OSDev.org

@NotTheCHEAT You labeled the thread

Creation vs Evolution.

What exactly is your point. I'm at a loss to find it. Sorry if I missed it. Could you clear this up?

Are you merely stating that all matter is mearly energy condensed through a slow vibration, and that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, that there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and that we are the imaginations of ourselves...

I can't quite agree with this...

NotTheCHEAT wrote: Evolution is constantly evolving. Jelle, you seem to be saying that just because evolution changes and religion doesn't, makes evolution more reliable, scientific, or whatever.

Religion is also constantly evolving. Back when Jesus of Nazareth was born, "his" religion was "a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye". He changed his religion. Just like Mohammed, Buddha, Gerald Brousseau Gardner, Bagwhan...

Science, however, is different in this regard. It does not change, it expands. Assumptions at the limits of our knowledge are sometimes proven false; but things well within the bounds of our knowledge do not change. 1+1=2. A^2 + B^2 = C^2. E=mc^2.

Once scientists believed that an atom is... well, atomic. Then someone discovered the sub-atomic structures. And even though no one can see the proof with "your own eyes", no scientist of today would still claim that atoms are the smallest unit of matter. There is no such thing as a "traditional church of science" claiming that there is no such thing as neutrons. Consensus has been found, because no-one could prove the new findings to be false - not because two sides insisted on being right on something that could at best be called "perhaps".

I have studied Biology. I have tended to samples of bacteria, bred over thousands of (bacteria) generations, with mutagenous and antibiotic substances applied to them, and saw, with my own eyes, proof, done with my own hands, that - by selection and recombination - they evolved into a new stem of bacteria that posessed a new set of attributes that were not seen in any of the original ones, which allowed them to survive in their changed environments.

Unless some god had his / her hand in each and every sample prepared by about 100 students like me in that university in that course in that semester alone, I found that pretty convincing that it does not need a higher being to have species evolve over billions of years, given what we did in a couple of weeks.

Which is why I said, initially, that I do not say the is no higher being. I just say that such a higher being is not required to have given life to our planet. A bunch of lucky rolls on the d20 of destiny would suffice. Given the number of samples (planets) in the universe, it would be surprising if it hadn't resulted in a carbon-based sentient lifeform somewhere...

From my point of view, it sounds just fine, because the bible says that 1,000 years is like a day to God.

I completely grant you that. But if some good did create the lifeforms on this planet, it is overwhelmingly likely that evolution was his tool. I won't continue the scientific part now, because one thread cannot give you the background in palaeontology, microbiology, genetics and other disciplines that a lifelong interest in the subject gave me, and would be required to follow the hundreds of different lines of logic of which not a single one could be proven false, that lead to the conclusion that evolution is, at least, much more likely than any other explanation. (Occam's Razor.)

On the more philosophical side:

This slab of granite is a living, breathing, talking animal. You may think that is preposterous, but you're wrong. The average lifespan of a piece of rock is a few billion years. We live and die so fast it doesn't even notice us. And it lives so long that we can't see it doing anything.

A slab of granite is incapable of breathing (inhaling and exhaling air to extract oxygen as to support basic bodily functions) or talking (emitting complex sound waves to communicate and coordinate action with others of the same species).

Nice philosophical touch, here, but a magnifying glass can tell you the above. Are you trying to wing it a bit, here?

...even with proof, people wouldn't want to believe you.

That is the difference between a scientist and a believer: A scientist who gets his theory attacked by something that might be hard proof will test that proof for validity, and then shake your hand for being the better scientist. A believer who gets his theory attacked is annoyed and starts a series of evasive actions through the land of philosophy.

The creationists try to push something philosophical into the field of science, and can't accept the offered "cease fire" by the scientists in the form of theistic evolution. Intelligent design is something that can be discussed (but only with lots of boring numbers), but young-earth creationism is just below any sensical threshold IMNSHO. You seem like you can't even decide yourself which of the two you want to "defend", which is why I think of this thread as "trying to kill time, on a subject I don't even really believe in" on your part.

If you had "proof" of evolution, I wouldn't believe it. You may think that would make me look like an idiot, but if I had "proof" of creation, would you believe me?

I prefer to believe I would, since I consider myself an open-minded scientist.

I believe all religions (and I believe evolution, and atheism, are religions) are unprovable, they are what someone believes, they attempt to explain the "supernatural", or how we came to be, but no matter how you explain it, some people will disagree.

