Evolution vs. Creationism Round II - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Non-SMAC related
  Evolution vs. Creationism Round II

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Evolution vs. Creationism Round II

Natguy posted 10-04-99 04:08 PM ET
Greetings all. I have just finished reading Ldzp45's (sorry, but I forgot. I know it's from Led Zeppelin) post and felt compelled to take up arms to rejuvinate the forums. This was always a hot topic, and I missed out on all but the tail end of it. So I'm starting a new one for all of those people who are new here and hopefully uncloak a few lurkers.
Why didn't I simply bring back the old one, you might ask? Well, that wouldn't have my name on it, now would it? And people may feel less of an obligation to think on their own if their predecessor's answers are right there before them.
Now, then, enough of the intro.
I am unsure whether I believe in creationism or evolution. I believe in evolution, but until recently I was a fan of the God-influenced evolution compromise, but lately I've been having doubts. Give me a few weekks (or maybe days) to sort everything out and maybe then I'll have a firm response to that question.
Now Go! Flourish, little forum! Flourish, I say!
Jimmy posted 10-04-99 04:37 PM ET
Evolution all the way, baby!
Let me tell you, only complete fools and idiots believe in creationism. Its for sissy little babies who have no understanding of the world whatsoever.
Toodles.
Natguy posted 10-04-99 05:22 PM ET
Hmm...How's about we keep it a polite and reserved debate?
Raging Mouse posted 10-04-99 05:32 PM ET
Why choose one over the other? They stem from two different systems of looking at the world, and criticism from one system to the other is as pointless as jingoism.
Jimmy posted 10-04-99 06:12 PM ET
Creationism and Evolutionism DO stem from the same kind of thought! They come from the human brain! They are both the same, so arguments are futile and dumb. Still, people who believe Creationism are big, ugly retards. Yup, creationism is for big dumb cowards who don't know the difference between a Holstein cow and their mom's butt.
Schoop posted 10-04-99 06:55 PM ET
Thank you jimmy, for proving that intelligent debate is next to impossible on an internet-based forum.
Lord Beselwick posted 10-04-99 07:01 PM ET
All right Jimmy let me say this once if you turn around real fast and realize what crap your spouting you're gonna end up in HELL !!
Well now that I've got that off my chest I believe in Creationism.
Tally Ho,
Lord Beselwick
P.S. - By the way what sort of crap is "natural selection". Come on don't tell me you believe in that stuff.
sir_penguin posted 10-04-99 07:12 PM ET
Evolutionism. BUT I just can't believe that something like life can evolve all by itself from completely different elements, without some sort of force behind it. And then you get into things like the Superstring Theory, which says that matter is a vibration along a string in the 10th dimension (or 26th, I can never remember which). I think that it would be amazing if a system like that came into being without some sort of creationary force. (I'll admit that it's possible, but IMHO it's less likely than the other alternative)
Then you get into the thing about the Big Bang. The evidence is fairly close to conclusive for that theory, and so I believe in it. Many people agree that all matter in the universe began as a singularity in the middle of nowhere. What could possibly disturb that singularity into exploding into the current Universe, still considering that it's all that physically exists, except for some force beyond EM, beyond the nuclear forces, beyond gravity, beyond matter, all of which would be "in" the singularity. It's all very confusing, and I'm not sure I'm making any sense.
Finally, there's Schroedinger's Cat Paradox, which I won't take up your time with, which is cinsidered (by some people) to be a proof of God. I, personally, don't, but it's still pretty cool.
So, in summary, I believe in God, and I believe that God (or an equivalent creationary force) started the whole thing in which we live, going.
SP--admitting anything's possible, but some things are less likely than others.
"Religion without science is superstition, while science without religion is materialism"
{Whew}
sandworm posted 10-04-99 10:24 PM ET
has anyone read Schrodinger's Cat by, er, Wilson, I think (same guy as the Illuminati Trilogy, which I also haven't read)?
Just wondering what it was like.
