Is Evolution True?

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Postby Inkeybo1116 » Sat Oct 08, 2005 1:51 am

eOK, let me just point out one small thing here. Y'all keep talkin' about the age of the earth but how are you getting those numbers? Because if you're using the age of fossils and rock layer than we have a problem. Let's see if I can explain this in simplistic terms: y'all get the age of fossils from the layer they're found in; y'all get the layers ages from the fossils found in the layers. Does anyone see the problem with this? It's called "circular reasoning". Funny how these things work.

And as for science with God in mind, how about this: Y'all talk of how freakin' old the earth is but y'all haven't even seen the basic problems with that. Y'all understand that trees are always growing older, that deserts get steadily large, and that the Great Barrior Reef continues to grow, right? If we were to assume that these things had been growing since they first were created, then isn't it just amazin' how their calculated ages are consistant with the Flood? If evolution is true, then why is it that there isn't a tree, desert , or reef older than about 4000 years? Now you can say that I don't know anything about science, but it doesn't necessarily take a scientist to understand that more problems such as these will blow your cover. You know, I seriously don't care if you still want to be an evolutionist after everything you've been told. It's you're soul you're damning for all eternity, not mine, but I do object to y'all tryin' to shove it down our throats, we are not allowed to make creationism manditory so why should y'all be allowed evolution? Whatever happened to equal rights? I also don't like the fact that y'all teach evolution as a fact which leads to some children believing in it and God because nobody ever pointed out what's wrong with it and how contradictory the two are. You know what would please me? If when you teach evolution in a public school you remember to tell them that it's still a theory, then go on to teach science that can be proven and doesn't smack of any religion, be it evolution or Christianity or any other religion. Of course that would be too much to ask from y'all, huh?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp

Ignorance is bliss.... what does bliss feel like?

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depths of the sea. Matthew 18:6

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. Psalm 53:1

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Revelations 3:20

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science so falsely called; Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. I Timothy 6:20-21
Inkeybo1116
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:18 pm
Location: praying for your souls

Postby my real name » Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:26 am

Inkeybo1116,

Now THOSE are the kind of arguments the Biblical side needs around here!

I'd like to read comments you might have on the Bible-contradiction threads that were on here a few weeks back....If anyone else would care, that is. I don't have the training for that kind of thing.

As for me, my sect of Christainity allows for Bible passages to be symbolic in nature, and for evolution to be considered within certain bounds. But we may be extra-wary of scientific opinion since the Galileo trial.

mrn
Think deep. Love strong. Create beautily.
User avatar
my real name
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: When midway in our life's journey/I found myself in a dark forest/for the right way was lost.

Postby ravencry4all » Sat Oct 08, 2005 5:04 am

If you post things like circular reasoning again we have to move this post to the Rant section.
There are fossil findings (of whatever age) with obviously no Human present in the same layers.
I guess those people are sitting with god and their bone are there with them!
Artificial Intelligence of today is neither artificial nor intelligence.
The solution of all AI projects today, to the questions of our time result in a single number : 1984.

AI is just another fake solution like Y2K, Armageddon. Mission Mars or Zukerberger.
User avatar
ravencry4all
Thinker
 
Posts: 895
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 4:48 pm

Postby Dr.Satanical » Sat Oct 08, 2005 6:44 am

MRN wrote:Now THOSE are the kind of arguments the Biblical side needs around here!

If by 'those kind' you mean falacy ridden and based on false premises filtered from half baked lies and misinformation....
Then I heartily agree! :evilfun:

Test Everything. Believe Nothing.

There is no meaning but what you make.

Sodomy And Lust.
User avatar
Dr.Satanical
Social Darwinist
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:28 am
Location: The great Canadian southwest.

Postby Phaelix » Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:39 pm

InkeyBo- A prefunctory look around the internet turned up this BBC article on the estimated age of the Great Barrier Reef, based on borehole samples taken in 2001. Turn out it's even younger than they thought- in fact it's only 600,000 years old! Bear in mind, these scientists are without agenda (unlike the estimable fellows over at Answers In Genesis).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1349070.stm
Phaelix
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:09 am

Postby my real name » Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:14 am

ravencry4all wrote:If you post things like circular reasoning again we have to move this post to the Rant section.
There are fossil findings (of whatever age) with obviously no Human present in the same layers.
I guess those people are sitting with god and their bone are there with them!


1) Do you mean there are no proto-humans either? Is man that recent a finding?

2) You don't have the authority to decide on post movings, as you are not a moderator of this topic.

