Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Dingdongs

Creationism or Evolution?

Recommended Posts

sivispacem
Gah, evolution IS fact, just like gravity IS fact. Now whoever can MODEL gravity or evolution perfectly, both facts of life (the latter quite literally), gets to take the trophy for the best theory.

No, they aren't facts. Nothing is factual until it is proven in every possible circumstance. Ergo, neither evolution or gravity are factual, just theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement

 

Gah, evolution IS fact, just like gravity IS fact. Now whoever can MODEL gravity or evolution perfectly, both facts of life (the latter quite literally), gets to take the trophy for the best theory.

No, they aren't facts. Nothing is factual until it is proven in every possible circumstance. Ergo, neither evolution or gravity are factual, just theories.

Facts aren't necessarily true. Fact means literally "made" or "established". Gravity is very well established to be a phenomenon that occurs with massive bodies, ergo gravity is a fact. Anything based on empirical observation can be regarded as a fact. You see gravity work all the time. Evolution is a bit more complex, but the general consensus in the scientific community is that it is in fact a phenomenon that occurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
d0mm2k8
No, they aren't facts. Nothing is factual until it is proven in every possible circumstance. Ergo, neither evolution or gravity are factual, just theories.

And the closest theories we have to the facts so people generally refer to them as such.

I remain slightly dubious; we've proved ourselves wrong before. Plum pudding atom anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
Facts aren't necessarily true. Fact means literally "made" or "established". Gravity is very well established to be a phenomenon that occurs with massive bodies, ergo gravity is a fact. Anything based on empirical observation can be regarded as a fact. You see gravity work all the time. Evolution is a bit more complex, but the general consensus in the scientific community is that it is in fact a phenomenon that occurs.

Debatable. A "fact" is a piece of information known to be wholly accurate and true. "I am currently wearing a white shirt" would be a fact. The statement "the theory of gravity is a fact" may well be accurate, but it cannot be proven to be true under all circumstances. Hence why gravity is a theory rather than a fact. If you altered it to "the theory of gravity is seen as factual in ******- example", them the statement could be regarded as factual.

 

Some people treat what they view as the most empirically provable or understood theory as factual, but it is not, and should not be treated as such. Factuality is based on the circumstance of the statement- if there is a defined circumstance (see above) then a statement could be factual, without a circumstance it remains theoretical.

 

 

 

"Our understanding of physics suggests gravity to be factual"- Factual statement

"Gravity is a fact"- Not a factual statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
d0mm2k8

Out of curiosity, when a theory becomes indefinitely fact, doesn't it become a theorem or is this simply in mathematics terms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

Out of curiosity, when a theory becomes indefinitely fact, doesn't it become a theorem or is this simply in mathematics terms?

Not a clue. I've never been that good at maths to be fair.

Stolen from Wiki answers.

 

 

In mathematics, a theorem is a statement proved on the basis of previously accepted or established statements.

 

 

Definitively speaking, a theory is a unifying principle that explains a body of facts and the laws based on them. In other words, it is an explanation to a set of observations. Additionally, in contrast with a theorem the statement of the theory is generally accepted only in some tentative fashion as opposed to regarding it as having been conclusively established."

 

 

 

Theories are inconclusive, theorems are empirically proven, basically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement

Theorems aren't "empirically" proven because there is nothing empirical about mathematical proofs. Theorems are simply formulas that are not obvious, like Bayes' theorem or de Moivre's theorem. Theorems are not directly related to science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

For those claiming evolution is fact, just the very fact that we've never actually observed or found evidence of a genetic mutation that actually adds information, which is really what evolution is all about, shows that evolution is not fact. Also if anyone could explain where the information that dna works with originated, I'd be very interested to hear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
Also if anyone could explain where the information that dna works with originated, I'd be very interested to hear.

Please refer to my point regarding game theory on the last page. Yes, it's contrived, yes it might be a little illogical, but it does answer your question. The inability of science to explain aspects of the world as we currently understand it does not mean that it has failed in any way- nor that intelligent design theory offers a valid and scientifically reasonable alternative. It is merely the case that at this time, and with our current understading, we cannot explain these technicalities. Using a religiously-motivated, relatively unscientific argument to fill these gaps it counter-productive.

 

monocle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fred

 

For those claiming evolution is fact, just the very fact that we've never actually observed or found evidence of a genetic mutation that actually adds information, which is really what evolution is all about, shows that evolution is not fact.

I take it you haven't heard of Lenksi's experiment? They've been growing E. coli since '88 and not only observed evolution but also have samples from the lineage that show it happening.

 

(Also worth reading: http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/all-time...tionist-pwnage/)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sonnyBlack

I'll go with evolution as it's most believable. Plus there's proof of it as shown in the above post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

I don't think this is a case of either/or, rather both theories are valid to an extent.

 

The theory of evolution can't explain why life started to exist. The theory of creationism can't explain why things becamse what they are, instead of just being from the start. I can't say much about the creationism aspect of things, but I'll give my two cents on evolutionism.