I fall on the Evolution side, but don't object to the "creation of evolution" compromise. I've seen plenty of evidence for evolution, but creation requires a belief in something there's no tangible evidence for. It doesn't mean there's no creator, just that if there is one it/he/she is pretty "creative". HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!
wondering if anyone has ever been executed for using puns,
sandworm
Beta1 posted 10-05-99 08:29 AM ET
Sirpenguin - Go on we've got plenty of time I would love to hear the Schroedinger's Cat Paradox = proof of god argument
As for me I'm an evolutionist - as I saidlast time round its infinite monkeys.
And I think that Jimmy is proof of it - surely a creator would never intentionally make something that offensive
Beta-1
Is the missing link between apes and man
Schoop posted 10-05-99 10:32 AM ET
If I remember correctly, Schrodinger's Cat involves a sealed box with an animal inside (the cat). The box MAY or MAY NOT administer a lethal dose of radiation to the animal, but the only way to know if it has done so is to open the box.
Until the box has been opened, the cat exists in a state of uncertainty, where it is simultaneously alive and dead. Correct me if I'm smoking crack.
Beta1 posted 10-05-99 11:57 AM ET
Thats the way I understand it - Its an argument against quantum theory. I dont understand how it is pro/anti god/creationism.
Beta-1
Clearly you cant do this experiment - no self-respecting cat would allow itself to be locked in a box
Beta1 posted 10-05-99 12:13 PM ET
Actually the experiment is a little more technical.
The box contains a small radiation source which in a given length of time may or may not emmit a particle. (ie p(emit a particle)=.5)
There is also a vial of posionous gas which is released upon detection of that particle.
Thus the quantum event ( the radioactive decay) has a measurable effect in the "real world". As a quantum event exists merely as a probability until observed until you open the box and look the cat exists in all the possible states (in this case dead and not dead).
Unfortunately this doesn't actually help maters as you cant measure/observe the cat in its multiple states because as soon as you do it forces one or the other event to occur.
I wouldn't recomend you try this as when you open the box you will either find a dead cat + poisonous gas which will probably kill you or an irate cat which will probably try to kill you.
Either way this is getting off-topic
Beta-1
Wonders if schroedinger actually had a cat?
Prince_Pixie posted 10-05-99 12:24 PM ET
I'm intrigued. I know quite a bit of probability theory, but can't for the life of me see how schrodingers' cat could be useful in an evolution/creation argument. Please elaborate.
Jimmy posted 10-05-99 12:30 PM ET
I am the real Jimmy and I believe in creationism. Do some math: the odds are impossible that a living creature could come into existence simply by chance, so evolution is not possible. Life is simply too complex for it to have happened in any other way than creationism.
Raging Mouse posted 10-05-99 02:31 PM ET
What insurance agent gave you that probability for life to occur? We do NOT now how probable (or improbable) life is.
Beta1 posted 10-05-99 04:21 PM ET
Actually it is almost irrelevant as too how small the chance of life occuring is. Look at the night sky - count the stars. Even if 1% has 1 planet where life might possibly evolve then mutliply that pretty massive number by almost anything nonzero and you get a relatively good chance of life occuring somewhere - infinite monkeys!
Anyway as living creatures have "come into existence" then the odds are cant be that long unless you assume that we are something special and that earth is somehow markedly different from any other small rock orbiting a small pretty normal yellow sun somewhere in the unfashionable western spiral arm of the milky way. If you do assume that then you are displaying a pretty "Sol"-centric view point.
Mind you as you insist on arguing with yourself I'm not sure why I'm bothering with this. A word of advice - if you click on the profile button everyone can see all the "jimmy" messages come from the same account.
Beta-1
May be ranting
Beta1 posted 10-05-99 04:24 PM ET
Oh yes, I would have thought that the complexity of life just demonstrates the power of divergent evolution.
Your not at school in Kansas are you?
Beta-1
Feels much better having let off some steam
Shadwhawk posted 10-05-99 05:14 PM ET
Lord Beselwick said: "P.S. - By the way what sort of crap is "natural selection". Come on don't tell me you believe in that stuff."
Who -can't- believe in natural selection? It's more obvious in everyday life than evolution!
The slower, less alert rat gets eaten by the cat. The faster and more nervous rat is able to escape and breed.
The microbe immune to antibiotics will survive to reproduce, and its descendants will also be immune; the microbe that isn't immune will be killed, preventing subsequent generations.
The sick elk will get killed by the wolves; besides making an easier meal for the wolves, this may also prevent the sickness from spreading to the rest of the herd.
