Creation vs. Evolution

[Swift]

How do you know that the objects exist? What is "truth"? The most popular fact? What if eight out of ten people were blind? Then the truth would be that there are no objects there, and it would be the two people that can see that would be wrong.

I'm sorry, but that was not an intelligent statement. Blind people have 4 other senses letting them know that there are "objects" out there. So that's a pretty moot point.

 

[Pako]

How do you know that the objects exist? What is "truth"? The most popular fact? What if eight out of ten people were blind? Then the truth would be that there are no objects there, and it would be the two people that can see that would be wrong. It's all relative. 1000 years ago there was no such thing as the planet Neptune. According to our relative position, we can't see God, so it's natural to assume He doesn't exist. Until we DO find Him, he won't exist. Until we DO find aliens, they won't exist. Until we DO find Humpty Dumpty, he won't exist. Such is the nature of scientific discovery.

I wouldn't use "we" so loosely. People have found God, people who look for God find Him. People who don't look for God don't find him. Perhaps this post belongs in the Spirituality thread, but yeah.

Just because you or Famine or other members choose not to find God doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. Much is the same with the objects on the table. If you don't un-gag your mouth, un-tape your eyes, and open your ears you won't be able to find God. Sure you can read about someone else's experience, but that's not quite the same as experiencing it for yourself.

 

[Danoff]

Just because you or Famine or other members choose not to find God doesn't mean that He doesn't exist.

Quite correct. But just because the bible says something doesn't mean its true. Just because you feel something you think is God's love doesn't mean it can't be indigestion.

 

[Swift]

I wouldn't use "we" so loosely. People have found God, people who look for God find Him. People who don't look for God don't find him. Perhaps this post belongs in the Spirituality thread, but yeah.

Just because you or Famine or other members choose not to find God doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. Much is the same with the objects on the table. If you don't un-gag your mouth, un-tape your eyes, and open your ears you won't be able to find God. Sure you can read about someone else's experience, but that's not quite the same as experiencing it for yourself.

Yep, it works BOTH ways. So you can find God just as easily as you can deny his existance.

 

[Grand Prix]

King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.

Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!

Dennis: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at ya!

Dennis: If I went around sayin' I was Emperor just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd take me away!!!


Hmm, I suppose it's fair enough that both sides are truthful. As long as religious people don't murder innocent 'witches' and don't give divine power to a king, we'll get along. People like Gallileo gave their lives so we could know more. A human society without recognized science would be a dark and unforgiving place for knowledgeable persons, as shown in the 'Dark Ages'. Some aspects of that can still be seen today, in the media. Lots of people are very interested in an expert's opinion, but when they disagree with him/her, they suddenly say: "His views are only as valid as the next man's". If this is so, how can an expert be an expert?

 

[Pako]

I'm still waiting for my emails on the object lists. Oh yeah, an email address might help:
teamgtplanet@hotmail.com

I would also agree with that statement, and I would also ask the same question. If an expert is discredited and found to be wrong, should that person still be considered an expert? Probably not.

 

[Famine]

And on to our experiment, nice trick, you only have 4 items in front of you.

No - I don't have a desk. I'm in bed with the laptop. There is no desk...

 

[Pako]

No - I don't have a desk. I'm in bed with the laptop. There is no desk...

Well now, this hasn't been a very productive experiment. But never the less, I find your statement to be truthful and accept that you must be in fact in bed with a laptop with no desk. You could lie, but you have given no reason before that would lead me into believing that you would lie as your integrity of what you say is on the line. In light of this, I would say that there is no desk, and therefore no objects on the desk.

[edit]
For the sake of role playing, lets add another element to it. Lets say that there's a political/social/religious movement that anyone who is caught with or is known to have admitted to owning a laptop and using while in bed will be tortured to death. You admitting these things on a public forum would endanger your life. This would strengthen my belief that what you are saying is true.
[/edit]

 

[Duke]

Have we found the missing link yet? Some scientists say yes, and some say no. Which is it?

Pako: read this.

 

[Famine]

Well now, this hasn't been a very productive experiment. But never the less, I find your statement to be truthful and accept that you must be in fact in bed with a laptop with no desk. You could lie, but you have given no reason before that would lead me into believing that you would lie as your integrity of what you say is on the line. In light of this, I would say that there is no desk, and therefore no objects on the desk.

[edit]
For the sake of role playing, lets add another element to it. Lets say that there's a political/social/religious movement that anyone who is caught with or is known to have admitted to owning a laptop and using while in bed will be tortured to death. You admitting these things on a public forum would endanger your life. This would strengthen my belief that what you are saying is true.
[/edit]

Hmm.