 

For starters, evolution is a term that is neutral, as in it doesn't carry a good or bad idea with it. Some things evolve to bad, some things evolve to good. Many a people overlook that fact, and believe evolution should always be for the better, and as such don't accept the idea because there's some instances where things evolve to worse, ie. in medical terms, we say a patient's condition has evolved from a mild flu to a pneumonia leading to death. That's an example of bad evolution.

 

As stated above, there are plenty of facts that show the theory of evolution to be consistent at least. Take a look at the human fetus. It passes through most of the stages of evolution before starting to resemble a human. It grows gills, it grows a tail, and then loses all of it, because that's just how nature works. Nature never skips steps. You can see it in the evolution of the mind of a baby human, the emotions it develops and the steps at which it develops are similar to many mammals.

 

But evolution isn't solely applicable to the origin of the species. Evolution is also concept, a way of doing things that has many examples throughout human history. From primitive man's first groans to today's countless dialects all rich in words and meanings, we can say Language has Evolved. From primitive man's first stone axe to medieval man's badass steel two handed axe, we can say Armament has Evolved. From medieval man's way of treating illnesses by making you bleed out to modern age man's advanced therapies, we can say Medicine has Evolved. The Theory of Evolution in regards to the origin of species is valid until we find something better to explain how we came to be. But Evolution as a concept, is a fact.

 

The issue with the creationism vs evolutionism debate lies with the church, and not the scientists. There probably were many scientists that were deeply religious, and turned to science as a way to unravel god's way of doing things. But there weren't many priests that turned to science to explain anything. Taking christianity as an example, as it was the major religion during the dark ages if I'm not wrong, it could be deemed responsible for delaying the progress in science, as it would rather burn the heathen than teach them, and directed all it's speech, it's ideals, towards what you can't do, and how you will go to hell for not following it's arbirtrary rules. It's ironic, really, cause Jesus didn't mean to create a religion or condemn people for sinning or whatnot, he was a pretty forgiving guy, and willing to help others. But that's for another discussion tounge.gif

 

Using the argument from a book called the Ascent of Man, one can understand why there were problems with the theory of evolution at first. Darwin based himself primarily on one condition: The struggle for life. It served to explain why things had to adapt, because they either did it or died. It's all fine and dandy when it comes to explain evolution in animals, but what about man? We care not only for ourselves. We aren't moved by only the motive of self-preservation. Darwin overlooked another condition, just as important as the first: The struggle for the life of others. That's why we started to gather in families, tribes, nations etc. That's why we managed to go beyond the other animals. A single human brain can only go so far, a multitude of brains, working for a common goal (the survival of the species) stands a much better chance.

The failure to include that second struggle in his theory, is probably what made most people question it's validity.

 

Creationism could be used to complement the explanation of man's ascent. God may have given the first impulse of life, and designed the way for how nature operates, and then left it to experiment by itself. Nature, through evolution, had many attempts at creating the ultimate life form. It failed on some species, leading them to extinction. But with every failure, it carried something from it to it's next attempt. Eventually it found the magic path, and created man. Man is the supreme life form on the planet, as we're not confined by the limits nature set to every other animals, and we have the power to change nature however we wish. We could be what god had in mind when he set everything in motion, because he knew his planet earth nature would reach a point of convergence.

 

Well, I guess I digressed a bit tounge.gif

But I have this more to say:

 

To those of you that are adamant that the theory of evolution is bullsh*t, have you even read The Origin of Species? It makes a very, very, very convincing case.

And to everyone else really interested in this debate, do read The Ascent of Man, by Henry Drummond. He was a scottish free-church minister and a scientist, so he wasn't biased to either side. Or to those just interested in the science vs religion debate, do read his other book Natural Law in the Spiritual World.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnny_zoo

 

For those claiming evolution is fact, just the very fact that we've never actually observed or found evidence of a genetic mutation that actually adds information, which is really what evolution is all about, shows that evolution is not fact.

I take it you haven't heard of Lenksi's experiment? They've been growing E. coli since '88 and not only observed evolution but also have samples from the lineage that show it happening.

 

(Also worth reading: http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/all-time...tionist-pwnage/)

So does this disprove the "intelliegent design" theory and hence the existence of a Deity? To be honest I dont even know why these theories are being contested since there are logicaly incompatible, one seeks to explain the origin of different species and the other says life came from life.

 

To belive life came from dead matter is completely illogical and goes against one of the laws of abiogenesis and therefore evolution cannot be true.(Evolutionists do say this and also ignore this law)

Not to mention that the cell is far too complex in structure and functionality to be the result of random chance. The cell is clearly preprogrammed to behave in a certain way and contains thousands of different parts. Am I to believe that lightining struck a mud puddle and then out popped a fully formed cell. Thats asking me to believe a lot.

Edited by johnny_zoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
So does this disprove the "intelliegent design" theory and hence the existence of a Deity? To be honest I dont even know why these theories are being contested since there are logicaly incompatible, one seeks to explain the origin of different species and the other says life came from life.

 

To belive life came from dead matter is completely illogical and goes against one of the laws of abiogenesis and therefore evolution cannot be true.

Not to mention that the cell is far too complex in structure and functionality to be the result of random chance. The cell is clearly preprogrammed to behave in a certain way and contains thousands of different parts. Am I to believe that lightining struck a mud puddle and then out popped a fully formed cell. Thats asking me to believe a lot.