A female cheetah with more stamina will catch more prey than a cheetah with less stamina; it will, therefore, be a better provider for its cubs. There's a chance the stamina will be passed on to its cubs, making them better providers for their cubs, and so on.
The baby born with a genetic defect causing, say, a hole in its heart will (without help) die; which ultimately prevents the spread of its genes (although, thanks to human-induced 'artificial' selection, the baby may live to pass on its genes, including the defective one).
That's all natural selection.
How can you -not- 'believe' in what's so obviously true? It's like not believing water is wet or believing that 'N-sync has talent and a lasting presence.
Shadowhawk
Raging Mouse posted 10-05-99 05:49 PM ET
Shadowhawk, we are, as you stress to point out, talking 'belief' here. A 'true' christian would always believe in creationism, because to him, the bible is as valid as a scientific document would be to a scientist. Furthermore, both the scientist and the christian would have trouble accepting the other's point of view. A buddhist or a shintoist might have further differing views. I don't know. do they, anybody?
sir_penguin posted 10-05-99 07:34 PM ET
I don't know about a Buddhist or Shintoist, but as a Baha'i (which is a religion which accepts other religions as "right", too--it's too complicated to say without sounding like I'm preaching ) I think that the Bible is a metaphor. I'm not speaking for my religion, that's my opinion. For example, I figure that Adam & Eve may have been representing the first people to believe in a God. I figure that God does send down messengers (like Moses, Christ, Mohammed (sorry about the spelling), etc.) once in a while to keep humanity on the right track.
To shorten it down: Prosletyze, prosletyze, prosletyze.
Anyway, about Schroedinger and his cat, Beta1 had the explanation down very well as far as my own understanding goes. Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, by Douglas Adams, has a very good explanation in it. The way they're saying it's a proof of God is this: if there were no supreme, omniscient being (ie God) then all of the parts of the Universe (assuming the Universe is infinite and the number of organisms which can observe it is finite) cannot be under observation of any kind. Therefore, if there were places not under any sort of observation, they would be in a state of limbo, and would neither exist nor not exist. If this happened in the middle of the desert on Earth, who knows what this might do?
To sum that up, if there is no God (according to Schroedinger and his comrades) then anything in the universe not being observed will neither exist nor not exist, one can't be sure. Take the Earth as an example. When it was created, who was observing it, if not God (or some equivalent)? Could life exist on a planet that may or may not be there to support it?
I think I have it right. I got the idea from a book by Michio Kaku, either Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century or Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps and the Tenth Dimension . Another book which has stuff on Schroedinger's Cat is In Search of Schrodinger's Cat : Quantum Physics and Reality by John Gribbin.
Well, that's that.
SP
Spoe posted 10-05-99 11:25 PM ET
sir_penguin:
re: Schr�edinger's Cat
Not correct(sorry).
According to Schr�edinger et. al., anything that is not observed but can be resolved into discrete states by observation(in the case of his cat, whether it's alive) all states exist in some linear combination[1]. If you have no other way of observing, when different states call for different exchanges of force particles. Now the important point here is that inanimate objects can serve as observers.
I've also seen Schr�edinger's cat used a proof of God's nonexistence, but this is much easier to disarm. The argument goes that quantum mechanics requires that there are no privileged observers[2], therefore ther can be no omniscient God. But, by definition in many religions[3], God is the ultimate priviliged observer; He transcends the laws of physics that apply to mortals.
[1] A brief explanation of linear combination:
Let C(d) mean that Schr�edinger's cat is dead.
Let C(l) mean that Schr�edinger's cat is alive.
After the first half-life of the radioactive atom(50% chance it's decayed, 50% chance it hasn't), the state of Schr�edinger's cat is .5 * C(d) + .5 * C(l). After another half-life(75% chance it's decayed, 25% chance it hasn't), the state of Schr�edinger's cat is .75 * C(d) + .25 * C(l).
[2] Priviliged observer: an observer that can simultaneously measure two nonorthogonal values[4] to arbitrary precision and accuracy.
[3] Certainly in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology.