That is where you go wrong. Evolution is a theory of Biology. Biology does not try to explain how we came to be, it tries to find out, and came up with evolution as the most probable explanation (Occam's Razor again). You won't find a Biology book two thousand years old that's still considered to be "state of the art"...

However, since you didn't personally see humans evolving from apes, and I didn't personally see God creating humans, neither of us can prove either way.

Hmm... do you believe that human bodies simply evaporate if close to the explosion of a nuclear bomb? How so, if that last happened sixty years ago and you didn't see it with your eyes?

I respect your belief, and I assume you respect mine.

That is a very good credo, but it only goes so far.

We tell the Mullahs to keep state and religion apart and frown at kids that are taught verse instead of engineering. There are very real endeavours by the creationists to have their beliefs taught in school, side by side with natural sciences on an equal footing, or even to replace science. I don't like that any more than I would like someone telling my daughter she'd have to wear a veil in public.

That's why I'm a bit intolerant here.

I don't think I can convince you not to believe in evolution, and I don't want to anyways, I am merely pointing out how stupid it is to argue about all this stuff.

Now there's a point. The pitty is, some are taking this argument much more seriously than we here do...

I had to bring politics into this...

A scientist tells a prophet that he is mad and the prophet replies that the scientist is blind to God.

A scientist tells a prophet that he is mad and the prophet replies that the scientist is blind to God.

In an impasse like that, I'd suggest pistols at dawn.

I've always wondered 'bout that... what if at least one of them overslept?

@Solar: *gg* falsification. To prove that a given hypothesis is wrong - by empiric verification.

Me as a kind of agnositic think, that there is some sorta god - in the heads of those who believe, eh. There is nothing wrong with that, au contraire. It's perfectly ok.

What I have a big grudge with is, that this believing makes most of those ppl think that what the preachers say is a replacement for taking the matter in own hands and *DO SOMETHING* for the own luck - and to do the thinking by themselves too.

Ever been to fatima in portugal? Been there, never want to be there again. It's horrible. Ppl crouching on their knees or bellies hoping that the god in their brains hears their wishes - and all the time being completely ignorant of the fact that they *have to take it* in their own hands and get it sorted out by themselves.

The discussion "creation vs. evolution" is void in my opinion, as creation and evolution need each other. nature creates all the time and then these creations evolve. Creation by nature is a process of entropy - binding atomic structures with energy - and they become more than the sum of their parts. *shrugs* Thats life, simply put.

To tell it otherwise: To create an OS one gets an idea (the first molecules start to find other ones of their like interesting)- the idea evolves into more (more molecules). Then one creates the os - the first lines of code come along (say like an amoeba) and then it evolves - more is added (the genom grows, the dns gets more complicated, winds up more and more) - and suddenly it starts to be something more than the sum of its parts.

Well ... too much words to express simple things. Life 's simple. It's just humans who make it complicated.

You have to think about it, not just in terms of now, but of way back before the beginning. God could have been created by another God, whose Universe had come crashing down around his ears, much like the many earlier versions of the Matrix. THis process could have gone back infinately. But the bundle of gasses etc that caused the big bang (the most widely accepted method of our creation to evoutionists) could not have been created before if there was no higher power.

Also, delving deeper and deeper into ourselves, what is inside an atom? Then what is inside that? And so forth. Eventually you get to such a stage where the object doesnt contain anything, where you would have to accept that it has been created. If the thing turns out to be solid, then the same thing has to be accepted.

@ CosmicR (can't remember the exact name [ the guy who posted at the beginning fo the thread]): You gave the typical evolutionist response, being basically "I can't disprove you convincingly, so how about you disprove me. If you can't disprove me then I must be right". It doesn't help you to support your theory at all. All the other posters have provided some justification for their beleifs.

Probably a ramble, but if you can piece it together, you should be able to understand what I'm getting at. By this point it should be pretty obvious that I'm a creationist.

Cheers

Calum wrote: But the bundle of gasses etc that caused the big bang (the most widely accepted method of our creation to evoutionists) could not have been created before if there was no higher power.

Which does not necessarily have to be spiritual in nature. A higher dimension / universe would suffice.

Also, delving deeper and deeper into ourselves, what is inside an atom? Then what is inside that? And so forth. Eventually you get to such a stage where the object doesnt contain anything, where you would have to accept that it has been created.