You can't spend 2 pages dismissing an argument, and then when some perfectly valid point are made say that they're incompatible. It's hypocritical. But I shall humour you. I fear you are misrepresenting both intelligent design and the theory of evolution. Your suggestion that intelligent design is "life coming from life" is misleading- one of the provisions of "life" is that it is finite, it can end. Ergo, either the said deity is not a living thing (thus invalidating your argument), or he is not omnipotent, thus invalidating the single most important trait of the higher power in Christian religion.

 

Regardless- the your response to the point about the evolution of e-coli is moot anyway. It wasn't addressing you, it was addressing Grandmaster Smith's statement that science had never independently verified the evolution of a life-form through the mutation of additional chromosomes.

 

As for cells being "too complex to be constructed my mere chance", we have successfully created synthetic cells previously, that have lived and reproduced in the same way natural cells do. That rather dispells the "impossible complexity" argument. It is not absurd to suggest that life can be created from dead matter, as we have done so.

 

Personally, I'm a great believer in Occams Razor- the simplest explaination is likely the most valid. Bringing the existence of a higher power into the argument makes it vastly more complicated, whereas "chance" is much simpler. Look at the traditional argument of Pailey's Watch, for instance- a defence for intelligent design as the construction of a watch is too complex to have arranged itself without the assistance of a designed. But given a sufficient period of time, merely shaking a box of watch parts would produce a fully functioning watch- the Mandlebrot set is a perfect example of seemingly random chances forming complicated patterns.

 

For someone of religious belief, the idea that the existance of living things on this planet being entirely due to chance may seem illogical, but to someone with no belief in a higher power, it is a perfectly rational conclusion- far more so than jumping straight from "that which we cannot explain the methodology behind" to "that which we cannot explain the methodology behind must be the work of God". The latter is an absurd and illogical step given the lack of actual evidence supporting intelligent design theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnny_zoo

 

You can't spend 2 pages dismissing an argument, and then when some perfectly valid point are made say that they're incompatible. It's hypocritical. But I shall humour you. I fear you are misrepresenting both intelligent design and the theory of evolution. Your suggestion that intelligent design is "life coming from life" is misleading- one of the provisions of "life" is that it is finite, it can end. Ergo, either the said deity is not a living thing (thus invalidating your argument), or he is not omnipotent, thus invalidating the single most important trait of the higher power in Christian religion.

 

Regardless- the your response to the point about the evolution of e-coli is moot anyway. It wasn't addressing you, it was addressing Grandmaster Smith's statement that science had never independently verified the evolution of a life-form through the mutation of additional chromosomes.

 

As for cells being "too complex to be constructed my mere chance", we have successfully created synthetic cells previously, that have lived and reproduced in the same way natural cells do. That rather dispells the "impossible complexity" argument. It is not absurd to suggest that life can be created from dead matter, as we have done so.

 

Personally, I'm a great believer in Occams Razor- the simplest explaination is likely the most valid. Bringing the existence of a higher power into the argument makes it vastly more complicated, whereas "chance" is much simpler. Look at the traditional argument of Pailey's Watch, for instance- a defence for intelligent design as the construction of a watch is too complex to have arranged itself without the assistance of a designed. But given a sufficient period of time, merely shaking a box of watch parts would produce a fully functioning watch- the Mandlebrot set is a perfect example of seemingly random chances forming complicated patterns.

 

For someone of religious belief, the idea that the existance of living things on this planet being entirely due to chance may seem illogical, but to someone with no belief in a higher power, it is a perfectly rational conclusion- far more so than jumping straight from "that which we cannot explain the methodology behind" to "that which we cannot explain the methodology behind must be the work of God". The latter is an absurd and illogical step given the lack of actual evidence supporting intelligent design theory.

 

Well Ive always believed them to be contradictory and have always said so in a debate like this a long time ago. I guess I am humouring also.tounge.gif

 

You say "one of the provisions of life is that it is finite it can end" this is one of the problems of coming to clearer truth science only focuses on the material and does not allow the idea of non material things existing. Science is a kind of religion because scientists have faith that everything in the universe operates orderly. Also that phsical effects can be explained by previous physical causes. They do not allow or consider the existence of a deity that could be eternal in nature. This is one of the greatest pieces of dogmatism that science believes in. What if there is a God then their assumption is preventing them from coming to clearer conclusions of life and where it came from.

 

I think you misunderstand the word "chance" it has no power in and of itself to bring into existence anything. If you flip a coin chance says that its 50% chance it lands heads or tails. Chance exerts no power whatsoever on the outcome of the coin. How exactly did the fist cell come into existence thats what I would like to hear someone explain. If it happened by chance what caused the cell to come into being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Josh

"Science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists.

 

You are saying that it is faith because people have strong beliefs regarding evolution and other things. I believe in evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong, it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you.

 

Now in practice, of course, individual scientists do sometimes slip back into the vice of faith, and a few may believe so single-mindedly in a favorite theory that they occasionally falsify evidence. However, the fact that this sometimes happens doesn't alter the principle that, when they do so, they do it with shame and not with pride. The method of science is so designed that it usually finds them out in the end.

