NATION

PASSWORD

Evolution or Creationism

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Evolution or Creationism

Evolution
414
70%
Creationism
96
16%
Other (please state)
50
8%
Who cares?
29
5%
 
Total votes : 589

User avatar
Unhealthy2
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6775
Founded: Jul 10, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Unhealthy2 » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:03 pm

Deus Malum wrote:Well that or god exists as a superposition of God and No-god eigenkets. All we need to do is apply an observable compatible with the God Operator and we'll be able to determine which of the two states the system jumps into.

Get to work, you theoretical physicists!


Being a composition of multiple "particles," god would observe itself and collapse its own wave function.

Nonetheless, I find the particle interpretations of quantum theory to be lacking. Insisting on the reality of particles creates seriously bizarre problems and almost irresolvable paradoxes. Simply treating particles as approximations to the deeper reality of quantum fields being the real thing, or in the case of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, treating the wave function as the real object and not the particle, gets rid of all the paradoxes and prevents all the problems from happening in the first place. It even solves the unitarity/non-unitarity problem arising from observations of the state of a system. The only "problem" it appears to have is that things like the Schroedinger equation become harder to derive, requiring more sophisticated techniques like Fourier transforms, rather than simpler techniques like operator substitutions.
Cool shit here, also here.

Conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum, logical consistency, quantum field theory, general respect for life and other low entropy formations, pleasure, minimizing the suffering of humanity and maximizing its well-being, equality of opportunity, individual liberty, knowledge, truth, honesty, aesthetics, imagination, joy, philosophy, entertainment, and the humanities.

User avatar
The Nuclear Fist
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33214
Founded: May 02, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The Nuclear Fist » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:06 pm

Evolution.
[23:24] <Marquesan> I have the feeling that all the porn videos you watch are like...set to Primus' music, Ulysses.
Farnhamia wrote:You're getting a little too fond of the jerkoff motions.
And you touch the distant beaches with tales of brave Ulysses. . .
THE ABSOLUTTM MADMAN ESCAPES JUSTICE ONCE MORE

User avatar
Deus Malum
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1524
Founded: Jan 24, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Deus Malum » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:10 pm

Unhealthy2 wrote:
Deus Malum wrote:Well that or god exists as a superposition of God and No-god eigenkets. All we need to do is apply an observable compatible with the God Operator and we'll be able to determine which of the two states the system jumps into.

Get to work, you theoretical physicists!


Being a composition of multiple "particles," god would observe itself and collapse its own wave function.

Nonetheless, I find the particle interpretations of quantum theory to be lacking. Insisting on the reality of particles creates seriously bizarre problems and almost irresolvable paradoxes. Simply treating particles as approximations to the deeper reality of quantum fields being the real thing, or in the case of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, treating the wave function as the real object and not the particle, gets rid of all the paradoxes and prevents all the problems from happening in the first place. It even solves the unitarity/non-unitarity problem arising from observations of the state of a system. The only "problem" it appears to have is that things like the Schroedinger equation become harder to derive, requiring more sophisticated techniques like Fourier transforms, rather than simpler techniques like operator substitutions.

...*is taking first semester Grad School Quantum* ...*cowers*
"Blood for the Blood God!" - Khorne Berserker
"Harriers for the Cup!" *shoots* - Ciaphas Cain, Hero of the Imperium

User avatar
Prixtonia
Secretary
 
Posts: 38
Founded: Dec 14, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Prixtonia » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:11 pm

Faith-Believing in something despite no evidence.
Ignorance-Having no access to information.

As far as I can tell, faith is worse than ignorance. Ignorance just shows never having been taught, faith is simply a faulty thought process.
Last edited by Prixtonia on Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tokos
Senator
 
Posts: 4870
Founded: Oct 28, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Tokos » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:13 pm

Faith is not believing in something with no evidence.

If it were, then the term "blind faith" would not exist.
The Confederal Fasces of Tokos

Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.05

User avatar
Unhealthy2
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6775
Founded: Jul 10, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Unhealthy2 » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:16 pm

Tokos wrote:Faith is not believing in something with no evidence.

