Chimps Stronger Than Humans?

Current evolution theory, at best, is somewhat reminiscent of newtonian mechanics trying to account for all the forces in the universe.

The main problem with it is that people started with what they wanted to believe (that God doesn’t exist) and then they sought evidence to back up that desired belief. They didn’t start with an unbiased search for the true nature of things. People don’t want God to exist because they want truth and morality defined as they see it best. It’s like a drug addict not wanting to accept he has a problem because then he’d have to give up his drugs (even though doing so would inevitably make him happier and make his life more fulfilling).

Newtonian mechanics fit an easily observable description of the natural world several hundred years ago, but the principles were never fundamental. They only described certain pieces of nature with certain numerous constraints. While it seemed like a broad science from our point of view, it’s scope was extremely narrow when the microscopic and macroscopic portions of the universe were taken into account (and these portions are really the most substantial). When Einstein wrote his special theory of relativity and the direct correlation of matter and energy, the world view of physics was forever changed because time and space (or distance more specifically) were no longer constant and concrete concepts. Is essense, Newtonian mechanics was wrong and it only gave accurate predicictions within a narrow band of parameters. For those more familiar with physics, a good analogy would be the small angle approximation for a pendulum. Although for small angles, this simple approximation yields relatively accurate answers, they are not correct answers. One must resort to the ever painful elliptic integrals to truly get correct answers.

Taking the ‘evolution of physics’ a step further, even the special theory of relativity failed to provide a complete description. So thus came Einstein’s general theory of relativity and also the birth of quantum mechanics. General relativity worked wonders and described spacial curvature and distortions caused by matter in gravitational fields (things on very large scales), while quantum mechanics gave extremely accurate predictions about those things on the subatomic level. Quantum mechanics was truly bizarre to the physics community at first because it was even less intuitive than relativity. The famous double slit experiment for light also held fast for electrons which showed that matter itself was a wave. In parallel, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle showing it was actually impossible to measure with perfect precision both the position and velocity of a particle which gave way to the probabilistic weirdness in the quantum world. Such concepts as walking through a solid stone wall (quantum tunnelling) are actual possible (although with very small probability) within the theory of quantum mechanics. But even with all these drastic new changes of perception of the physical world, the theory was still wrong.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity could not be rectified when dealing with things both very small and very massive such as is the case with spatial singularities (ex. black holes) or in conditions of the early universe. Theoretical physicists concluded that at distances around the planck length (~10^-33 cm), the smooth curvature of space (and even time) broke down completely and that space and time became turbulent and chaotic. Certain probability equations broke down yielding infinite answers. A probability greater than 1 is weird in itself, but infinity? So what now?

Well the entire particle concept of subatomic physics would never be sufficient to explain the deeper mysteries of the universe, and in essence, was wrong. Hence came the string theorists. Without getting too in-depth, string theory actually asserts that space-time may be discrete and that it makes no sense to even discuss distances shorter than the planck length. If it’s true that the universe is really composed of little 1 dimensional loops vibrating at different frequencies (i.e. a loop vibrating at one frequency would be an electron while at a different frequency the same loop would be a photon), then this theory will have solved the conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity. But again the entire world view of things will have changed. And after it’s all said and done, how much deeper will we be able to go and what flaws might we find with this theory down the line?

To conclude, the nature of the universe is so far off from Newtonian mechanics that it can’t even be considered as good as a small angle approximation on the grand scale of things. Then there’s the theory of evolution - and analagously, Newtonian mechanics actually looks like a crown jewel compared to the flaws and holes in evolution theory. Evolution theory was not created to prove anything, but rather to disprove God. It’s Daffy Duck on the side of a rock face that keeps springing leaks. First his hands plug the leaks, then his feet, then his beak, until eventually he swells up internally and is blown completely off the rock face.

As a final note, I’ll say that if string theory is accurate and the universe really is a symphony of vibrating strings, then wouldn’t that be the ultimate voice of God? Let there be light.

Dr. Denis Lamoreaux is one of the most qualified people on this Earth to comment on this subject.

His qualifications speak for themselves:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/5Qualifications.htm

I’ve been to his lecture many times. This is the web version.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/beyond.htm

This man set out to write the most blasphemous, anti-evolution, pro-creation publication in the history of academia. He got his PhD in Theology, then went on to educate himself by getting a PhD in the field of Oral Biology, which has brought us the greatest amount of evidence for evolution. His goal was to use the biologists’ evidence against them and to disprove evolution using the methods of science…

His own words were, "I felt like that story about the little boy and the dam. I built up this great wall of belief to hold back all this so-called scientific evidence, but then – oh… well I can’t argue with this one point… then the dam springs a leak and just like the kid in the story I try to put my finger in it.