 

Science is actually one of the most moral, one of the most honest disciplines around — because science would completely collapse if it weren't for a scrupulous adherence to honesty in the reporting of evidence.

 

Science, then, is free of the main vice of religion, which is faith. But, science does have some of religion's virtues. Religion may aspire to provide its followers with various benefits — among them explanation, consolation, and uplift. Science, too, has something to offer in these areas."

 

Also you talk about science requiring everything to have order, well what about chaos theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
You say "one of the provisions of life is that it is finite it can end" this is one of the problems of coming to clearer truth science only focuses on the material and does not allow the idea of non material things existing. Science is a kind of religion because scientists have faith that everything in the universe operates orderly. Also that phsical effects can be explained by previous physical causes. They do not allow or consider the existence of a deity that could be eternal in nature. This is one of the greatest pieces of dogmatism that science believes in. What if there is a God then their assumption is preventing them from coming to clearer conclusions of life and where it came from.

 

I think you misunderstand the word "chance" it has no power in and of itself to bring into existence anything. If you flip a coin chance says that its 50% chance it lands heads or tails. Chance exerts no power whatsoever on the outcome of the coin. How exactly did the fist cell come into existence thats what I would like to hear someone explain. If it happened by chance what caused the cell to come into being.

It's not a question of forbidding the non-material from existing- the idea of multiple universe theory scuppers that entirely. It is entirely feasible that things exist which cannot be seen, felt or revealed through science as our current understanding permits, but I feel that there is a massive distinction between accepting that there are things that exist that we do not currently know exist, and that one of these existing things is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent deity. For someone following a rational sequence of thought patterns, it's a jump too far. If this deity, why not the "invisible pink unicorns" or "flying spaghetti monster" which are commonly used to critique this argument?

 

It's an utter misconception that science is only concerned with patters or order in the universe. Most scientific study goes into the explaining and understanding of elements that do not fit the concept of "order"- you can often learn more about the constructs of nature, organisms or events from those you fail to predict accurately, than you can from those that follow the pattern. The whole "prerequisite of scientific enlightenment is dismissing the concept of a deity argument" is utter tripe too- as I've said a number of times, a scientist who goes into an experiment with pre-existing ideas of what results he wishes to produce is a very, very poor scientist. Also, there are a large number of scientists in all areas of religious belief- however, there is a massive difference between believing in the existance of something on a spiritual or personal level, and having that belief cloud their personal scientific judgement. The "assumptions" argument goes both way.

 

Like I've said a number of times now, just because science does not currently provide an answer, it does not mean religion does. This is the single most deluding and absurd part of the entire argument- that those of religious belief seem incapable of understanding the concept of an "unknown unknown", something that an individual neither knows nor has the capacity to know in a given circumstance. Science cannot yet explain freak waves, does that mean they are also the work of God? How about the behaviour of certain sub-atomic particles which seem to defy the known laws of physics- again, God?

 

Is it so hard to grasp that the step from not knowing something to automatically believing it the work of a higher power is illogical to those without religious belief?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

I don't know what it is but I just can't seem to get myself to fully believe in evolution/abiogenesis as our origins. It's not that I favor the idea of a god, or even have a grudge on science, it's just I find it so highly improbable to have created every living thing we see today.

 

With quantum mechanics the measurement problem tells us that without an observer, matter acts as a wave that is scattered throughout space until someone looks at it. How would the universe ever be capable of coming to the order we see today if before there was ever any lifeforms, there was no definite matter? This is a big one that I wonder about, because if there are no lifeforms to observe any of the matter, it would only be waves of probability flying through the air with no solid matter and there wouldn't even be the chance of planets forming or anything to lead up the creation of life..

 

So without any sort of intelligence or observer, how could have our universe ever even came to be? Is it not apparent that the universe indeed does have a purpose, and that is which to harbor life? Because without some lifeforms to process the information in the universe, it wouldn't even necessarily exist.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

You're really butchering the quantum mechanics there Smith. QM is heavily abused by people who don't know what they're talking about to explain a point that is not supported by science. This is all coming from someone with a poor grasp of the math involved, but I don't go around using QM to explain things I don't personally understand.

 

You seem to be equating the 'observer' with an intelligent life form, whereas the observer could be an inanimate object. To my knowledge the act of observing certain things like electrons inherently changes the state it's in because the act of observing something that small is impossible with visible light. More importantly the idea that matter just acts like a wave and this isn't matter until someone looks at it (?) basically makes no sense. I'm not even sure I can go more in depth then that, that just isn't how it works. From a solipsistic point of view I suppose the existence of the universe doesn't matter when you're not there to look at it, but in reality the Universe does what it does regardless of any life.

Edited by Mike Tequeli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnotherDave

 

I don't know what it is but I just can't seem to get myself to fully believe in evolution/abiogenesis as our origins. It's not that I favor the idea of a god, or even have a grudge on science, it's just I find it so highly improbable to have created every living thing we see today.

