of us wind up saying something like that sooner or later.
To: VadeRetro
In the absence of a definite interaction, the electron is like a little wave. It can go down two tunnels at once as a wavefront and make interference patterns with itself coming out both tunnel ends. Or, you can detect which way the electron goes, and the interference patterns vanish. I've never liked QM. I haven't studied enough to denounce it, and I suppose that would be wildly foolish, given all the experimental evidence. But I just don't like it. So I ignore it. I am grateful that QM also ignores me. Sort of a stand-off.
To: PatrickHenry
I've never liked QM. It's so counter-intuitive as to be appalling. When I first heard about the "particle" going both ways as a wave unless you "measured," it actually upset me. But that's really how the little buggers act.
I like it now for the jaw-dropping moments of disbelief it induces. (Well, I like reading dumbed-down articles about it.) In a way, it's too bad the macro world doesn't behave like that.
To: VadeRetro
It's [QM] so counter-intuitive as to be appalling. Well, to be quantum-mechanically correct, I both like QM and dislike it, at the same time. I never know which until I stop to think about it. But then I forget what I was thinking about, so it all works out.
To: VadeRetro
Hey, I got post #888. I wonder if this thread will get to 1,000? That would be a first for a crevo thread.
To: PatrickHenry
Please don't wax mystical!
To: Nebullis
What I am left with after this conversation, is that you accept evolution as the evidence supports it.Yes, when the evidence supports it, not supposition and most of what I see is supposition. I have made it known long ago that I am not a literalist when it comes to the Bible. The words of the Bible are much more figurative than literal. Jesus taught in parables. The mysteries were explained in allegory. So on. I do not expect to come upon any talking serpents in my excursions through the forest. Nor do I expect to find the pillars about which Hanna prayed. But I have no doubt that God created all or of his infinite nature. And as I also related before, I conjecture-- If God can be proven we have no free will.
893
posted on
02/26/2002 5:34:07 PM PST
by
AndrewC
To: PatrickHenry
Yeah, but the old-style threads
couldn't get this big. Kind of like modern rushing records compared against
Jim Brown's 14-game wonder in 1963. OK, so no thread I ever started totalled more than 2 or 3 hundred. (Grumble, grumble!)
To: VadeRetro
OK, so no thread I ever started totalled more than 2 or 3 hundred.But there were endless CONTINUATION threads.
To: Nebullis
Now, now! They only SEEMED endless!
To: AndrewC
Yes, when the evidence supports it, not supposition and most of what I see is supposition.I see you arguing inconsequential details, not major suppositions.
When you allow God the use of natural processes you've already fudged on the literal occasion for a redeemer and it doesn't matter anymore how life started or how it evolved.
To: VadeRetro
I can't believe this argument is going on again. Even Darwin didn't believe Darwin. Johnson put the classical theory of evolution through survival of the fittest to death in his classic, "Darwin on Trial." The Darwinist now starts from a preconceived notion just as idiotic as the creationist. An entire new theory is needed to explain the great leaps in development in the complexity of organisms in the very short time once life appeared. As for creationists, they cannot even read the Bible correctly, which clearly states that God is recreating a previously destroyed world, and which notes further in the writing of the prophets that a populated world had existed even prior to the one destroyed. In total, counting then the flood, there are three destructions, leaving Noah and his sons and daughters as the seed of modern Man. Hence, the fossil record is in no conflict with the Bible, which even speaks of a time when giants roamed the land. Dumb Christians, dumb scientists, makes a dull boy.
898
posted on
02/26/2002 5:41:29 PM PST
by
stryker
To: Nebullis
not major suppositions. Since when is a major supposition not a supposition.
899
posted on
02/26/2002 5:42:15 PM PST
by
AndrewC
To: Nebullis
When you allow God the use of natural processes you've already fudged on the literal occasion for a redeemer and it doesn't matter anymore how life started or how it evolved.So you're saying I must claim God supernaturally interferes in every birth in order for each person to have a soul. Nonsense.
900
posted on
02/26/2002 5:45:19 PM PST
by
AndrewC
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 861-880, 881-900, 901-920 ... 1,421-1,440 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