Fight on, Inkeybo!
Think deep. Love strong. Create beautily.
User avatar
my real name
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: When midway in our life's journey/I found myself in a dark forest/for the right way was lost.

Postby Phaelix » Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:19 am

my real name wrote:Inkeybo1116,

Now THOSE are the kind of arguments the Biblical side needs around here!


Do you genuinely find that kind of self-righetous rhetoric convincing?
Phaelix
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:09 am

Postby my real name » Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:42 am

Phaelix wrote:Do you genuinely find that kind of self-righetous rhetoric convincing?


You must have no idea how self-righetous the rhetoric of the athiests (not the evolutionists, mind you) sound from the "other side".
Think deep. Love strong. Create beautily.
User avatar
my real name
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: When midway in our life's journey/I found myself in a dark forest/for the right way was lost.

Postby Phaelix » Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:18 pm

I'm sure both sides are guilty of it in some measure, I'm not saying atheists are free of fault. But that's not the question I asked.
Phaelix
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:09 am

Postby my real name » Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:48 pm

Your question was whether I found that kind of "self-righetous rhetoric" convincing.

In my original response, I was trying to point out that I missed the feeling that it was self-righteous;
Your post brought me to think that the response was "tit-for-tat" with others' posts;
And on reflection I think it is not the rhetoric that got me, but the clearly phrased arguments behind them which begged responses.
Think deep. Love strong. Create beautily.
User avatar
my real name
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: When midway in our life's journey/I found myself in a dark forest/for the right way was lost.

Postby Lollipop King » Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:00 pm

The real question isn’t if Evolution is “true” but if it is more “true” in relation to another hypothesis.

In which case you must compare it to another theory meant to explain reality.

As things stand Evolution is the best theory explaining natural diversity and life.

Anyone questioning it in comparison to a creationist hypothesis should first ask himself, if outer proof is lacking, what answer would satisfy him and why.
Lecter, Hannibal wrote:Now you're being rude, and I hate rude people.
User avatar
Lollipop King
Feminized
 
Posts: 4451
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Sugar Factory

retort

Postby my real name » Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:54 am

Satyr wrote:Anyone questioning it in comparison to a creationist hypothesis should first ask himself, if outer proof is lacking, what answer would satisfy him and why.


Why is the agnostic evolutionist satisfed if proof is lacking? (I have heard arguments besides Inkibo's against the fossil record.)
Belief in Creationism or even a theistic evolution provides for more meaning and philosophical continuity, it seems.... Unless you want a continuity of nihilism.
Last edited by my real name on Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Think deep. Love strong. Create beautily.
User avatar
my real name
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: When midway in our life's journey/I found myself in a dark forest/for the right way was lost.

Re: retort

Postby Phaelix » Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:34 am

my real name wrote:Belief in Creationism or even a theistic evolution provides for more meaning and philosophical continuity, it seems.... Unless you want a continuity of nihilism.


Not a persuasive argument unless you base your inclination to beleive something on how much you want to beleive it... a popular approach, if not especially rigorous. I'd also point out that a philosophy based upon what I consider to be the likely truth is the only contiguous philosophy possible.

my real name wrote:Your post brought me to think that the response was "tit-for-tat" with others' posts;


That doesn't exactly justify self-righetousness. Everyone knows... two wrongs blah blah blah.

my real name wrote:And on reflection I think it is not the rhetoric that got me, but the clearly phrased arguments behind them which begged responses.


I agree, clearly stated arguments from fact are sorely lacking among creationists. I was delighted to be able to check up on facts from Inkeybo's arguments- the fruit of which you can see above in my post of Sat Oct 08.

Otherwise, it's a bit samey... he's still asking us to teach science that can be proven, as if such a beast existed. And calling evolution a religion. And using "y'all", which is fine, but does have a certain deep south ring to it. :P
Phaelix
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 8:09 am

Re: retort

Postby my real name » Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:44 am

Phaelix wrote:And using "y'all", which is fine, but does have a certain deep south ring to it. :P


So on top of not understanding my posts, you're prejudiced against Southern accents too?
Last edited by my real name on Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Think deep. Love strong. Create beautily.
User avatar
my real name
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: When midway in our life's journey/I found myself in a dark forest/for the right way was lost.

Re: retort

Postby my real name » Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:56 am

Phaelix wrote:
my real name wrote:Belief in Creationism or even a theistic evolution provides for more meaning and philosophical continuity, it seems.... Unless you want a continuity of nihilism.


Not a persuasive argument unless you base your inclination to beleive something on how much you want to beleive it... a popular approach, if not especially rigorous. I'd also point out that a philosophy based upon what I consider to be the likely truth is the only contiguous philosophy possible.