If it were, then the term "blind faith" would not exist.


Then define "faith" for us.
Cool shit here, also here.

Conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum, logical consistency, quantum field theory, general respect for life and other low entropy formations, pleasure, minimizing the suffering of humanity and maximizing its well-being, equality of opportunity, individual liberty, knowledge, truth, honesty, aesthetics, imagination, joy, philosophy, entertainment, and the humanities.

User avatar
Leepaidamba
Minister
 
Posts: 3337
Founded: Sep 22, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Leepaidamba » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:18 pm

Tokos wrote:Faith is not believing in something with no evidence.

If it were, then the term "blind faith" would not exist.

Blind faith is a pleonasm
Factbook
Official name: the Grand Duchy of Leepaidamba
Short name: Amba
AKA: the Grand Duchy
Demonym: Leepaidamban/Amban
HoS: co-Grand Dukes David I and Anna I
HoG: Premier Jaap de Waal
Region: Nederland
Map by PB
FlagsNational animal: Rabit
National motto: "Paene est non." (Almost is not)
National anthem: " 't Lied der Vrijheid" (the Song of Freedom)
CapitalsCurrency: Amban Florin/Aƒ
Languages
Dependencies
No news

User avatar
Sociobiology
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18396
Founded: Aug 18, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Sociobiology » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:18 pm

Unhealthy2 wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:I'm sorr I thought we were talking about science?


Someone said we have no evidence either way, therefore neither side is correct. I explained why this is fundamentally in error.

but in science the null is the assumption you work under without evidence. in this case the null is no supernatural.
And as for evidence there is evidence against most gods that are proposed, Yahweh of the bible and Odin of the elder futhark come to mind.
I think we risk becoming the best informed society that has ever died of ignorance. ~Reuben Blades

I got quite annoyed after the Haiti earthquake. A baby was taken from the wreckage and people said it was a miracle. It would have been a miracle had God stopped the earthquake. More wonderful was that a load of evolved monkeys got together to save the life of a child that wasn't theirs. ~Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Unhealthy2
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6775
Founded: Jul 10, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Unhealthy2 » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:21 pm

Sociobiology wrote:but in science the null is the assumption you work under without evidence. in this case the null is no supernatural.
And as for evidence there is evidence against most gods that are proposed, Yahweh of the bible and Odin of the elder futhark come to mind.


Again, you're making a category error. God either exists or he doesn't. If he exists, he does so even if we have no evidence for him. If he doesn't, then he's not real even if we seem to have evidence for him. What we can know and what is actually true are different questions.

And yes, all theistic gods are pretty much impossible, given what we know now. A deistic god is also exceptionally unlikely. Still, what we can know is different than what actually is.
Cool shit here, also here.

Conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum, logical consistency, quantum field theory, general respect for life and other low entropy formations, pleasure, minimizing the suffering of humanity and maximizing its well-being, equality of opportunity, individual liberty, knowledge, truth, honesty, aesthetics, imagination, joy, philosophy, entertainment, and the humanities.

User avatar
Dionabad
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: Feb 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Both

Postby Dionabad » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:21 pm

I say both. In my opinion evolution is true, but people who believe in a religion usually are nicer and have more morals.

God bless Dionabad, \m/

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 25619
Founded: May 23, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby The Alma Mater » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:22 pm

Dypsomaniacs wrote:
Al-Harakut al-Islami wrote:Evolution happened, but only as God willed it.
This is the stance I take as a religious believer.

Questions?

Not that I am religious...

But, it strikes me as odd when people argue as if the two have to be exclusive...

It makes sense to me that a creator would follow a logical series of steps rather than just being - done...


Have you ever looked at nature ?
As in REALLY looked - and not just gazed at the pretty reflection of sunlight on a raindrop ?

It is brutal. Harsh. Cruel. Indifferent. NOT loving.

If it evolved that way without a guide- so be it.

But if someone deliberately set out to make things so... *shudder*. That would be one SICK being.
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
Unhealthy2
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6775
Founded: Jul 10, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Unhealthy2 » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:22 pm

Dionabad wrote:people who believe in a religion usually are nicer and have more morals.