Huh?

So anything that isn't exactly "matter" has to be "created"?

Like... uhm... light, gamma rays, and radio waves?

Please don't open the can of quantum physics here. That is actually easier to prove than evolution.

By this point it should be pretty obvious that I'm a creationist.

It's probably not even your fault. (Sorry, just kidding.)

Solar wrote: Which does not necessarily have to be spiritual in nature. A higher dimension / universe would suffice.

And what if 'spiritual' actually means 'from a higher dimension'?

I also do believe, btw., that magic and advanced technology are absolutely the same thing. Think of this.

EDIT: @beyond infinity: Mostly my opinion too! (btw, speaking of software: the g-nome really grows!!)

cheers Joe

JoeKayzA wrote: I also do believe, btw., that magic and advanced technology are absolutely the same thing.

Arthur C. Clarke: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The main problem with thinking the right thing that either everybody already knew and are going to be credited, or everybody thinks you're crazy and you'll spend your life convincing everybody only to have your idea be ubiquitous in 500 years.

Third option is of course that you have gone plain crazy, in which case you'll only be remembered in the institution which you'll be attending or as a criminal should you choose to go that path...

JoeKayzA wrote:

Solar wrote: Which does not necessarily have to be spiritual in nature. A higher dimension / universe would suffice.

And what if 'spiritual' actually means 'from a higher dimension'?

I meant "spiritual" as in "some entity that is actually aware of what happens on earth and actually cares". Our universe could well be "created" by something happening on a higher dimension / universe by accident, perhaps even on purpose, but someone who created the whole big bang / universe thing will likely not be interested in some congealed amino acids on a lump of stone.

I think that all monotheistic religions - and quite some polytheistic ones too - are reflecting quite nicely on the human nature, more specifically the tendency to think of our existence as something important.

Evolution might not be proven as a fact, but there are far morile things pointing towards evolution then towards creation (fossils, dna, ...).
Also all the breeding and genetical engineering stuff that actually CAN be done and has been done strongly points towards (if not proves) the validity of evolution theory.
Maybe (i am not enough into the topic now to state anything as a fact) a created nature is a small possibility despite the overwhelming evidence of science, but i preffer to believe in the theory that is making (heaps of) more sense instead of some myths that the founders of religions claim to have been told by their corresponding gods.
Actually i think the only reason people might believe in such things is a) because they live in underdeveloped countries like the usa and have been taught to believe such things from early on or b) because they think the scientific modell lacks "warmth" and they feel so alone in the universe...
(last sentence was written without the intention of being disrespectfull to anyone of an opinion opposite to mine)

This does not exclude the possibility that there is a god or something like that.
It might operate the world from outside or something like that.
There are actually heaps of possibilities.
I also think universe might be a computer simulation (quantum effects being done by random number generators) - theoretically.
Or we might all be someones dream...
But i personally do not actually believe in any of these things, i rather am _teh hardcore atheist/nihilist.

A computer? A dream? Those are interesting ideas. We have dreams, too. It's weird to imagine a dream in which people have dreams. And to think that some day, computer technology may be sufficiently advanced to create computers with virtual worlds like that inside of them - but if this earth is all just a computer program, then that computer must be in a real space, on a real earth, right?

This type of thing can throw a computer in loops. I don't think it's possible to have a world inside of a computer, because there are some philosophical matters that can throw a computer into a forever loop. But ya never know...

NotTheCHEAT wrote: It's weird to imagine a dream in which people have dreams.

Not too weird... ever had a false awakening? And often enough when dreaming, I don't know it. So as far as I'm concerned, other people in the dream *do* dream.

NotTheCHEAT wrote: but if this earth is all just a computer program, then that computer must be in a real space, on a real earth, right?

Not necessarily. Whatever it would be could be entirely different and inconceivable to everybody in this world. But then again, this is all useless speculation (for the most part), so I wouldn't bother conceiving of too much...

NotTheCHEAT wrote: This type of thing can throw a computer in loops. I don't think it's possible to have a world inside of a computer, because there are some philosophical matters that can throw a computer into a forever loop. But ya never know...

What sort of philosophical matters? I don't see any reason why you couldn't simulate a world, and the inhabitants could build a simulation inside of it. Nested, yes, but not undoable.