Philosophy is based on the assumption that truth can be known. See Socrates (third guy on the top of the page) in Plato's Meno, where he says that we would be better and bolder and less idle if we thought that finding the truth were possible and pursued it than if we didn't and that it didn't matter. So, yes, it seems legitimate for us philosophers to believe a more valuable option for us if we don't know any better and we get more philosophy (love of wisdom) from that option.

my real name wrote:Your post brought me to think that the response was "tit-for-tat" with others' posts;


That doesn't exactly justify self-righetousness. Everyone knows... two wrongs blah blah blah.


No, but it does justify ignoring the self-righteousness on both sides and reading and dealing with their arguments.
And, I concede, you did deal with the argument.

my real name wrote:And on reflection I think it is not the rhetoric that got me, but the clearly phrased arguments behind them which begged responses.


I agree, clearly stated arguments from fact are sorely lacking among creationists. I was delighted to be able to check up on facts from Inkeybo's arguments- the fruit of which you can see above in my post of Sat Oct 08.


I don't agree. Both sides are usually somewhat shallow in their understandings and their arguments, from what I've seen posted over the months here. I've read people who had to be told (and wouldn't be) the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design theory (no matter what accent they affected.) :wink:

Regards,
mrn
Think deep. Love strong. Create beautily.
User avatar
my real name
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: When midway in our life's journey/I found myself in a dark forest/for the right way was lost.

Postby someoneisatthedoor » Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:48 pm

Evolutionism is a crock of shit. It relies on predictions that have yet to be verified or falsified. It also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, which has been verified and falsified and which supports the Intelligent Design theory more than anything.

Even the organs used to invent and explain the theory of Evolution are irreducibly complex, hence the expressing the theory actually entails contradicting it.
User avatar
someoneisatthedoor
threshold darkener
 
Posts: 9224
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:54 pm
Location: A land of silk and money

Postby Dr.Satanical » Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:10 pm

It also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, which has been verified and falsified and which supports the Intelligent Design theory more than anything.

lol. you fell for that weak sauce creationist garbage?
The second law of thermodynamics states that things tend towards entropy in a closed system, which the earth is not.

Even the organs used to invent and explain the theory of Evolution are irreducibly complex, hence the expressing the theory actually entails contradicting it.

Ireducible complexity? Such as in the eye?
That has been proven fallicious, and in fact computer simulations have been done showing how they eye could have 'evolved' from a primitive light sensor, given the right conditions.

That someone like you that seems articulate and intelligent would put stock in such childrens fairy-tales is both amazing to me and a tribute to the complexity of human psychology.

Test Everything. Believe Nothing.

There is no meaning but what you make.

Sodomy And Lust.
User avatar
Dr.Satanical
Social Darwinist
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:28 am
Location: The great Canadian southwest.

Postby someoneisatthedoor » Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:46 pm

Dr.Satanical wrote:
It also contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, which has been verified and falsified and which supports the Intelligent Design theory more than anything.

lol. you fell for that weak sauce creationist garbage?
The second law of thermodynamics states that things tend towards entropy in a closed system, which the earth is not.


No such thing as an open system. The law applies. I can't believe you fell for the classic secular negation of this point.

Even the organs used to invent and explain the theory of Evolution are irreducibly complex, hence the expressing the theory actually entails contradicting it.

Ireducible complexity? Such as in the eye?


No, as in the organs used for speech.
That has been proven fallicious, and in fact computer simulations have been done showing how they eye could have 'evolved' from a primitive light sensor, given the right conditions.


I know. But where does that primitive light sensor come from?

That someone like you that seems articulate and intelligent would put stock in such childrens fairy-tales is both amazing to me and a tribute to the complexity of human psychology.


That you believe the evolutionary account simply because it apparently supports your secularity doesn't impress me in the slightest.
User avatar
someoneisatthedoor
threshold darkener
 
Posts: 9224
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:54 pm
Location: A land of silk and money

Postby Dr.Satanical » Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:02 pm

No such thing as an open system. The law applies. I can't believe you fell for the classic secular negation of this point.


There is nothing to 'negate' other than pseudoscience, which is just disinformation anyway. The earth is an open system because it recieves energy from an outside source, ie the sun.

No, as in the organs used for speech.

Dude, Irreducible complexity is nothing more than creationist propaganda..it isn't even science. As well as hinging on an 'argument from ignorance' it fails to provide any sort of testable hypothesis or evidence in support of itself.
I know. But where does that primitive light sensor come from?