Anyway, the role-play, ridiculous as it may sound, conveys to you two basic ideas:

1. Only that which you can sense do you KNOW to exist. Anything you cannot sense may or may not exist - and indeed can do both simultaneously.
2. I, as the Creator of the desk/object conundrum, told you that I had placed five objects on a desk in front of me. You, using only this written (typed) word as evidence, believed in this and attempted to define them for yourself (defining the fifth object as non-existant). The reality is the written (typed) word of the creator was a lie constructed by man, in order to make you think in one particular way, and there was no desk or objects of any kind - the only thing that really exists to you is you right now and yet you have constructed a mental universe around me, based on something I made up.

All-in-all, it's a pretty nice analogue.

 

[Duke]

danoff,

So you would choose not to believe them, and that would be your choice. 10 people with all their senses about them, and you (assuming you are player 1) with no senses about you would not believe them. I would say you're making a bad choice given the fact that you had all your senses essentially turned off, but that's not for me to judge.

But you're of course idealizing your Bible analogy.

First off, the 10 disciples didn't turn in 10 identical lists. So there are internal discrepencies in the 10 lists.

Second off, I have no reason to believe the 10 disciples other than the mere existence of their lists; and I have reason to doubt their intentions in publishing them. Remember, if I rely the lists, I am not allowed to investigate the physical evidence myself, or even read dissenting lists.

Third off, I (as Player 2) may not have been able to observe the objects themselves, but fortunately I have a huge forensics lab at my disposal, which can tell me that it is highly probable that 7 of the objects were an orange (based on residual citrus oils), a chinchilla (a hair and some skin cells), a newspaper (some ink smudged off and a small flake of paper), a baseball (leather tanning oils and some grass residue from the outfield), a pastrami sandwich (bread crumbs and a tiny bit of meat), a blue cotton polo shirt (textile fibers) and a brick (red clay and silica residue). 3 of the items didn't leave enough residue to be identified.

So, do I believe loosely written accounts from long-distance witnesses I have no reason to trust (and quite a bit of reason not to trust), or do I believe a report compiled by people trained in scientific investigation, backed up with microscopic pictures, chromatography, and spectral analysis of the evidence, and compared to known samples for identification?

 

[Pako]

Hmm.

Anyway, the role-play, ridiculous as it may sound, conveys to you two basic ideas:

1. Only that which you can sense do you KNOW to exist. Anything you cannot sense may or may not exist - and indeed can do both simultaneously.
2. I, as the Creator of the desk/object conundrum, told you that I had placed five objects on a desk in front of me. You, using only this written (typed) word as evidence, believed in this and attempted to define them for yourself (defining the fifth object as non-existant). The reality is the written (typed) word of the creator was a lie constructed by man, in order to make you think in one particular way, and there was no desk or objects of any kind - the only thing that really exists to you is you right now and yet you have constructed a mental universe around me, based on something I made up.

All-in-all, it's a pretty nice analogue.

[1] Because of the reasons listed in post #1268 I have made a choice, both existence and non-existence does not occur.

[2] But you in fact admitted that there is no desk, no objects. Only you laying in bed with your laptop, and at the risk of endangering your life by stating that fact. Putting yourself in harms way with no personal benefit being gained by doing such supports a conclusion that what you are saying (typed) must be true. You are clearly intelligent and I haven't seen too many posts to conclude you're a mad man, nor have I picked up on any posts by you that would lead me to believe that you have a death wish. So, you're not crazy and you don't have a death wish, and you have no personal gain by putting yourself in harms way by typing out your reality, as a result, I have accepted your reality and made it my own. As primitive as it may be, I can now see you in your bed with your laptop as I recall the events that you experienced.

 

[Famine]

And yet here I am now, sitting in front of a computer at a desk.

Funny old world. Perceptions can change, just like that.

 

[Swift]

And yet here I am now, sitting in front of a computer at a desk.

Funny old world. Perceptions can change, just like that.

I've got the same keyboard, but the colors are reversed. I can't believe you've got a Packard Bell Monitor.

 

[Famine]

I've got the same keyboard, but the colors are reversed. I can't believe you've got a Packard Bell Monitor.

It's on its way out, so it's on its way out.

19" LG TFT is in the post.

 

[Pako]

But you're of course idealizing your Bible analogy.

First off, the 10 disciples didn't turn in 10 identical lists. So there are internal discrepencies in the 10 lists.

Second off, I have no reason to believe the 10 disciples other than the mere existence of their lists; and I have reason to doubt their intentions in publishing them. Remember, if I rely the lists, I am not allowed to investigate the physical evidence myself, or even read dissenting lists.