[4] Such as position and momentum or energy and time. Both these examples are covered by the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle.
sir_penguin posted 10-06-99 12:24 AM ET
Spoe, I defer to your obvious ability to make things sound quite complex (Occam's razor!), no doubt rightfully so. All I know about Schrodinger's Cat Paradox I gleaned in p***ing from books mentioned above, which were written for normal people, who don't understand complex things, like me. So, I would imagine that you have a far greater understanding of these things than I do.
So from what I understand from your post, according to the Uncertainty Principle (which, according to somebody else on these forums, I'm not sure who or where, has been disproven in some scientific magaine or another) a being such as God cannot exist because, by definition, He would be a "priviledged observer", or a being which can identify two properties of something (like energy and velocity). AND do I understand that the box in which the Cat is sitting can be considered an observer? Hm.
SP
sir_penguin posted 10-06-99 12:25 AM ET
Oy. P a s s i n g, not p***ing. Bloody censors.
SP
Spoe posted 10-06-99 01:25 AM ET
sir_penguin:
The H.U.P. argument for the nonexistence of God is only the first part. Because God is often defined to be outside the ordinary laws of physics there is no requirement for God to be an ordinary, unpriviliged observer.
The H.U.P. has certainly not been disproven(this would be BIG news). Perhaps they were referring to the research into measuring photon properties without destroying it(H.U.P still applies). The H.U.P. essentially states that two linked values(such as position and momentum) cannot both be known with extreme precision at the same time. More specifically, (delta)x * (delta)p >= h / (4 * (pi)), where (delta) refers to the uncertainty in a measurement, x is position, p is momentum, and h is Planck's constant. This means, for example, that if you know exactly where a particle is you can have absolutely no idea what direction or how fast it's moving and vice versa.
Oh, and sorry about the witing style. I just kinda slip into it when I'm talking physics. 3 years as a physics major shows a bit, I guess.
And to clear up the screwed up sentence in my first post, add "the system is observed" after "exchanges of force particles". Wish we had post editing.
ForcePacifist posted 10-06-99 09:33 AM ET
Quantum Computer, absolutely literal parralel processing, the only answers that could be- are- in the instant the question is asked. sounds like the universe to me.
god does exist. in the minds of those that beleive in him.
the universe/infiniverse/multiverse/continuum/
actuality is in my opinion beyond such a puny anthropomorthological- human orientated concept as 'god', the 'god' concept, a finitist concept, is not capable of standing up to reality, as is repeatedly proven time and again.
bottom line, religion comes down to a particular kind of egotism, eg: i shall live forever (somewhere) bcos the world is not allowed to exist without me in it- god made all this, becouse nothing exists unless its for humans to use, and god thinks like me, and cares about what i do- the universe is based on the morals that allow me to live in a stable society worth being a part of, and god is our realities 'alpha-male'.
science is not the opposite of religion, and they are both attempts to address the same point, i dont beleive in creationism, i dont beleive in evolution, i beleive in emergence. all possibilities exist- just waiting for the reality-perpetuation to unveil them into being so to speak.
for those of you who have bothered to read this- i thank you, you can stop now.
Beta1 posted 10-06-99 11:54 AM ET
Spoe - I think you may be missing the point about the box. Its only meant to represent a way of shielding the cat from the experimenter so it cannot be observed, it is not meant to be an observer whether inanimate objects can be observers or not is irrelevent. Equally the cat is not an observer.
Now what happens if you put youself inside the box?
Anyway I think we've digressed here
sir_penguin posted 10-06-99 08:04 PM ET
Another interesting short story is Schrodinger's Plague, by, I think, Isaac Asimov. Either him or Greg Bear.
Oh, and Spoe, I understand what you're talking about. I really enjoy explaining physics things to my parents, who haven't read the books I have, and sometimes I get a little technical (a little because I only know a little). And one of the things I understand is about the Uncertainty Principle (as far as I can understand).
SP
Strange how a discussion about God can turn into a lesson on physics...sorry, Natguy.
Spoe posted 10-07-99 04:08 AM ET
Beta1: Yes, in the original gedanken experiment you are correct. But in the real world eventually the different states will become so different that the box will observe the cat.
Beta1 posted 10-07-99 08:54 AM ET
Its not a real experiment thought - its just an argument
Spoe posted 10-07-99 10:27 PM ET
Yes it's an argument, but to draw valid conclusions about it you have to accomodate other real world effects.
