tommej Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Here is something for the creationists that usually has them stumped. If humans were a product of Intelligent Design (ID), why do we have such obvious flaws? Examples Appendicitis - surely if the human body was intelligently designed then it wouldn't need the appendix or the appendix wouldn't fail in the way that it does. Human Organs - Aside from Brain, Heart and Lungs, the remaining vital organs are not protected by any bones - Liver, kidneys, spleen, digestive tract etc, all out in the open so to speak. Intelligent designing would have had them all protected. This is just 2 of the examples I can think of whilst sitting here, I could think of more. Also ID doesn't offer any proof, it just misshapes and distorts the evolutionary theory because ID has no basis in fact, whereas evolution does. Or you could just ask them to explain the science behind 2 of every animal on a wooden boat
Andrew_C Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) it is an oblate Spheroid with its structure being closer to a pumpkin that a sphere.By 40-odd kilometres; hardly "pumpkin shaped". - - - Updated - - - Or you could just ask them to explain the science behind 2 of every animal on a wooden boat Ermm... Only 2* certain specified species. ISTR it was seven of most. In Genesis 7, God instructed Noah to take onboard the ark certain animals in order to save them from the Flood. Concerning clean animals, He said: Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, the male and his female; and of the beasts that are not clean two, the male and his female (7:2). Must have got quite crowded; can you imagine the stench? Edited June 19, 2014 by Andrew_C
edutech4schools Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Something else that I always wonder is, if their is a God, would said God really want me to worship them.
tmcd35 Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 What is the definition of a God? And, if they exist, how did they come into being? Do Gods have Gods?
pcstru Posted June 19, 2014 Author Posted June 19, 2014 Simulated theory is testable, this is one way Do we live in the Matrix? Scientists believe they may have answered the question - Telegraph but I have seen other ways in New Scientist about how it could be tested. I think your problem is right there in the language. A good experiment doesn't set our to prove a hypothesis, it sets out to disprove it. Science doesn't prove things, but it does (and frequently) disprove them. Besides that, the speculative posits you cite are far from saying it _is_ testable, just that there _may_ be tests we can do. But if the universe is a simulation run by super-beings, they can just pause and write whatever they need to stop us from figuring it out. So it might not be testable at all (and the philosophical notion of a perfect simulation is that there is no test). It also, like the "god did it" meme, doesn't explain anything of itself, infact it poses more questions than it answers. Sure we may be simulated but where did the beings doing the simulation come from. Is it turtles all the way down?
sonofsanta Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Simulated theory is testable, this is one way Do we live in the Matrix? Scientists believe they may have answered the question - Telegraph but I have seen other ways in New Scientist about how it could be tested. Still not sure where you get "statistically more likely" from though. As that article says, all that the test in question would demonstrate is that we could be a simulation run by superior external beings, assuming those superior external beings ran the simulation in the same way that we would - which is a pretty massive assumption. Personally, the thought that keeps me awake is "what is now?" Do we actually progress through time in a linear fashion, or are we destroyed and recreated from moment to moment, with all our prior thoughts and memories extant as if we have experienced time? Do we, infact, cycle through an unimaginable infinity of realities from one moment to the next, unaware of anything but what we experience in the "now" and what we were created thinking is true? Is there an indivisible unit of "now" for us to exist in? Is there even a meaningful interpretation of the concept of "now" in a relativistic universe? Is there enough money in my wallet to stop off at McDonalds later for a quick cheeseburger? (I'll grant that the last one is less profound, but it's a fairly accurate representation of my moment-to-moment thoughts. If those thoughts have a moment to occur in, of course.)
jinnantonnixx Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Personally, the thought that keeps me awake is "what is now?" Do we actually progress through time in a linear fashion, or are we destroyed and recreated from moment to moment, with all our prior thoughts and memories extant as if we have experienced time? Do we, infact, cycle through an unimaginable infinity of realities from one moment to the next, unaware of anything but what we experience in the "now" and what we were created thinking is true? Is there an indivisible unit of "now" for us to exist in? Is there even a meaningful interpretation of the concept of "now" in a relativistic universe? Is there enough money in my wallet to stop off at McDonalds later for a quick cheeseburger? (I'll grant that the last one is less profound, but it's a fairly accurate representation of my moment-to-moment thoughts. If those thoughts have a moment to occur in, of course.) I hear you bro. This is one of my favourite articles, I've posted it before so apologies if you find my fantastic links irritating. http://www.nikhef.nl/pub/services/biblio/bib_KR/sciam14327034.pdf P.S. I've got spare tickets for this place - anyone fancy coming along? Genesis Expo - Creation Museum in Portsmouth Edited June 19, 2014 by jinnantonnixx
sonofsanta Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 I hear you bro. This is one of my favourite articles, I've posted it before so apologies if you find my fantastic links irritating. http://www.nikhef.nl/pub/services/biblio/bib_KR/sciam14327034.pdf Read through it at least a couple of times from previous linkage block time is mind-blowing and given how little of that article I can comprehend in any one reading, multiple viewings don't hurt.
jinnantonnixx Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Read through it at least a couple of times from previous linkage block time is mind-blowing and given how little of that article I can comprehend in any one reading, multiple viewings don't hurt. I also liked this paper. It contains quite a bit of speculation, but it's interesting even if it's wrong. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Nikolic_FQXi_time.pdf Edited June 19, 2014 by jinnantonnixx 1
tmcd35 Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 I'm sure I used this quote last time @jinnantonnixx blew my mind with the block universe: Time! Don't talk to me about time! We don't have the time!