Is it only your misunderstanding of quantum mechanics that leads you to believe that evolution is improbable? Assuming it isn't, if we were to initiate life now as the universe did it would almost certainly evolve differently to how current life has, but there's not much to suggest that evolution hasn't shaped life as it is now, scientifically at least.

 

I suppose you could think of it like a deck of cards. If you were to take a deck of 52 cards, shuffle them, and then lay each card out on a table you would have a random combination of all the suits and values. Imagine those 52 cards in that specific order represents the evolution of life on earth; if they were in any other order life would cease to exist.

 

Now, the odds of reproducing that exact combination of cards is mind-boggling (greater than 1 in 80,000 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion), but that doesn't matter because you've already got the cards in the right order. It only looks improbable when you look back on evolution/the pack of cards as a whole.

 

 

 

Edit: Sorry, I'm very tired and I worded this post pretty badly. Hopfully it's understanable.

Edited by something_else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

 

You're really butchering the quantum mechanics there Smith. QM is heavily abused by people who don't know what they're talking about to explain a point that is not supported by science. This is all coming from someone with a poor grasp of the math involved, but I don't go around using QM to explain things I don't personally understand.

 

You seem to be equating the 'observer' with an intelligent life form, whereas the observer could be an inanimate object. To my knowledge the act of observing certain things like electrons inherently changes the state it's in because the act of observing something that small is impossible with visible light. More importantly the idea that matter just acts like a wave and this isn't matter until someone looks at it (?) basically makes no sense. I'm not even sure I can go more in depth then that, that just isn't how it works. From a solipsistic point of view I suppose the existence of the universe doesn't matter when you're not there to look at it, but in reality the Universe does what it does regardless of any life.

 

Well I can admit I don't fully understand quantum mechanics, but mainly because noone truly does.. not even the scienctists studying it lol. I have been studying it alot lately though and have been getting a good grasp on what it means.

 

And yes, physical matter behaves as a wave when unobserved. confusing? yes.. very lol but it is what it is.

 

Just the way our universe and our minds works, it is very similar to a computer program for video games that turns electrical code into a fully colored image and sound. Outside of yours and my skull, there is no sound, there is no color, it is only the processes inside our brain which gives the world the color and texture and practically everything what it is. Just like the movie The Matrix, the true physical reality is not what it appears to be, it only appears to be how we perceive it through our senses. Even inside our skull there is no light, yet we are able to somehow project a 3-d like hologram in which is what we are always experiencing. Exactly as to how an xbox's processor turns all the code written onto the disk into a virtual world full with hd gfx, fully functioning physics ect..

 

Now it's not exactly proving evolution wrong, just showing a great amount of evidence that yes, things in our universe were designed. You and I and everyone knows that computer software cannot write itself out, it just can't be done no matter how much time you're given. There is a necessity for intelligence to design a computer program to operate correctly, just for the game GTA IV, would you ever expect that to write itself out? Of course not, a team of professionals had to sit on their asses for years tweaking it over and over and over to get it just right. Now our minds processor works so flawlessly that none of us ever even realize everything we experience is a replicated copy of the original. When you take a bite of an orange, only the chemicals in the orange trigger our taste buds on our tounge which in turn is turned into electrical code shot through our brain which is then experienced as a bitter sweet taste. Never once do you, the ghost inside the machine if I will, actually experience anything in it's true form, only replicated electrical copies. And the programming to this is so smooth we can't even realize it's not the real thing.

 

If you take away pre mind sets and really think about it it may begin to make sense. Every single thing on the smallest scale is made up of condensed energy, whether it be a rock, a plant, or even our brains which we use to experience everything. Energy can never be created or destroyed, only transferred, therefore energy is eternal. It has been said that god is everything and also eternal, it is now being thrown around that non-living things also have a consciousness, such as the measurement problem that matter 'knows' when its observed and there are also experiments showing how water is affected by thought and intention alone and also the way you treat it. Sounds crazy but it's been done time and time again. Why is the idea of a god so absurd? Maybe the old testaments aren't the most accurate but they were definitely onto something..

 

..Just don't nitpick at this post, too tired to touch it up or anything atm lol

 

Edit: a good doc to watch on quantum mechanics is What is Reality? by BBC, you can find it on youtube easily if anyones interested.

Edited by GrandMaster Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
Outside of yours and my skull, there is no sound, there is no color, it is only the processes inside our brain which gives the world the color and texture and practically everything what it is. Just like the movie The Matrix, the true physical reality is not what it appears to be, it only appears to be how we perceive it through our senses.

Just to pick up on this- you're not Berkley and this isn't an argument about philosophical idealism. You have completely, totally and utterly missed the point with this statement. You may personally believe that our understanding of the world many only come from our interpretion of it- to some degree, it's true, but to go as far as suggesting that matter somehow ceases to exist when no-one is paying attention to it is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. It's not as if thinks like the colour of light reflected from objects or reflection and refraction patterns can be measured scientifically without the requirement for a human view, is it sigh.gif .

 

Oh, wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

 

Outside of yours and my skull, there is no sound, there is no color, it is only the processes inside our brain which gives the world the color and texture and practically everything what it is. Just like the movie The Matrix, the true physical reality is not what it appears to be, it only appears to be how we perceive it through our senses.