As an analogy:
It's perfectly safe to drive 120 mph all the time.
Yes, it is, until you hit something.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Evolution vs. Creationism Round II
Natguy	posted 10-04-99 04:08 PM ET Greetings all. I have just finished reading Ldzp45's (sorry, but I forgot. I know it's from Led Zeppelin) post and felt compelled to take up arms to rejuvinate the forums. This was always a hot topic, and I missed out on all but the tail end of it. So I'm starting a new one for all of those people who are new here and hopefully uncloak a few lurkers. Why didn't I simply bring back the old one, you might ask? Well, that wouldn't have my name on it, now would it? And people may feel less of an obligation to think on their own if their predecessor's answers are right there before them. Now, then, enough of the intro. I am unsure whether I believe in creationism or evolution. I believe in evolution, but until recently I was a fan of the God-influenced evolution compromise, but lately I've been having doubts. Give me a few weekks (or maybe days) to sort everything out and maybe then I'll have a firm response to that question. Now Go! Flourish, little forum! Flourish, I say!
Jimmy	posted 10-04-99 04:37 PM ET Evolution all the way, baby! Let me tell you, only complete fools and idiots believe in creationism. Its for sissy little babies who have no understanding of the world whatsoever. Toodles.
Natguy	posted 10-04-99 05:22 PM ET Hmm...How's about we keep it a polite and reserved debate?
Raging Mouse	posted 10-04-99 05:32 PM ET Why choose one over the other? They stem from two different systems of looking at the world, and criticism from one system to the other is as pointless as jingoism.
Jimmy	posted 10-04-99 06:12 PM ET Creationism and Evolutionism DO stem from the same kind of thought! They come from the human brain! They are both the same, so arguments are futile and dumb. Still, people who believe Creationism are big, ugly retards. Yup, creationism is for big dumb cowards who don't know the difference between a Holstein cow and their mom's butt.
Schoop	posted 10-04-99 06:55 PM ET Thank you jimmy, for proving that intelligent debate is next to impossible on an internet-based forum.
Lord Beselwick	posted 10-04-99 07:01 PM ET All right Jimmy let me say this once if you turn around real fast and realize what crap your spouting you're gonna end up in HELL !! Well now that I've got that off my chest I believe in Creationism. Tally Ho, Lord Beselwick P.S. - By the way what sort of crap is "natural selection". Come on don't tell me you believe in that stuff.
sir_penguin	posted 10-04-99 07:12 PM ET Evolutionism. BUT I just can't believe that something like life can evolve all by itself from completely different elements, without some sort of force behind it. And then you get into things like the Superstring Theory, which says that matter is a vibration along a string in the 10th dimension (or 26th, I can never remember which). I think that it would be amazing if a system like that came into being without some sort of creationary force. (I'll admit that it's possible, but IMHO it's less likely than the other alternative) Then you get into the thing about the Big Bang. The evidence is fairly close to conclusive for that theory, and so I believe in it. Many people agree that all matter in the universe began as a singularity in the middle of nowhere. What could possibly disturb that singularity into exploding into the current Universe, still considering that it's all that physically exists, except for some force beyond EM, beyond the nuclear forces, beyond gravity, beyond matter, all of which would be "in" the singularity. It's all very confusing, and I'm not sure I'm making any sense. Finally, there's Schroedinger's Cat Paradox, which I won't take up your time with, which is cinsidered (by some people) to be a proof of God. I, personally, don't, but it's still pretty cool. So, in summary, I believe in God, and I believe that God (or an equivalent creationary force) started the whole thing in which we live, going. SP--admitting anything's possible, but some things are less likely than others. "Religion without science is superstition, while science without religion is materialism" {Whew}
sandworm	posted 10-04-99 10:24 PM ET has anyone read Schrodinger's Cat by, er, Wilson, I think (same guy as the Illuminati Trilogy, which I also haven't read)? Just wondering what it was like. I fall on the Evolution side, but don't object to the "creation of evolution" compromise. I've seen plenty of evidence for evolution, but creation requires a belief in something there's no tangible evidence for. It doesn't mean there's no creator, just that if there is one it/he/she is pretty "creative". HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa! wondering if anyone has ever been executed for using puns, sandworm
Beta1	posted 10-05-99 08:29 AM ET Sirpenguin - Go on we've got plenty of time I would love to hear the Schroedinger's Cat Paradox = proof of god argument As for me I'm an evolutionist - as I saidlast time round its infinite monkeys. And I think that Jimmy is proof of it - surely a creator would never intentionally make something that offensive Beta-1 Is the missing link between apes and man
Schoop	posted 10-05-99 10:32 AM ET If I remember correctly, Schrodinger's Cat involves a sealed box with an animal inside (the cat). The box MAY or MAY NOT administer a lethal dose of radiation to the animal, but the only way to know if it has done so is to open the box. Until the box has been opened, the cat exists in a state of uncertainty, where it is simultaneously alive and dead. Correct me if I'm smoking crack.