Then as soon as I plug that leak another one comes and as soon as that leak is plugged another comes. Before I knew it the waters of science were just too much my entire wall of creationism belief came crashing down around me.

My apologies to anyone who might be offended in the audience today, ladies and gentlemen, but THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE WE HAVE FOR EVOLUTION IS OVERWHELMING! It happened. Now, the rest of this lecture we will discuss where God fits into all of this…"

He also pointed out that the two “leaders” of the creationism movement are a lawyer and a microbiologist. The lawyer clearly doesn’t know the first thing about biology, and he’s publicly debated the microbiologist and won.

If anyone wants a fair and balanced, fully-qualified opinion on evolution vs. creation, this is the guy. Read his stuff. You might learn something.

– ElbowStrike

The only reason his beliefs came crashing down were because they were flawed in the first place. Too many non-evolutionists try to defend a literal 6-day creation of the universe. Of course that’s not going to hold up to science. And then neither does evolution.

[quote]As a final note, I’ll say that if string theory is accurate and the universe really is a symphony of vibrating strings, then wouldn’t that be the ultimate voice of God? Let there be light.

[/quote]

This statement reminds me of the following statement (your own) from the same post, except in your case, god does exist.

[quote]GhostNtheSystem wrote:
Current evolution theory, at best, is somewhat reminiscent of newtonian mechanics trying to account for all the forces in the universe.

As a final note, I’ll say that if string theory is accurate and the universe really is a symphony of vibrating strings, then wouldn’t that be the ultimate voice of God? Let there be light.[/quote]

Thanks for the physics regurgitation. Your assertion is fundamentally flawed in it’s understanding of both sciences. String theory is hypothesized, there is no more evidence to support it than there is to support the strict interpretation of Genesis. Moreover, there are several other theories rivaling string theory and its popularity is waning. Pretty crappy that your ‘voice of God’ would get silenced after only a decade or so of existence.

As for the Newtonian physics analogy. Newtonian physics is far more fundamental than Relativity. A theory that better explains phenomenon like light bending around the sun, black holes, and quantum mechanics would displace Relativity, but if it doesn’t have gravity operating to the inverse square of the radius (or something that simplifies to it), it won’t fly in this universe. Darwin proposed a method by which species were created and perpetuated much like Newton proposed a method by which gravity operates. However, unlike Newton and every physicist since, Darwin proposed an operating entity within this system. Further, at nearly the same time, Mendel was performing independent work that established the operating entity within Darwin’s method and reached similar conclusions. 75 yrs. later, Watson and Crick characterized the heck out of this entity. We have yet to discover gravity’s fundamental generator or why gravity is so weak while other forces are so strong despite Newton having died almost a century earlier than Darwin, but we can quite easily explain why some genes are silent and some genes are dominant. Not to say that Newton was less brilliant, just to say that your idea of “fundamental” seems predisposed to a given conclusion. Moreover, current work in epigenetics doesn’t invalidate evolution much the same way Relativity doesn’t invalidate Newtonian Physics. They merely shows how variation happens within the context of evolution, or bound it.

As man’s understanding of the universe has grown he has continually proposed scientific theories based on the observable features of the world around him. As these observations are limited by the existing technology of the time, the theories change or are surpassed by new theories which are based on new observations made possible by ever improving technology. I guess that means that all previous attempts at explaining the universe (and all current ones for that matter, since they too will someday be disproven by newer theories) should be discarded.

A better explanation of why/how the universe operates is a bearded man who lives in the clouds and created the universe because he was bored and had nothing better to do. Now that that’s out of the way why don’t we have an argument as to why the ancient Greek/Egyptian/Roman concept of many gods is so easily discounted by the monotheists that now dominate the earth. Religious people basically just discount anything that goes against their beliefs. They can argue against evolution until they are blue in the face, but how do you argue against another persons beliefs (i.e. Christian vs Muslim vs Jew…). In that case you can’t attempt to disprove anything, so it just becomes “well I know I am right and you are wrong cause that’s what I believe”.

Science attempts to understand the nature of the universe by analyzing observations, religion just hands you the solution and negates the need for understanding. “Why did that happen? Well, cause god wanted it that way”. The absurdity of god is beyond my comprehension.

Now I have to get back to the gym, I am sick of those damn monkeys making a fool of me!

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Thanks for the physics regurgitation. Your assertion is fundamentally flawed in it’s understanding of both sciences. String theory is hypothesized, there is no more evidence to support it than there is to support the strict interpretation of Genesis. Moreover, there are several other theories rivaling string theory and its popularity is waning. Pretty crappy that your ‘voice of God’ would get silenced after only a decade or so of existence.
[/quote]

There is quite a bit of evidence to back up string theory. Also, it’s popularity is not waning in any regard. Your post is nothing but false assertions.