pcstru Posted June 19, 2014 Author Posted June 19, 2014 Everyone is entitled to an opinion. No, they are not (or if they are, it is meaningless since they are not necessarily entitled to express it). In Austria for instance, simply expressing an opinion that the holocaust didn't happen can land you in jail. In a court of law, replacing facts as you observed them with your opinion of how the world should be, could result in a charge of contempt. At best, "you are entitled to your opinion" is a facile statement equivalent to "you are entitled to spout utter nonsense". It is pretty meaningless to say someone is entitled to their opinion that (say) humans can fly unassisted. Sure, no one can stop them being wrong, but are they 'entitled' (have some legal right) to be wrong? If they start persuading impressionable children or people with learning difficulties to jump off tall buildings, are you going to say that's OK, it's just an opinion?
sonofsanta Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) I also liked this paper. It contains quite a bit of speculation, but it's interesting even if it's wrong. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Nikolic_FQXi_time.pdf Head. Destroyed. I'm off to read some webcomics or something to calm my brain down. (Like the paper, however, I don't believe in free will, only the illusion of it.) EDIT: @pcstru made me think of this image, relevant to the thread at large. Edited June 19, 2014 by sonofsanta 1
edutech4schools Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Still not sure where you get "statistically more likely" from though Admittedly the following is a bit of a stretch but, Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom has argued that we are more likely to be in such a simulation than not. If such simulations are possible in theory, he reasons, then eventually humans will create them — presumably many of them. If this is so, in time there will be many more simulated worlds than non simulated ones. Statistically speaking, therefore, we are more likely to be living in a simulated world than the real one.
Garacesh Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom has argued that we are more likely to be in such a simulation than not. If such simulations are possible in theory, he reasons, then eventually humans will create them — presumably many of them. If this is so, in time there will be many more simulated worlds than non simulated ones. Statistically speaking, therefore, we are more likely to be living in a simulated world than the real one. That's assuming there's only one 'reality' but multiple 'simulations'. Whilst multiple simulations would be possible (If we can make one, we can make two. Or three. etc) but what about the multiverse theory? There will be an infinite number of universes where nobody has invented these simulations (and infinite universes where they have).. but infinite can't be bigger or smaller than infinite
pcstru Posted June 19, 2014 Author Posted June 19, 2014 infinite can't be bigger or smaller than infinite They can, sort of. Georg Cantor gave us orders of infinity. So for instance you can have numbers from 0 .. ∞, which is an infinite set. But you can have just the even numbers from 0 .. ∞, which is obviously only half of what the first set contains, but is still infinite.
jinnantonnixx Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 (edited) Head. Destroyed. I'm off to read some webcomics or something to calm my brain down. (Like the paper, however, I don't believe in free will, only the illusion of it.) Then you'll love this. This is a summary of Roger Penrose's adaptation of the Rietdijk–Putnam argument - 'The Andromeda Paradox' In a nutshell, my 'now' can include things that have yet to happen in your 'now'. Enjoy. Special Relativity/Simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction - Wikibooks, open books for an open world Edited June 20, 2014 by jinnantonnixx 1
pcstru Posted June 20, 2014 Author Posted June 20, 2014 I want those precious minutes of my lunch break back! I'm afraid I find the "I have a right to my opinion" fallacy ... interesting. It is so widespread and oft repeated yet it is only true at trivial (what I like to call the "I like cheese") level. There is a nice little site whatstheharm.net which documents examples of the harm caused to people who believed 'silly' things. The really sad ones are the children who died because their parents were committed to particular religious memes.
Garacesh Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 There is a nice little site whatstheharm.net which documents examples of the harm caused to people who believed 'silly' things. The site you have chosen has been categorized as: Occult http://whatstheharm.net/index.ht... Uh. What? O.o
Arthur Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 30 schools across the UK are using textbooks which teach that AIDS can be avoided through religion, and that homosexuality is a choice The US-based Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) curriculum currently lists over 30 participant UK schools on its website, with the majority being private Christian schools. Pupils on the course do not study for GCSEs or A-Levels, and instead work to attain a International Christian Certificate of Education. A textbook used as part of the course teaches that homosexuality is a choice, evolution is a lie, abortion is wrong, and AIDS can be avoided by following the Bible.
pcstru Posted June 20, 2014 Author Posted June 20, 2014 (edited) That in it's way seems horrifying. I guess it depends how it is being used. With Creationism, I think it being taught as a scientific theory needs to be stopped. Teaching students that there are people who believe that is the case, is perfectly valid - although unless you have elected a relevant subject, I don't see why it would ever be part of the 'core' curriculum. Edited June 20, 2014 by pcstru
X-13 Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 although unless you have elected a relevant subject, I don't see why it would ever be part of the 'core' curriculum. Religious Education is part of the core curriculum.
elsiegee40 Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 Religious Education is part of the core curriculum. He's right. It must be taught until the end of KS4 by law. You don't have to take a GCSE in it, but you must be taught it.
pcstru Posted June 20, 2014 Author Posted June 20, 2014 Sorry, I should have said "I don't see why it should be". There are many things more worthy of classroom time than religion, other than to mention it in passing as you might any other fairy story.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now