Beta1	posted 10-05-99 11:57 AM ET Thats the way I understand it - Its an argument against quantum theory. I dont understand how it is pro/anti god/creationism. Beta-1 Clearly you cant do this experiment - no self-respecting cat would allow itself to be locked in a box
Beta1	posted 10-05-99 12:13 PM ET Actually the experiment is a little more technical. The box contains a small radiation source which in a given length of time may or may not emmit a particle. (ie p(emit a particle)=.5) There is also a vial of posionous gas which is released upon detection of that particle. Thus the quantum event ( the radioactive decay) has a measurable effect in the "real world". As a quantum event exists merely as a probability until observed until you open the box and look the cat exists in all the possible states (in this case dead and not dead). Unfortunately this doesn't actually help maters as you cant measure/observe the cat in its multiple states because as soon as you do it forces one or the other event to occur. I wouldn't recomend you try this as when you open the box you will either find a dead cat + poisonous gas which will probably kill you or an irate cat which will probably try to kill you. Either way this is getting off-topic Beta-1 Wonders if schroedinger actually had a cat?
Prince_Pixie	posted 10-05-99 12:24 PM ET I'm intrigued. I know quite a bit of probability theory, but can't for the life of me see how schrodingers' cat could be useful in an evolution/creation argument. Please elaborate.
Jimmy	posted 10-05-99 12:30 PM ET I am the real Jimmy and I believe in creationism. Do some math: the odds are impossible that a living creature could come into existence simply by chance, so evolution is not possible. Life is simply too complex for it to have happened in any other way than creationism.
Raging Mouse	posted 10-05-99 02:31 PM ET What insurance agent gave you that probability for life to occur? We do NOT now how probable (or improbable) life is.
Beta1	posted 10-05-99 04:21 PM ET Actually it is almost irrelevant as too how small the chance of life occuring is. Look at the night sky - count the stars. Even if 1% has 1 planet where life might possibly evolve then mutliply that pretty massive number by almost anything nonzero and you get a relatively good chance of life occuring somewhere - infinite monkeys! Anyway as living creatures have "come into existence" then the odds are cant be that long unless you assume that we are something special and that earth is somehow markedly different from any other small rock orbiting a small pretty normal yellow sun somewhere in the unfashionable western spiral arm of the milky way. If you do assume that then you are displaying a pretty "Sol"-centric view point. Mind you as you insist on arguing with yourself I'm not sure why I'm bothering with this. A word of advice - if you click on the profile button everyone can see all the "jimmy" messages come from the same account. Beta-1 May be ranting
Beta1	posted 10-05-99 04:24 PM ET Oh yes, I would have thought that the complexity of life just demonstrates the power of divergent evolution. Your not at school in Kansas are you? Beta-1 Feels much better having let off some steam
Shadwhawk	posted 10-05-99 05:14 PM ET Lord Beselwick said: "P.S. - By the way what sort of crap is "natural selection". Come on don't tell me you believe in that stuff." Who -can't- believe in natural selection? It's more obvious in everyday life than evolution! The slower, less alert rat gets eaten by the cat. The faster and more nervous rat is able to escape and breed. The microbe immune to antibiotics will survive to reproduce, and its descendants will also be immune; the microbe that isn't immune will be killed, preventing subsequent generations. The sick elk will get killed by the wolves; besides making an easier meal for the wolves, this may also prevent the sickness from spreading to the rest of the herd. A female cheetah with more stamina will catch more prey than a cheetah with less stamina; it will, therefore, be a better provider for its cubs. There's a chance the stamina will be passed on to its cubs, making them better providers for their cubs, and so on. The baby born with a genetic defect causing, say, a hole in its heart will (without help) die; which ultimately prevents the spread of its genes (although, thanks to human-induced 'artificial' selection, the baby may live to pass on its genes, including the defective one). That's all natural selection. How can you -not- 'believe' in what's so obviously true? It's like not believing water is wet or believing that 'N-sync has talent and a lasting presence. Shadowhawk
Raging Mouse	posted 10-05-99 05:49 PM ET Shadowhawk, we are, as you stress to point out, talking 'belief' here. A 'true' christian would always believe in creationism, because to him, the bible is as valid as a scientific document would be to a scientist. Furthermore, both the scientist and the christian would have trouble accepting the other's point of view. A buddhist or a shintoist might have further differing views. I don't know. do they, anybody?