Third off, I (as Player 2) may not have been able to observe the objects themselves, but fortunately I have a huge forensics lab at my disposal, which can tell me that it is highly probable that 7 of the objects were an orange (based on residual citrus oils), a chinchilla (a hair and some skin cells), a newspaper (some ink smudged off and a small flake of paper), a baseball (leather tanning oils and some grass residue from the outfield), a pastrami sandwich (bread crumbs and a tiny bit of meat), a blue cotton polo shirt (textile fibers) and a brick (red clay and silica residue). 3 of the items didn't leave enough residue to be identified.

So, do I believe loosely written accounts from long-distance witnesses I have no reason to trust (and quite a bit of reason not to trust), or do I believe a report compiled by people trained in scientific investigation, backed up with microscopic pictures, chromatography, and spectral analysis of the evidence, and compared to known samples for identification?

You mean we we're talking about the Bible this whole time?

Why would these disciples have any reason to lie? There was only one disciple that lived in exile that lived out his years naturally. The rest were crucified, beheaded, or speared to death for spreading the 'good news' which was their experiences with Christ and His teachings. Why would you not believe them, because you weren't there to see these events for yourself? You choose not to believe them because you don't have scientific proof (finger prints, dental records, DNA samples tests, ect...) that Christ died and rose again after being dead for 3 days? In that case, I'm afraid that after 2000 years mostly all the evidence of those events have long ceased to exist. The location of the events are still there however. What we do have is geographical locations of the events, and book written by men, and inspired by God. That is all the tangible evidence that is left. Not quite up to your standards of scientific papers, I know. So once again you are left with a take it or leave it scenario.

 

[Grand Prix]

Just because they thought they were right doesn't mean that they were "truthful" . Do you believe that King Arthur deserved the throne because some watery tart threw a sword at him?

 

[Duke]

Why would these disciples have any reason to lie?

Who knows? Perhaps they were trying to found a religion?

There was only one disciple that lived in exile that lived out his years naturally. The rest were crucified, beheaded, or speared to death for spreading the 'good news' which was their experiences with Christ and His teachings. Why would you not believe them, because you weren't there to see these events for yourself?

Perhaps they were crucified, beheaded, or speared to death for lying?

Lots of people have been put to death for their beliefs - millions. Many of those millions even agreed with each other. So by your logic, I should believe everything they've all believed. Logical impossibility.

You choose not to believe them because you don't have scientific proof (finger prints, dental records, DNA samples tests, ect...) that Christ died and rose again after being dead for 3 days? In that case, I'm afraid that after 2000 years mostly all the evidence of those events have long ceased to exist.

Correct. I choose not to place faith in something improbable that lacks much in the way of physical evidence. There are lots of improbable events that lack much physical evidence. How would I choose among them?

Instead I accept - not by faith, but by logic - a system that is founded on a great deal of physical evidence (even if incomplete) and that has a logical continuity that allows me to fill in the holes in the physical evidence with a reasonably probable theory.

But the alleged miracles of the Bible are one-offs. There's no logical framework that accomodates missing or conflicting information.

The location of the events are still there however. What we do have is geographical locations of the events, and book written by men, and inspired by God. That is all the tangible evidence that is left. Not quite up to your standards of scientific papers, I know. So once again you are left with a take it or leave it scenario.

And so... I leave it.

 

[Pako]

And yet here I am now, sitting in front of a computer at a desk.

Funny old world. Perceptions can change, just like that.

See, now I have reason to doubt your word. You no longer hold the integrity that you once had, not to mention that you will now be hung on a cross where you will you will suffer in extreme agony, and when you have suffered enough, they will brake your legs so can no longer hold yourself up where you will suffocate and die.

I am sure that if you had this knowledge before you lied about being in your bed with a laptop, you would not have said that.

I might note, you should be crucified for using a Packard Bell monitor. Just Kidding.

 

[Swift]

You mean we we're talking about the Bible this whole time?
So once again you are left with a take it or leave it scenario.

Just as he was at the beginning.

 

[Famine]

See, now I have reason to doubt your word.

Whereas before you had no reason to accept it. But did anyway...

I might note, you should be crucified for using a Packard Bell monitor. Just Kidding.

If it makes you feel better, they didn't get a penny from me.

 

[Swift]

If it makes you feel better, they didn't get a penny from me.

It's an american thing Famine. Packardbell had to be the biggest piece of junk computers out there. But for some reason, people bought them! So now when we see that mess, it's a sickening reminder. That's all, nothing personal. But I'm glad you didn't pay for it.

 

[Touring Mars]

I have a question about Creation, or atleast, one that should give the 'intelligent design' camp something to ponder....