Just to pick up on this- you're not Berkley and this isn't an argument about philosophical idealism. You have completely, totally and utterly missed the point with this statement. You may personally believe that our understanding of the world many only come from our interpretion of it- to some degree, it's true, but to go as far as suggesting that matter somehow ceases to exist when no-one is paying attention to it is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. It's not as if thinks like the colour of light reflected from objects or reflection and refraction patterns can be measured scientifically without the requirement for a human view, is it sigh.gif .

 

Oh, wait...

No, matter doesn't suddenly cease to exist at all, the electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom do not act in definite form, they are instead in a wave state of probability until someone observes it or something somehow interacts with it.

 

Picture it like radio stations- the radio signals (electrons) are constantly flying all throughout the air at any given time in forms of waves in no definite spot. But take a tuner (observer) and tune into that signal, or observe it, and there you are able to hear the sound waves from the radio signal and it is in a definite state, if you will. Just like the radio waves, what makes up all matter acts in a state of waves in probability and only seems to collapse into a definite and change results of an experiment when something observes. It is capable of 'knowing.' Of course this totally flip flops western society's view on reality because we've always thought that atoms were solid pieces of matter and that there is nothing 'supernatural' about our reality.

 

It is not the easiest to explain, I'll link a video later if I can, but it is very confusing especially to the scientists trying to figure out what it all means. Alot of them are beginning to believe that these bits of non-living matter are actually bits and pieces of consciousness. I personally don't believe in a human like god like traditional christianity, I believe more that what makes up everything is made up of energy which is made up of consciousness, whatever that truly may be. This intelligent consciousness which creates the universe and all of reality is I suppose what I would label what man has come to call god. I guess it's not exactly 'creationism' but I just don't believe we are a result of mindless random mutations and whatnot. Just the incredibly complex code that transforms electromagnetic waves into fully colored living images which is displayed inside our brains which in the end are all made up of fuzzy clouds of electrons swirling around some protons and neutrons with a void of 99% open space, absolutely mind blowing and a great amount of design required I'd imagine.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
It is not the easiest to explain, I'll link a video later if I can, but it is very confusing especially to the scientists trying to figure out what it all means. Alot of them are beginning to believe that these bits of non-living matter are actually bits and pieces of consciousness.

I'd really, really like to see some evidence to support that claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
johnny_zoo

 

Now it's not exactly proving evolution wrong, just showing a great amount of evidence that yes, things in our universe were designed. You and I and everyone knows that computer software cannot write itself out, it just can't be done no matter how much time you're given. There is a necessity for intelligence to design a computer program to operate correctly, just for the game GTA IV, would you ever expect that to write itself out? Of course not, a team of professionals had to sit on their asses for years tweaking it over and over and over to get it just right. Now our minds processor works so flawlessly that none of us ever even realize everything we experience is a replicated copy of the original. When you take a bite of an orange, only the chemicals in the orange trigger our taste buds on our tounge which in turn is turned into electrical code shot through our brain which is then experienced as a bitter sweet taste. Never once do you, the ghost inside the machine if I will, actually experience anything in it's true form, only replicated electrical copies. And the programming to this is so smooth we can't even realize it's not the real thing.

 

If you take away pre mind sets and really think about it it may begin to make sense. Every single thing on the smallest scale is made up of condensed energy, whether it be a rock, a plant, or even our brains which we use to experience everything. Energy can never be created or destroyed, only transferred, therefore energy is eternal. It has been said that god is everything and also eternal, it is now being thrown around that non-living things also have a consciousness, such as the measurement problem that matter 'knows' when its observed and there are also experiments showing how water is affected by thought and intention alone and also the way you treat it. Sounds crazy but it's been done time and time again. Why is the idea of a god so absurd? Maybe the old testaments aren't the most accurate but they were definitely onto something..

 

I agree the evidence for design is more than overwhelming when you observe the structure of the universe and its mathematical operations. The fact that code cannot write itself is one of the main arguments against evolutionists who have yet to explain how the first cell came into existence.

 

I also don't see why the idea of a "God" is so illogical for many, you don't even have to be religious to come to that conclusion but one can surely see there must be some higher intelligence greater than man's. It just so happens that this question leads inevitably to theology. Either the old testaments were onto something or they were crackpots, scientists seem to favour the latter but surely there's no harm in looking into the book with an open mind even if there is no God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
I agree the evidence for design is more than overwhelming when you observe the structure of the universe and its mathematical operations. The fact that code cannot write itself is one of the main arguments against evolutionists who have yet to explain how the first cell came into existence.

 

I also don't see why the idea of a "God" is so illogical for many, you don't even have to be religious to come to that conclusion but one can surely see there must be some higher intelligence greater than man's. It just so happens that this question leads inevitably to theology. Either the old testaments were onto something or they were crackpots, scientists seem to favour the latter but surely there's no harm in looking into the book with an open mind even if there is no God.

How? The Mandlebrot set produces shapes and patterns as complicated as the structure of DNA from nothing more than a seemigly random combination of letters and numbers. Anyhow, though there is little evidence to suggest how the first cells formed, claiming that science has been unable to produce a theory explaining how the first cell (or more importantly the first strands of RNA and DNA) came into existance is just a lie.