[quote]QuestForMuscle wrote:
A better explanation of why/how the universe operates is a bearded man who lives in the clouds and created the universe because he was bored and had nothing better to do.
[/quote]

The flaw in your negation here is that you assume people’s view of God is a bearded man who lives in the clouds. That is your own view of what God would be if you believed in one. It’s not mine.

Okay, let me just add a few things. Ghost, you’re accusing Evolution of being nothing more than an effort to prove God doesn’t exist.

I’d like to compare this to the waste product of a bovine, but I’ll refrain from name calling. Darwin noticed the finches and snake neck turtles on the Galapagos Islands, THEN came up with his theory.

Creationism, on the other hand, starts with the bible and then tries to make the existing evidence fit. So, basically you’re accusing evolution of creationism’s crime.

Then, anyone, explain this to me. If all animals were created at the same time, why does every single site where fossils are found show a clear layering, with the lowest layers containg only bacteria and the higher (younger) layers show increasingly complex organisms?

Or how about this. Whales and dolphins are water mammals. The thing is, though, they started as fish, went on land, and were forced back into the water because they couldn’t compete on land. Obvoiously, I can’t prove this completely. However, linking fossils were found to support this. Also, whales move in a way unique to water creatures. They don’t move their tailfin horizontally, but their whole body vertically, like a seaotter or seal does.

Need more? Someone mentioned humans don’t have gills. Well, embryos do have structures on the side of their neck that could devolp into gills in the right environment. Also, human embryos have tails, but they atrophy and disappear completely before birth.

I love this subject, but I have to get up early tommorow, so I’m off to bed.

[quote]Robert P. wrote:
Creationism, on the other hand, starts with the bible and then tries to make the existing evidence fit. So, basically you’re accusing evolution of creationism’s crime.
[/quote]

You’re making the same error that I called another poster out for. You’re assuming far too much of what exactly my stance is on the origins of the universe. Moreover you’re basing your assumptions on what other people (creationists as you would probably call them) think and not on what I think.

I’ve never stated my views explicitly. I never said I subscribed to the biblical view of creation. I never claimed ANYTHING other than God made things. I never said how I believed He made things or gave any hint whatsoever as to the process I believe He may have used.

Your biblical negation is of no effect because I never claimed a biblical stance on anything.

I am just using a common depiction of god. It doesn’t matter what he looks like or that he looks like anything at all since most people would say he has no physical form. But hey, way to hang on an insignificant point.

[quote]GhostNtheSystem wrote:
QuestForMuscle wrote:
A better explanation of why/how the universe operates is a bearded man who lives in the clouds and created the universe because he was bored and had nothing better to do.

The flaw in your negation here is that you assume people’s view of God is a bearded man who lives in the clouds. That is your own view of what God would be if you believed in one. It’s not mine.[/quote]

[quote]QuestForMuscle wrote:
I am just using a common depiction of god. It doesn’t matter what he looks like or that he looks like anything at all since most people would say he has no physical form. But hey, way to hang on an insignificant point.
[/quote]

That point is of the utmost significance. Your view of what God would be says a lot about your ability to believe certain things. If the most power and beauty you can fathom for a higher being is that of a bearded man in the clouds, then it’s of no wonder you couldn’t believe the universe has a creator. Yes, that point is extremely significant.

[quote]GhostNtheSystem wrote:

There is quite a bit of evidence to back up string theory. Also, it’s popularity is not waning in any regard. Your post is nothing but false assertions. [/quote]

Do you have any links or references for the evidence backing up ST?

And I am quite surprised that anyone who’s even mildly interested in ST is not aware of the current criticism of it. See recent books by Lee Smolin and Peter Woit. Woit even has a blog called “Not Even Wrong” where most of the anti-ST arguments are catalogued.

I’ve also seen quite a few believers/creationists/faithfuls/etc. use String Theory in various ways to back up their faiths. I find that odd, as some of the recent developments in ST suggests that our universe might be one out of 1x10^500 possible ones, all of which might exists, or have existed at some time. Ergo, it eliminates the need for a “fine-tuner” of our physical constants, since with 1x10^500 possibilities, there are probably quite a few universes capable of supporting life.

Anyway, I’d be interested in that evidence for ST, as much of the current criticism of ST is that it’s not falsifiable (since it makes no predictions) and might never be (because we can’t identify our precise topology out of the 1x10^500 possibilities (AKA “The Landscape”).

The hilarious part about this whole thing is that Darwin himself was a CREATIONIST and spent his entire life meticulously examining his own data, desperately trying to prove himself wrong!

– ElbowStrike