sir_penguin	posted 10-05-99 07:34 PM ET I don't know about a Buddhist or Shintoist, but as a Baha'i (which is a religion which accepts other religions as "right", too--it's too complicated to say without sounding like I'm preaching ) I think that the Bible is a metaphor. I'm not speaking for my religion, that's my opinion. For example, I figure that Adam & Eve may have been representing the first people to believe in a God. I figure that God does send down messengers (like Moses, Christ, Mohammed (sorry about the spelling), etc.) once in a while to keep humanity on the right track. To shorten it down: Prosletyze, prosletyze, prosletyze. Anyway, about Schroedinger and his cat, Beta1 had the explanation down very well as far as my own understanding goes. Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, by Douglas Adams, has a very good explanation in it. The way they're saying it's a proof of God is this: if there were no supreme, omniscient being (ie God) then all of the parts of the Universe (assuming the Universe is infinite and the number of organisms which can observe it is finite) cannot be under observation of any kind. Therefore, if there were places not under any sort of observation, they would be in a state of limbo, and would neither exist nor not exist. If this happened in the middle of the desert on Earth, who knows what this might do? To sum that up, if there is no God (according to Schroedinger and his comrades) then anything in the universe not being observed will neither exist nor not exist, one can't be sure. Take the Earth as an example. When it was created, who was observing it, if not God (or some equivalent)? Could life exist on a planet that may or may not be there to support it? I think I have it right. I got the idea from a book by Michio Kaku, either Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century or Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps and the Tenth Dimension . Another book which has stuff on Schroedinger's Cat is In Search of Schrodinger's Cat : Quantum Physics and Reality by John Gribbin. Well, that's that. SP
Spoe	posted 10-05-99 11:25 PM ET sir_penguin: re: Schr�edinger's Cat Not correct(sorry). According to Schr�edinger et. al., anything that is not observed but can be resolved into discrete states by observation(in the case of his cat, whether it's alive) all states exist in some linear combination[1]. If you have no other way of observing, when different states call for different exchanges of force particles. Now the important point here is that inanimate objects can serve as observers. I've also seen Schr�edinger's cat used a proof of God's nonexistence, but this is much easier to disarm. The argument goes that quantum mechanics requires that there are no privileged observers[2], therefore ther can be no omniscient God. But, by definition in many religions[3], God is the ultimate priviliged observer; He transcends the laws of physics that apply to mortals. [1] A brief explanation of linear combination: Let C(d) mean that Schr�edinger's cat is dead. Let C(l) mean that Schr�edinger's cat is alive. After the first half-life of the radioactive atom(50% chance it's decayed, 50% chance it hasn't), the state of Schr�edinger's cat is .5 * C(d) + .5 * C(l). After another half-life(75% chance it's decayed, 25% chance it hasn't), the state of Schr�edinger's cat is .75 * C(d) + .25 * C(l). [2] Priviliged observer: an observer that can simultaneously measure two nonorthogonal values[4] to arbitrary precision and accuracy. [3] Certainly in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology. [4] Such as position and momentum or energy and time. Both these examples are covered by the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle.