Must be god, right? :roll:
That you believe the evolutionary account simply because it apparently supports your secularity doesn't impress me in the slightest.

I don't 'believe' evolution, but it does seem to be the best theory to explain what it explains, and there are as of yet no reasonable alternatives. My motivation for posting is not so much to defend evolution, but to at least keep the pursuit interllecually honest. The ID crowd adds nothing but confusion and resistance, becuase their motivation isn't to find an answer, their motivation is to cling to the one they have at ALL COSTS.

Test Everything. Believe Nothing.

There is no meaning but what you make.

Sodomy And Lust.
User avatar
Dr.Satanical
Social Darwinist
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:28 am
Location: The great Canadian southwest.

Postby ravencry4all » Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:58 pm

your real name

If you are a "Philosopher" then I am a proto-human.
Otherwise, Yes, I mean I don't remember any, not even proto-human findings around dinosaurs.

You are the kind the intelligent designers they need here, on naturel sciences.
You are right I am not a moderator, I don't have the right to move anything, but myself.
I will not post on any thread you are involved in.
Artificial Intelligence of today is neither artificial nor intelligence.
The solution of all AI projects today, to the questions of our time result in a single number : 1984.

AI is just another fake solution like Y2K, Armageddon. Mission Mars or Zukerberger.
User avatar
ravencry4all
Thinker
 
Posts: 895
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 4:48 pm

Postby someoneisatthedoor » Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:02 pm

Dr.Satanical wrote:
No such thing as an open system. The law applies. I can't believe you fell for the classic secular negation of this point.

There is nothing to 'negate' other than pseudoscience, which is just disinformation anyway. The earth is an open system because it recieves energy from an outside source, ie the sun.


Nope, there's no such thing as an open system, or looked another way there's no such thing as a closed system.

No, as in the organs used for speech.

Dude, Irreducible complexity is nothing more than creationist propaganda..it isn't even science. As well as hinging on an 'argument from ignorance' it fails to provide any sort of testable hypothesis or evidence in support of itself.


1) Prove it
2) Evolution is secularist propaganda and isn't even science.

I know. But where does that primitive light sensor come from?

Must be god, right? :roll:


There are other explanations. I'm certain that life didn't spontaneously and randomly become more complex by an order of magnitude.

That you believe the evolutionary account simply because it apparently supports your secularity doesn't impress me in the slightest.

I don't 'believe' evolution, but it does seem to be the best theory to explain what it explains, and there are as of yet no reasonable alternatives.


This supposes evolution is a reasonable explanation. It isn't. You are attracted to it because of its secular nature.

My motivation for posting is not so much to defend evolution, but to at least keep the pursuit interllecually honest. The ID crowd adds nothing but confusion and resistance, becuase their motivation isn't to find an answer, their motivation is to cling to the one they have at ALL COSTS.


As per usual the evolutionist accuse anyone who disagrees with them of resorting to religious dogma, i.e. they resort to pro-evolutionist dogma. I've never seen a single pro-evolutionist who didn't accuse their opponents of being religious, whether or not they were. Weak defence and you know it.
User avatar
someoneisatthedoor
threshold darkener
 
Posts: 9224
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:54 pm
Location: A land of silk and money

Postby willem » Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:57 pm

I'm certain


you're certain?

ha!

scientifically, we're done talking :roll:
User avatar
willem
Thinker
 
Posts: 914
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby Dr.Satanical » Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:26 pm

Nope, there's no such thing as an open system, or looked another way there's no such thing as a closed system.

That's a pretty tall claim. Have you got something against conventional science? In the physical sciences, an open system is a system where matter or energy can flow into and/or out of, while in a closed system no energy or matter may enter or leave.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is only aplicable in a closed system. This is widely accepted by physicists everywhere, and you simply disagreeing without providing an argument isn't going to change anything.

1) Prove it
2) Evolution is secularist propaganda and isn't even science.

1-Prove that it IC hinges on argumentum ad ignorantiam? I would veiw that to be self evident. Prove that IC has no testable hypothesis or evidence to support it? Well, I can't prove a negative..perhaps there is some evidence in it's suport tucked away under a rock in anarctica somewhere, but proponents of the idea certainly haven't produced any.
2-Are you denying that evolution happens? :o
There are other explanations. I'm certain that life didn't spontaneously and randomly become more complex by an order of magnitude.

Other explainations such as?
You are certain of that how exactly? A divine revalation perhaps?
Also, you are targetting a strawman when you imply evolution to be random. Nothing is random.
This supposes evolution is a reasonable explanation. It isn't. You are attracted to it because of its secular nature.