 

In addition, I will clarify a point I seem to be making endless times. Please, actually read it as it's something you keep failing to take into account.

 

Just because science has not successfully answered some questions, does not mean that the concept of a divine creator does. There are many things in this world that we have yet to develop the capacity to understand or explain. It is absurd and hypocritical to attack the inability of science to explain certain things, and then use a completely unempirical and illogical argument with no evidence to replace it.

 

Okay, explain to me what rationale there is behind believing in a non-material higher being? Is there any logical and empirical evidence for the existance of one? No. Is there anything in this world that cannot theoretically be explained without the requirement for said higher power? A little more arguable, but not really. As someone with a casually religious upbringing, but who has had enough freedom and foresight to examine the points surrounding it independently, I cannot see the jump from lack of knowledge to the belief in a higher power as rational- and whatsmore, I have never found a single person who can rationally explain it to me.

 

This is before you get onto the issues surrounding the nature of a higher power. Even if there were a higher power who created life, he cannot be omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent. If so, he wouldn't have created life that was imperfect or unsuited to its designed purpose, as the elements of so many living things (and for that matter so many living things in their entirity) are. So really, it's a choice between non-existant or worthless.

 

No-one with an ouce of rationality dismisses religious texts as hogwash. What people, both religious and otherwise, should address is not the content of these books, but the meaning. The bible says a lot of contradictory things, and mostly very unclearly, but the overiding messages are from various stories and parables- all of which are addressed in a religious way but all of which are, in reality, no different from fairytales. It should not be seen as the "word of God" because in order to take it as such, one must believe it literally. When taken for what it most likely is accoring to most who have studied it in depth, it should be seen as a collection of moralistic stories advising on an ethical and philosophical outlook on life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

 

It is not the easiest to explain, I'll link a video later if I can, but it is very confusing especially to the scientists trying to figure out what it all means. Alot of them are beginning to believe that these bits of non-living matter are actually bits and pieces of consciousness.

I'd really, really like to see some evidence to support that claim.

Congratulations on nitpicking my post and completely ignoring everything else in my post sigh.gif lol

 

Can you explain where the incredibly complex code that operates all life came from, where or even how the laws of physics came to be and why they are so precise? If just one of our four main forces were to be varied just a tad, our whole universe as we know it would be incapable of harboring life at all. The strong and weak nuclear forces are so precise that if one of them were to be altered just a fraction, atoms would not be capable of holding together therefore nothing would exist. The laws of physics are obviously set to harbor life and existence as a whole.

 

The ways our brains work with taking in electromagnetic waves and turning them into fully colored pictures inside our brain is exactly as to how computers process digital information. I'll ask how did the retina, optic nerves, and visual cortex Evolve simultaneously while also producing a code to make the whole thing operate correctly? What good is a partially formed retina with no optic nerves, or what goods optic nerves without the visual cortex? But then what good is all that without the code that turns the electrical signals into a living picture? You can throw all the parts needed for a graphics card into a dryer and let it tumble around for a million, hell even a billion years and lets just say it somehow assembled itself, what good are all those parts without the code that allows it to operate?

 

That is just one example of the many multi-part systems in our bodies that require other parts to fully operate. It is very very obvious that there was some sort of planning or blueprints needed, there is no way a mindless random mutation can know how to build a system from the ground up without some intent of the final system in mind, which points towards some form intelligence was needed somewhere along the line.

 

I know that saying 'god did it' doesn't solve anything, but never have I claimed that if god exists then we can all just give up on science. Science and math are the tools used to create our reality, but you cannot use those tools to explain our origin, only help us understand that which created it. Much like a knife, it is a tool used to cut things, but it cannot be used to cut itself.. if that makes sense.

 

Picture it like this, we are practically inside a virtual simulation. Imagine the character from GTAIV try and figure out how his universe popped into existence when the programmers began creating the game. Imagine him finding out that all the pixels and physics and everything made up in his reality is actually all digital code held on a disc, only brought to life through the processor inside the xbox. Of course it wouldn't make sense because it would mean his reality isn't necessarily real, which is practically exactly where we're at with quantum mechanics today.

 

I find it an insult to nature to claim it was all a mindless accident when you really look at it and all its orchestrated cycles and beauty. The creator of nature would have to have been a mathematical genius to make everything work so seamlessly. You'd have to be extremely ignorant to say there is no design in nature..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilikensrs
The creator of nature would have to have been a mathematical genius to make everything work so seamlessly. You'd have to be extremely ignorant to say there is no design in nature..

Positing a creator does not solve your issues. According to your train of thought this creator, so complex and well-designed as to be able to design and bring into existence the entire universe, would have needed an even better and more intelligent progenitor of its own.

 

Regarding the evolution of the eye, read this. You might want to brush up on evolutionary theory and try reading the talkorigins faq before asking further questions. Unless of course your designer was not so intelligent as to imbue you with a desire to seek out knowledge and you're actually just throwing out rhetorical questions in order to preserve a world-view at odds with reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

 

The creator of nature would have to have been a mathematical genius to make everything work so seamlessly. You'd have to be extremely ignorant to say there is no design in nature..