sir_penguin	posted 10-06-99 12:24 AM ET Spoe, I defer to your obvious ability to make things sound quite complex (Occam's razor!), no doubt rightfully so. All I know about Schrodinger's Cat Paradox I gleaned in p***ing from books mentioned above, which were written for normal people, who don't understand complex things, like me. So, I would imagine that you have a far greater understanding of these things than I do. So from what I understand from your post, according to the Uncertainty Principle (which, according to somebody else on these forums, I'm not sure who or where, has been disproven in some scientific magaine or another) a being such as God cannot exist because, by definition, He would be a "priviledged observer", or a being which can identify two properties of something (like energy and velocity). AND do I understand that the box in which the Cat is sitting can be considered an observer? Hm. SP
sir_penguin	posted 10-06-99 12:25 AM ET Oy. P a s s i n g, not p***ing. Bloody censors. SP
Spoe	posted 10-06-99 01:25 AM ET sir_penguin: The H.U.P. argument for the nonexistence of God is only the first part. Because God is often defined to be outside the ordinary laws of physics there is no requirement for God to be an ordinary, unpriviliged observer. The H.U.P. has certainly not been disproven(this would be BIG news). Perhaps they were referring to the research into measuring photon properties without destroying it(H.U.P still applies). The H.U.P. essentially states that two linked values(such as position and momentum) cannot both be known with extreme precision at the same time. More specifically, (delta)x * (delta)p >= h / (4 * (pi)), where (delta) refers to the uncertainty in a measurement, x is position, p is momentum, and h is Planck's constant. This means, for example, that if you know exactly where a particle is you can have absolutely no idea what direction or how fast it's moving and vice versa. Oh, and sorry about the witing style. I just kinda slip into it when I'm talking physics. 3 years as a physics major shows a bit, I guess. And to clear up the screwed up sentence in my first post, add "the system is observed" after "exchanges of force particles". Wish we had post editing.
ForcePacifist	posted 10-06-99 09:33 AM ET Quantum Computer, absolutely literal parralel processing, the only answers that could be- are- in the instant the question is asked. sounds like the universe to me. god does exist. in the minds of those that beleive in him. the universe/infiniverse/multiverse/continuum/ actuality is in my opinion beyond such a puny anthropomorthological- human orientated concept as 'god', the 'god' concept, a finitist concept, is not capable of standing up to reality, as is repeatedly proven time and again. bottom line, religion comes down to a particular kind of egotism, eg: i shall live forever (somewhere) bcos the world is not allowed to exist without me in it- god made all this, becouse nothing exists unless its for humans to use, and god thinks like me, and cares about what i do- the universe is based on the morals that allow me to live in a stable society worth being a part of, and god is our realities 'alpha-male'. science is not the opposite of religion, and they are both attempts to address the same point, i dont beleive in creationism, i dont beleive in evolution, i beleive in emergence. all possibilities exist- just waiting for the reality-perpetuation to unveil them into being so to speak. for those of you who have bothered to read this- i thank you, you can stop now.
Beta1	posted 10-06-99 11:54 AM ET Spoe - I think you may be missing the point about the box. Its only meant to represent a way of shielding the cat from the experimenter so it cannot be observed, it is not meant to be an observer whether inanimate objects can be observers or not is irrelevent. Equally the cat is not an observer. Now what happens if you put youself inside the box? Anyway I think we've digressed here
sir_penguin	posted 10-06-99 08:04 PM ET Another interesting short story is Schrodinger's Plague, by, I think, Isaac Asimov. Either him or Greg Bear. Oh, and Spoe, I understand what you're talking about. I really enjoy explaining physics things to my parents, who haven't read the books I have, and sometimes I get a little technical (a little because I only know a little). And one of the things I understand is about the Uncertainty Principle (as far as I can understand). SP Strange how a discussion about God can turn into a lesson on physics...sorry, Natguy.
Spoe	posted 10-07-99 04:08 AM ET Beta1: Yes, in the original gedanken experiment you are correct. But in the real world eventually the different states will become so different that the box will observe the cat.
Beta1	posted 10-07-99 08:54 AM ET Its not a real experiment thought - its just an argument
Spoe	posted 10-07-99 10:27 PM ET Yes it's an argument, but to draw valid conclusions about it you have to accomodate other real world effects. As an analogy: It's perfectly safe to drive 120 mph all the time. Yes, it is, until you hit something.