Page 5 of 6 [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,561
Location: New England

23 Jun 2017, 10:35 pm

(It's a long way from amphioxus....)

Image


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,957
Location: temperate zone

23 Jun 2017, 10:44 pm

Lintar wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Personally I only listen to erudite creationists. Why people choose the ignorant ones to quote seems suspicious to me.

There is no choice. All creationists are ignorant. Prove me wrong.


You're the one making the claim here, so why should we? Where is your evidence that ALL (without exception) 'creationists' (only Biblical ones? What about Muslims?) are ignorant? Ignorant about what, specifically? Biology? Geology? Genetics? All three?


Umm...

No.
The person he responded to was the one making the claim. The claim being that there are erudite creationists. So its up to that person to substantiate the claim.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,280
Location: The end of the northwest passage

23 Jun 2017, 11:34 pm

...but don't hold your breath.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 64,861
Location: Queens, NYC

24 Jun 2017, 8:43 pm

I'm sure there are erudite creationists. Religion is a matter of faith, rather than provable facts.

You can be erudite, yet have faith.

But.....no matter how erudite a creationist is, I can never believe in that hypothesis, unless I hear it from the God-entity.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

24 Jun 2017, 8:58 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Yes. We didn't really evolve. And we don't actually have ancestors. AND we ourselves don't actually exist. That would be true if this simulation notion were true.

But so what? What does that have to do with anything?
Exactly what point are you making?

I am showing you what high profile physicists think based on their scientific research.

They offer alternate explanations to reality.

People here seem to be thinking that the clearly labeled "Theory of evolution" is actually a fact.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 64,861
Location: Queens, NYC

24 Jun 2017, 9:09 pm

Can't evolution co-exist with some esoteric, metaphysical notion?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 64,861
Location: Queens, NYC

24 Jun 2017, 9:17 pm

The physicists might have had some sort of religious faith previously, and are seeking "proof" of it through science.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,153
Location: Twin Peaks

24 Jun 2017, 10:05 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
I'm sure there are erudite creationists. Religion is a matter of faith, rather than provable facts.

You can be erudite, yet have faith.

But.....no matter how erudite a creationist is, I can never believe in that hypothesis, unless I hear it from the God-entity.


What's pertinent is how erudite (educated, knowledgeable, well read, well informed) a creationist is regarding the theory of evolution when discussing the theory of evolution. That's simply true regarding most any subject.

The premise was, "all creationists are ignorant" regarding the subject of the theory of evolution. And I find it it highly unlikely that absolutely no creationists were ever taught the theory of evolution in school or studied the theory of evolution on their own.

They may come to what are considered incorrect conclusions regarding the theory of evolution, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are all ignorant (uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled) regarding the subject.



Last edited by EzraS on 24 Jun 2017, 10:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

24 Jun 2017, 10:08 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
The physicists might have had some sort of religious faith previously, and are seeking "proof" of it through science.

What do you think of physicists who say Newton's Laws of Motion, The Laws of Thermodynamics, and Maxwell's Laws of Electromagnetism are fine abstractions, but not how reality works?

These same physicists will likely say, sure , the Theory of Evolution is a fine abstraction, however, there is no proof that this is how reality works.

References:
1. "Maxwellian electrodynamics fails when quantum mechanical phenomena are involved, in the same way that Newtonian mechanics needs to be replaced in that regime by quantum mechanics".
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... red-to-qed
2. "How often do quantum systems violate the second law of thermodynamics?"
https://phys.org/news/2016-10-quantum-v ... amics.html



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

24 Jun 2017, 10:50 pm

Fundamentally, the physics idea that "everything is connected" appears to be in opposition to the theory of evolution, because, it would be like saying the limbs on a tree "evolve".

"Quantum Mechanics Reveals How We Are All Truly Connected"
https://www.learning-mind.com/quantum-m ... connected/



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,957
Location: temperate zone

24 Jun 2017, 11:37 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Yes. We didn't really evolve. And we don't actually have ancestors. AND we ourselves don't actually exist. That would be true if this simulation notion were true.

But so what? What does that have to do with anything?
Exactly what point are you making?

I am showing you what high profile physicists think based on their scientific research.

They offer alternate explanations to reality.

People here seem to be thinking that the clearly labeled "Theory of evolution" is actually a fact.


Well...then if that is your point then you failed to prove your point.

Failed to prove your point because even if we live in a "simulation" then evolution is part of the simulation. And therefore evolution would still be just as "real" as anything else in the simulation including you, and I.

Or to put it another way: if we live in a simulation then we ourselves (you and I) would not be real. Evolution would also not be real, but it wouldn't be any less real than you or I. So simulation, or not, evolution would still be, for practical purposes a fact.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

25 Jun 2017, 1:14 am

naturalplastic wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Yes. We didn't really evolve. And we don't actually have ancestors. AND we ourselves don't actually exist. That would be true if this simulation notion were true.

But so what? What does that have to do with anything?
Exactly what point are you making?

I am showing you what high profile physicists think based on their scientific research.

They offer alternate explanations to reality.