Positing a creator does not solve your issues. According to your train of thought this creator, so complex and well-designed as to be able to design and bring into existence the entire universe, would have needed an even better and more intelligent progenitor of its own.

 

Regarding the evolution of the eye, read this. You might want to brush up on evolutionary theory and try reading the talkorigins faq before asking further questions. Unless of course your designer was not so intelligent as to imbue you with a desire to seek out knowledge and you're actually just throwing out rhetorical questions in order to preserve a world-view at odds with reality.

Trust me, I've looked through alot of what evolution has to say, and it just doesn't add up.

 

Evolution says eyes evolved from light sensitive cells. What good are light sensitive cells that aren't connected via an optic nerve? What advantage does that have over no light sensitive cells? They'd be just as useless as an eyeball placed on your big toe, just because there's an eye there doesn't mean you can see. Also WHY or HOW would cells know even how to sense electromagnetic waves or even decode them? Which came first, the retina or LS cells, the optic nerves, the visual processing center, or the code which makes it all function? Or did it just happen to all evolve at once in all these different creatures just like our cardiovascular system, our respiratory system, digestive system ect.., which would've required planning or design.

 

Outside of our skulls, there is no literal 'light,' there are just electromagnetic waves in different frequencies. It is the processes in our brain which turns these signals into color. Where did the information come from which programs the brain to work that way? Like I said before, it's very similar to computer software and we all know that computer software cannot write itself.. It's either an all or nothing type of deal, either all the pieces are there or the eye simply doesn't work. What natural selection advantage does a non working eye have over no eyes?

 

Please explain in a logical sense how a mindless mutation would be capable of building itself all parts at once from the ground up? It's not that I'm against evolution, just if the science doesn't add up it shouldn't be passed along as fact, or accepted as a theory. It is very very obvious to someone with an open mind that things have been planned out and designed. Evolutions a good try, but just isn't 'it.'

 

Of course you can go off and try to attack my intelligence but sadly it is you who is conformed to the box. You blindly follow evolution simply because it's what you were told to believe. It's not your fault though because your professor was taught in the same manner of which to blindly believe what he was told, same with who taught he who teaches and so on.. and yes I'll admit evolution looks rather slick from the surface, when I first got into it I fully doubted the existence of a god.. but once you actually use critical thinking skills you'll see how things simply just wouldn't work. It takes time to see it but when you do it makes so much more sense.

Edited by GrandMaster Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilikensrs
The creator of nature would have to have been a mathematical genius to make everything work so seamlessly. You'd have to be extremely ignorant to say there is no design in nature..

Positing a creator does not solve your issues. According to your train of thought this creator, so complex and well-designed as to be able to design and bring into existence the entire universe, would have needed an even better and more intelligent progenitor of its own.

 

Regarding the evolution of the eye, read this. You might want to brush up on evolutionary theory and try reading the talkorigins faq before asking further questions. Unless of course your designer was not so intelligent as to imbue you with a desire to seek out knowledge and you're actually just throwing out rhetorical questions in order to preserve a world-view at odds with reality.

Trust me, I've looked through alot of what evolution has to say, and it just doesn't add up.

 

Evolution says eyes evolved from light sensitive cells. What good are light sensitive cells that aren't connected via an optic nerve? What advantage does that have over no light sensitive cells? They'd be just as useless as an eyeball placed on your big toe, just because there's an eye there doesn't mean you can see. Also WHY or HOW would cells know even how to sense electromagnetic waves or even decode them? Which came first, the retina or LS cells, the optic nerves, the visual processing center, or the code which makes it all function? Or did it just happen to all evolve at once in all these different creatures just like our cardiovascular system, our respiratory system, digestive system ect.., which would've required planning or design.

 

Outside of our skulls, there is no literal 'light,' there are just electromagnetic waves in different frequencies. It is the processes in our brain which turns these signals into color. Where did the information come from which programs the brain to work that way? Like I said before, it's very similar to computer software and we all know that computer software cannot write itself.. It's either an all or nothing type of deal, either all the pieces are there or the eye simply doesn't work. What natural selection advantage does a non working eye have over no eyes?

 

Please explain in a logical sense how a mindless mutation would be capable of building itself all parts at once from the ground up? It's not that I'm against evolution, just if the science doesn't add up it shouldn't be passed along as fact, or accepted as a theory. It is very very obvious to someone with an open mind that things have been planned out and designed. Evolutions a good try, but just isn't 'it.'

 

Of course you can go off and try to attack my intelligence but sadly it is you who is conformed to the box. You blindly follow evolution simply because it's what you were told to believe. It's not your fault though because your professor was taught in the same manner of which to blindly believe what he was told, same with who taught he who teaches and so on.. and yes I'll admit evolution looks rather slick from the surface, when I first got into it I fully doubted the existence of a god.. but once you actually use critical thinking skills you'll see how things simply just wouldn't work. It takes time to see it but when you do it makes so much more sense.

A+ top work. Not reading the material in question and a bonus "no u" thrown in for good measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.