What about the theory of evolution is not reasonable? You certainly haven't raised any valid objections, neither has any other of the ID camp in this thread.
As per usual the evolutionist accuse anyone who disagrees with them of resorting to religious dogma, i.e. they resort to pro-evolutionist dogma. I've never seen a single pro-evolutionist who didn't accuse their opponents of being religious, whether or not they were. Weak defence and you know it.

What acusations? you have freely admitted to believing in a creationist style deity many times. Also, I have never met anyone not infected with religion take issue with evolution theory.
Why don't you point me at ONE credible secular scientist that 'doesn't believe in evolution' ...I won't be holding my breath here...

Test Everything. Believe Nothing.

There is no meaning but what you make.

Sodomy And Lust.
User avatar
Dr.Satanical
Social Darwinist
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:28 am
Location: The great Canadian southwest.

Postby someoneisatthedoor » Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:24 pm

Dear Dr Sss

Dr.Satanical wrote:
Nope, there's no such thing as an open system, or looked another way there's no such thing as a closed system.

That's a pretty tall claim. Have you got something against conventional science? In the physical sciences, an open system is a system where matter or energy can flow into and/or out of, while in a closed system no energy or matter may enter or leave.


So which of these descriptions is more accurate for a universe that is increasing quanitatively but decreasing qualitatively?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is only aplicable in a closed system. This is widely accepted by physicists everywhere, and you simply disagreeing without providing an argument isn't going to change anything.


Bullshit. There are so many different versions of the second law that it's hard to know where to begin.

1) Prove it
2) Evolution is secularist propaganda and isn't even science.

1-Prove that it IC hinges on argumentum ad ignorantiam? I would veiw that to be self evident. Prove that IC has no testable hypothesis or evidence to support it? Well, I can't prove a negative..perhaps there is some evidence in it's suport tucked away under a rock in anarctica somewhere, but proponents of the idea certainly haven't produced any.


If you'd let me chop up the organs you use to speak I could provide an adequate example, as could anyone.

Given that all science is only ever on the basis of the best available knowledge I think the criticism is absurdly applied in this case. The testable hypothesis is that we'll never find a mechanism to explain how the vastly complex lifeform that is a human came to be. If we find such a mechanism the claim is falsified.

2-Are you denying that evolution happens? :o


I don't believe that life originated in some chaotic mess. Species adapt, sure. Species die out, sure.

There are other explanations. I'm certain that life didn't spontaneously and randomly become more complex by an order of magnitude.

Other explainations such as?
You are certain of that how exactly? A divine revalation perhaps?
Also, you are targetting a strawman when you imply evolution to be random. Nothing is random.


I'm certain that the notion is incorrect because nothing that I've ever experienced has suggested it even might be true.

Other explanations such as a vastly superior life form (alien or whatever) that has always existed or came to be in a place where the conditions for the development of life were very different to those in our universe (what we know of it) coming to earth and planting us here, say, 100,000 years ago. You know the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics?


This supposes evolution is a reasonable explanation. It isn't. You are attracted to it because of its secular nature.

What about the theory of evolution is not reasonable?


It seems absurd given the nature of the universe. And it relies on things not in evidence, makes all sorts of predictions and claims that have never been verified and is at best an incomplete explanation.

You certainly haven't raised any valid objections, neither has any other of the ID camp in this thread.
As per usual the evolutionist accuse anyone who disagrees with them of resorting to religious dogma, i.e. they resort to pro-evolutionist dogma. I've never seen a single pro-evolutionist who didn't accuse their opponents of being religious, whether or not they were. Weak defence and you know it.

What acusations? you have freely admitted to believing in a creationist style deity many times.


Aye, but I didn't believe in the theory of evolution for a long time before I started believing in a God.

Also, I have never met anyone not infected with religion take issue with evolution theory.
Why don't you point me at ONE credible secular scientist that 'doesn't believe in evolution' ...I won't be holding my breath here...


Darwin raised serious questions about it, though his religious beliefs are unclear...

Tomoko Ohta raised serious questions about the validity of the theory of natural selection which is of course a central part of the theory.

And anyone who believe in the Everett interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Actually some of them still believe in a God, but there are secular ones as well.
User avatar
someoneisatthedoor
threshold darkener
 
Posts: 9224
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:54 pm
Location: A land of silk and money

Postby marc » Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:00 pm

Everett = many world interpretation. I think that's absurd : it violates strongly the energy conservation.

Marc
"Science is Truth; don't be misled by facts."
marc
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users