If humans were created by God 'as is' (or as we are now) consistent with Creation Theory, then there are some questions that need to be addressed... like if God 'created' Man, apparently already perfectly intelligent enough to speak and understand his fellow Man, then why did he not also furnish Man with the knowledge of how things work, or why things happen? Why is it that 6000 years after Creation (again, consistent with Creation Theory), Man still doesn't understand so many things perfectly...? If the 'Creator' was capable of making such an amazing biological machine as Man, then why did He also make him so dumb? Why didn't He create Man with a perfect understanding of Life, The Universe and Everything?

I don't mean this question to sound facetious, it is just something that has bugged me over the weekend.... it's like creating the ultimate computer but not providing any instructions on how to use it. Was it a divine challenge, set by God, to make us struggle for understanding of ourselves...?

My analysis is more simple.... that we weren't created... that our knowledge is an 'emergent property', but is not divinely given (or not given as the case may be), but just a result of the activity of our highly evolved brains... Richard Dawkins once said "We are all quite willing to accept that we are like apes, but many do not realise that we are apes..." My point being that we were not created as Man at all... you can only possibly believe one of two things... that we were created as Man and are still Man today, or that we have evolved from a Man-like species... if you are willing to accept that we evolved from a Man-like species, then by extrapolation, you must be willing to accept that the Man-like species evolved from something 'like Man-like', and so on... until the species that we evolved from bears little, if any, resemblance to us...

 

[Swift]

I have a question about Creation, or atleast, one that should give the 'intelligent design' camp something to ponder....

If humans were created by God 'as is' (or as we are now) consistent with Creation Theory, then there are some questions that need to be addressed... like if God 'created' Man, apparently already perfectly intelligent enough to speak and understand his fellow Man, then why did he not also furnish Man with the knowledge of how things work, or why things happen? Why is it that 6000 years after Creation (again, consistent with Creation Theory), Man still doesn't understand so many things perfectly...? If the 'Creator' was capable of making such an amazing biological machine as Man, then why did He also make him so dumb? Why didn't He create Man with a perfect understanding of Life, The Universe and Everything?

Very simple. That would make man God. Even the angels don't have all the knowledge of when where and why.

 

[Touring Mars]

So by accumulating knowledge, we become more like God? My point is still the same though... If God is so perfect, why did he make us so imperfect? Did he deliberately make us 'a bit botched'? Why then did He give us the capacity to learn and understand, but not 'The Knowledge'? (apart from London cabbies? sorry, English joke...)... my point is, if Human Beings are so perfect that they defy scientific explanation (which I firmly disbelieve), then why were we also created so mentally imperfect? It doesn't make any sense...

 

[Swift]

So by accumulating knowledge, we become more like God? My point is still the same though... If God is so perfect, why did he make us so imperfect? Did he deliberately make us 'a bit botched'? Why then did He give us the capacity to learn and understand, but not 'The Knowledge'? (apart from London cabbies? sorry, English joke...)... my point is, if Human Beings are so perfect that they defy scientific explanation (which I firmly disbelieve), then why were we also created so mentally imperfect? It doesn't make any sense...

Ask Adam, he was the one stupid enough to eat the fruit that he shouldn't have eaten.

If we knew everything, what would be the point? Seriously. What would be the point of life if we knew everything about everything?

 

[Duke]

We're so far from knowing everything about everything - and were exponentially farther from it 2,000 years ago - that to limit the attempt to learn it on the basis that it would make life pointless borders on the absurd.

 

[Touring Mars]

Well, it would be more meaningful than if we knew nothing about anything... to say that knowing everything would take away the point of life is something I don't entirely agree with, though.... the more we know, the better... understanding generally improves our lives, and doesn't diminish us... but you suggest that eventually we will reach a point where our understanding is so complete that our lives somehow become meaningless... I don't think our lives will ever be meaningless... that said, at the end of all analysis, our lives can never be that meaningful either... it just happens. That's enough for me. 👍

On a lighter note, if we knew everything, then we'd have nothing more to strive for... we could all just kick back and watch TV with a nice cold beer... how horrendous would that be?

-irrelevant aside:- Duke, that O.G. quote in your sig is sheer genius...

 

[Swift]

We're so far from knowing everything about everything - and were exponentially farther from it 2,000 years ago - that to limit the attempt to learn it on the basis that it would make life pointless borders on the absurd.

Then what has man been doing since the recorded history? Trying to find bigger better ways to do things that usually come down to where did we come from, why are we here and what's the deal with this universe.

 

[ledhed]

You actually believe that at one time only a man was on the earth with only one woman and that they literaly ate an apple and screwed all the future people that would be born after that ?