Do you believed the Big Bang and evolution theory?

[tolstoi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom

Note there's a header tag on this article.

"This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality.
This article has been tagged since November 2005."

According to this article, the idea of the atom has been around since Ancient Greek.

You may also want to take a look at this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory


=( Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a copy of last Saturday's The Freeman. I think last Sat's newspapers is with one of my relatives. If anyone has a copy, please check the Science section of that day. There was a picture of a guy with a caption about him being burned at the stake. I remember reading his name to be Copernicus, but that doesn't seem right.

@yen..i'm not askng on who discovered or named the ATOM..those ancient Greeks may had coined it as such [the ATOM] but my question here is WHO CREATED IT..THE ARCHITECT..THE DESIGNER

we could not just say that the ATOM popped-up out of nowhere or the UNIVERSE was born for no reason at all...there must be a DESIGNER out there who is OMNIPOTENT and OMNISCIENT who created all these magnificent things around us...and that is GOD!

[yen]

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.Â* =)Â* Try looking at the Creationism series in Wikipedia.Â* Intelligent Design is said to be part of the Creationism series.Â* I think there's a creationist theory about the atom as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Creationism or creation theology is the belief that humans, life, the Earth, and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity's supernatural intervention. The intervention may be seen either as an act of creation from nothing (ex nihilo) or the emergence of order from preexisting chaos.

Most who hold "creation" beliefs consider such belief to be a part of religious faith, and compatible with, or otherwise unaffected by scientific views, while others maintain the scientific data supports creationism. Proponents of theistic evolution may claim that understood scientific mechanisms are simply aspects of supreme creation. Otherwise, science-oriented believers may consider the scriptural account of creation as simply a metaphor.

It's a good thing the person or persons who wrote this article are (I think) neutral about it.Â* The one about Intelligent Design is obviously bias against it.Â* =)Â* Creationism is like religion and science in one.Â* My beliefs are similar to it.Â* God could have been a scientist.Â* Lol.

That reminds me.Â* There was a docu about Newton shown in ABC Asia last month.Â* According to it, Newton believed that God had hidden the secret to life and the universe in his creations.Â* Newton looked for clues in the Bible.Â* =)Â* It's said he even calculated when the end of the world would come.Â* The year it would happen, according to Newton, is... 2065 (I think).Â* I'll try confirm this.

(Yes, I'm Newton-nutcase.)

[yen]

Correction. Year is 2060, not 2065. =)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pre...ton_2060.shtml

It was a BBC docu diay. Sometimes, I think BBC makes more interesting documentaries than either Discovery Channel or National Geographic.

[tolstoi]

hahah..Newton was a member of the Priory of Scion together with Da Vinci accrding to Dan Brown the novelist =)..this group/order protects (kuno) the relic that would turn Chirstianity into chaos..and that relic was no other than the remains of Mary Magdalene the wife (kuno) of Jesus..lolz

if indeed Newton was a member of this secret society then i would certainly doubt his works regarding creation..

[yen]

There was a docu about Dan Brown's book on National Geographic Channel last week. =) The ones who made the docu seemed pretty skeptical.

That secret society also included a lot of other famous historical figures.

About Newton's non-scientific interests - yah, it made some scientists uncomfortable. ^^;;

[HoundedbyHeaven]

About Newton\'s non-scientific interests - yah, it made some scientists uncomfortable. ^^;;

Ahem, particularly those hostile to Religion, may I add, ahem.

[Beetlebum]

we could not just say that the ATOM popped-up out of nowhere or the UNIVERSE was born for no reason at all...there must be a DESIGNER out there who is OMNIPOTENT and OMNISCIENT who created all these magnificent things around us...and that is GOD!

that's kind of like asking the beginning of the universe in the big bang theory...there had to be something before that, but according to the big bang theory time didn't exist.

scientist will probably counter and say that's like asking what is the north of the north pole. (even now we're trying to find something smaller than the atom)

Whatever the answer maybe, it's quite possible that it will be way too complicated for even the most intelligent person in the world to understand it. Maybe we can't reach that next level of thnking.

@yen
If you get pbs you could check out nova programming. There is a special program on newton this Nov http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/newton/.

Big Bang theory is a cool subject. Different theories 'branes, string, m-theory are really fascinating to read. It's a mathematician's dream to do stuff like this. Nova Programming did a show on string theory, and briefly discussed the other theories too (i think). Get some popcorn because the show is temporarily avalailble online http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html. --> the show talks about general topics from einstein to quantum mechanics to gravitrons.

Personally, from a mathemathical point of view I don't agree with string theory, but it is intersting to think about it

[yen]

Again, thanks for the links, Beetlebum. =) I appreciate the heads up. I enjoy the Nova docus too. I think they did one about the SnowBall Earth theory. Scary. Oh oh. I think Nova was the one that did the docu about Supermassive Black Holes on BBC too. Really Scary!



@Hounded (about hostility between science and religion)

Well. It's always been that way, I guess. There are scientist-types who are hostile to religion, and religious-types who are hostile to science. Religion and Science has been described as being like water and oil - they shouldn't be mixed. (Natch. I prefer to think of them as Vanilla and Chocolate. Yummy!)

To me, you actually seem pretty hostile to science with the way you bash Darwin's theory which is supported by a lot of scientists, including medical doctors who are doing what they can to beat quickly evolving viruses like AIDS.