People here seem to be thinking that the clearly labeled "Theory of evolution" is actually a fact.


Well...then if that is your point then you failed to prove your point.

Failed to prove your point because even if we live in a "simulation" then evolution is part of the simulation. And therefore evolution would still be just as "real" as anything else in the simulation including you, and I.

Or to put it another way: if we live in a simulation then we ourselves (you and I) would not be real. Evolution would also not be real, but it wouldn't be any less real than you or I. So simulation, or not, evolution would still be, for practical purposes a fact.

My point was never to prove out the workings of a hypothetical computer simulation.

My point was to show how high profile physics researchers think we could be based on "reusable computer code" which clashes with the Theory of Evolution that says we have physical ancestry.

Computer code does not have physical ancestry.

The Windows 10 DVD did not evolve from an earlier Windows DVD.

The point of this discussion is to realize that no one knows how reality works, so the Theory of Evolution "facts" are cheap. :D



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,957
Location: temperate zone

25 Jun 2017, 2:07 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Yes. We didn't really evolve. And we don't actually have ancestors. AND we ourselves don't actually exist. That would be true if this simulation notion were true.

But so what? What does that have to do with anything?
Exactly what point are you making?

I am showing you what high profile physicists think based on their scientific research.

They offer alternate explanations to reality.

People here seem to be thinking that the clearly labeled "Theory of evolution" is actually a fact.


Well...then if that is your point then you failed to prove your point.

Failed to prove your point because even if we live in a "simulation" then evolution is part of the simulation. And therefore evolution would still be just as "real" as anything else in the simulation including you, and I.

Or to put it another way: if we live in a simulation then we ourselves (you and I) would not be real. Evolution would also not be real, but it wouldn't be any less real than you or I. So simulation, or not, evolution would still be, for practical purposes a fact.

My point was never to prove out the workings of a hypothetical computer simulation.

My point was to show how high profile physics researchers think we could be based on "reusable computer code" which clashes with the Theory of Evolution that says we have physical ancestry.

Computer code does not have physical ancestry.

The Windows 10 DVD did not evolve from an earlier Windows DVD.

The point of this discussion is to realize that no one knows how reality works, so the Theory of Evolution "facts" are cheap. :D


You already said the above. And I have already shown that what you said above is irrelevant, and does not disprove evolution.

If it is a fact that we are "based on resusable computer code" then that does not in any way clash with any other theory of how we got here. It doesn't in anyway contradict evolution for the simple obvious reason that evolution would be part of the simulation. What youre saying is like saying "humans don't really have two arms because humans are actually based on reusable computer code, and therefor humans aren't real, therefore their two arms aren't real". For us creatures in the simulation our two arms are real, and so is the evidence of evolution.

You could say that If we live in a simulation evolution wouldn't be "real" in a sense. But if we're in a simulation you and I, and everything we see with our two eyes would also be NOT be real.

You operate under the assumption that you are "real". So what we see evidence for (like humans having two arms, and humans having evolved) are also real (for the practical purposes for us simulated creatures in this supposed simulation).

This simulation thing is NOT an alternative to evolution (nor to any form of creationism either). Its a separate dichotomy altogether.



Last edited by naturalplastic on 25 Jun 2017, 2:32 am, edited 2 times in total.

Kiprobalhato
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2014
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,850
Location: en cendres avec ma chère marcia

25 Jun 2017, 2:11 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
These same physicists will likely say, sure , the Theory of Evolution is a fine abstraction, however, there is no proof that this is how reality works.



we have, within our own lifetimes, witnessed bacteria (and viruses) become resistant to once potent antibacterial drugs and substances, setting off an arms race of sorts between drug and germ and putting many lives at risk. the same antibacterial drugs we use today may not be effective even 40 years from now against their intended targets.


what are some alternative explanations for this? i'm all ears/eyes.


_________________
❄join my discord pls❄

Mais c'est la mort qui t'a assassinée, Marcia,
C'est la mort qui t'a consumée, Marcia,
C'est le cancer que tu as pris sous ton bras,
Maintenant, tu es en cendres, cendres...


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

25 Jun 2017, 2:33 am

Kiprobalhato wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
These same physicists will likely say, sure , the Theory of Evolution is a fine abstraction, however, there is no proof that this is how reality works.

we have, within our own lifetimes, witnessed bacteria (and viruses) become resistant to once potent antibacterial drugs and substances, setting off an arms race of sorts between drug and germ and putting many lives at risk. the same antibacterial drugs we use today may not be effective even 40 years from now against their intended targets.
what are some alternative explanations for this? i'm all ears/eyes.

People made the same argument about ... Newton's Laws of Motion, The Laws of Thermodynamics, and Maxwell's Laws of Electromagnetism until we discovered a lower level of reality, and these were shot down.

People wrongly assumed that what they saw was how reality works.

There are many alternate explanations to evolution.

I spoke about "computer simulation" where the things you describe are code. Like, the movie the Matrix, where they may have simulated evolution, but it's not real evolution.

Another theory is that consciousness determines reality, so that things can be "willed" into existence.
[