I have to admit I was honestly surprised when you started going on about how Pro-Darwin supporters/doctors were wrong about the appendix. I couldn't help but think - well, no one and no theory is perfect, but at least Darwin's theory is helping doctors understand viruses better so that they can cure people or prevent them from getting sick.

If someone suffering from AIDS read what you wrote before... well... there's a reason why I requested that you please don't "shoot the messenger" after I read what you wrote below:

I posted:

There was also a part about HIV positive patients. The Aids virus evolves incredibly fast, so quickly that it becomes resistant to the Aids drugs. From the docu, I was given the impression that many in the medical community are firm supporters of Darwin\'s theory. It\'s a theory which helps them a lot in understanding what ails their patients.

You replied:

Well, I would disagree with the contributions of Darwinian evolution to clinical pathology because of its theory on \"vestigial organs\".

For example, the appendix has long been considered by Darwinian evolutionists as a classical example of a \"vestigial organ\", having no function at all, and a \"waste product\", a \"side effect\" of Darwinian evolution. Because of that idea, years went by before anyone got interested in studying the appendix again. Today, the appendix has been found to have a role in protecting the human body from disease. Here we see an example of how Darwinian evolution, instead of driving medical science forward, in effect held it back.

There are still many cases where Darwinian evolution blocked the advance of science like the tonsils and junk DNA.

You do act as passionately defending ID as the way Pro-Darwin folks defend Darwin's work. It's like witnessing two sides of the same coin. Your style of argument actually reminds of the writing style of whoever wrote that anti-ID article on Wikipedia. It has an angry feel to it.

After reading your argument above, I understood better why scientists, who are usually supposed to be calm and logical, act quite heated when it's about Intelligent Design. I did thought your response above was quite unreasonable. Eventhough Darwin's theory was right about how viruses evolve, you want to debunk it because "Darwinian evolutionists" made mistakes about the appendix and tonsils (despite that the theory was correct about AIDS).

From what I gather from your posts, what was wrong wasn't Darwin's theory. What was incorrect were theories other people made which they based on Darwin's theory. Is this correct?

Please be advised that from what I have seen and read --- Doctors who study AIDS are seeing first-hand that the AIDS virus does evolve by natural selection. Darwin's theory, though not perfect, really does help doctors understand viruses better.

Really, please. You just can't ignore the good Darwin's work has helped accomplish and emphasize on its imperfections. Even Newton's and Einstein's theories aren't perfect. No theory is. That's why it's called a theory.

If you do still insist that Darwin's theory is wrong wrong wrong, I will respect your decision. However, I have to say that I would prefer to side with the Pro-Darwin camp, because your reasoning can be quite frightening at times.



@tolstoi (about Priory of Sion)

Heh... now for some angry style writing of my own.

Did a little reading on the Priory of Sion. Wikipedia says it's generally considered a BIG hoax. Turns out it was actually founded in the 1950's by a guy who had delusions that he was the rightful king of France. (Oh God...)

That list of alleged grand masters included famous historical figures like Da Vinci, Newton (and even Nicholas Flanel) just so that his secret society seems really something. (Yuck...) Later on, he said that first list was a fake and drew up a new list. Right... (sarcastic)

(currently feeling quite disgusted with some people) How dare they use Da Vinci and Newton! (insert angry smiley)


To no one in particle, ramble about Sir Isaac Newton below

About that docu on Newton - it was titled "Dark Heretic." At first, I thought it meant because Newton secretly disagreed with the teachings of the English Church during his time. Then, I realized the title could also refer to Newton being quite religious when stating his scientific theories.

I can't remember the docu exactly, but I remembered a portion of it about how Newton edited his most famous book "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" in later editions so that it had a more religious tone. Seems that Newton did so when he realized that people were using his work to disprove the existence of God. Newton was quite adamant that he believed that God was responsible for how the universe worked.

Lol. I'm going to stop talking about Newton now. Getting way off topic, I think. =) Sorry, my only excuse is that I'm just nuts about Sir Isaac Newton. He's my favorite scientist. Favorite artist is Da Vinci, favorite diplomat is Talleyrand and favorite polician/general is Julius Caesar. ^^v

[s.n.m.p.]

I dont believe in both.

Evolution: I dont see any fossil about a developing man. I dont see a half man or a half ape fossil. All I see is he is either an ape or a man like the Homo species. So if theres evolution there must be something in between an ape, a chimp and a man.

Big bang theory: Nothing can come out of nothing. If there is nothing, how come that nothing suddenly compacted and then exploded? What drives it to move if there is nothing. If there is no law of physics that governs nothingness then its not convincing that suddenly it si govern by some law of physics i.e. big bang.

[yen]

@Beetlebum

I just want to repeat my thanks for the links. =) I just finished reading the article about the article Albert Einstein wrote about Isaac Newton! lol

Unfortunately, we don't have PBS, but BBC World does sometimes show Nova documentaries. I'll try to keep a watch out for them.


@s.n.m.p. - Just a heads up, there was a docu on National Geographic about a fossil which was both mannish and ape-ish. It was shown several months ago to a half year ago. Can't remember the title of the docu. I'll post it here if I remember it.

All I can remember right now was that the fossil was called ?Lucy?. lol

I'll just repeat what I said about the BBT. =) Too big for my wee brain.