Evidence?
Cool shit here, also here.

Conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum, logical consistency, quantum field theory, general respect for life and other low entropy formations, pleasure, minimizing the suffering of humanity and maximizing its well-being, equality of opportunity, individual liberty, knowledge, truth, honesty, aesthetics, imagination, joy, philosophy, entertainment, and the humanities.

User avatar
Bottle
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14985
Founded: Dec 30, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Bottle » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:42 pm

The Alma Mater wrote:
Dypsomaniacs wrote:Not that I am religious...

But, it strikes me as odd when people argue as if the two have to be exclusive...

It makes sense to me that a creator would follow a logical series of steps rather than just being - done...


Have you ever looked at nature ?
As in REALLY looked - and not just gazed at the pretty reflection of sunlight on a raindrop ?

It is brutal. Harsh. Cruel. Indifferent. NOT loving.

If it evolved that way without a guide- so be it.

But if someone deliberately set out to make things so... *shudder*. That would be one SICK being.

Albeit with a great sense of humor.

I mean, have you ever really LOOKED at a cow? Weird, weird animals.
"Until evolution happens like in pokemon I'll never accept your 'evidence'!" -Ifreann
"Well, excuuuuuuse me, feminist." -Ende

User avatar
Tokos
Senator
 
Posts: 4870
Founded: Oct 28, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Tokos » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:45 pm

We had a hand in the making of cows. Maybe we provided all the humour.

This is funny nature: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-05Z-GsGfI
The Confederal Fasces of Tokos

Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.05

User avatar
Deus Malum
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1524
Founded: Jan 24, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Deus Malum » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:48 pm

Bottle wrote:
The Alma Mater wrote:
Have you ever looked at nature ?
As in REALLY looked - and not just gazed at the pretty reflection of sunlight on a raindrop ?

It is brutal. Harsh. Cruel. Indifferent. NOT loving.

If it evolved that way without a guide- so be it.

But if someone deliberately set out to make things so... *shudder*. That would be one SICK being.

Albeit with a great sense of humor.

I mean, have you ever really LOOKED at a cow? Weird, weird animals.

Manatees. That is all.
"Blood for the Blood God!" - Khorne Berserker
"Harriers for the Cup!" *shoots* - Ciaphas Cain, Hero of the Imperium

User avatar
Bottle
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14985
Founded: Dec 30, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Bottle » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:49 pm

Deus Malum wrote:
Bottle wrote:Albeit with a great sense of humor.

I mean, have you ever really LOOKED at a cow? Weird, weird animals.

Manatees. That is all.

My Animal Behavior professor had the greatest slide show ever...it was entitled "Your Weird Planet," and was literally 45 minutes of slides of really fucking weird lifeforms on planet Earth. It was phenomenal.
"Until evolution happens like in pokemon I'll never accept your 'evidence'!" -Ifreann
"Well, excuuuuuuse me, feminist." -Ende

User avatar
Beldonia
Senator
 
Posts: 3827
Founded: Jan 07, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Beldonia » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:50 pm

The Alma Mater wrote:
Dypsomaniacs wrote:Not that I am religious...

But, it strikes me as odd when people argue as if the two have to be exclusive...

It makes sense to me that a creator would follow a logical series of steps rather than just being - done...


Have you ever looked at nature ?
As in REALLY looked - and not just gazed at the pretty reflection of sunlight on a raindrop ?

It is brutal. Harsh. Cruel. Indifferent. NOT loving.

If it evolved that way without a guide- so be it.

But if someone deliberately set out to make things so... *shudder*. That would be one SICK being.

Ever read the Old Testament? God isn't particularly.....nice. He's kind of a jerk.

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 25619
Founded: May 23, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby The Alma Mater » Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:58 pm

Bottle wrote:
The Alma Mater wrote:
Have you ever looked at nature ?
As in REALLY looked - and not just gazed at the pretty reflection of sunlight on a raindrop ?

It is brutal. Harsh. Cruel. Indifferent. NOT loving.

If it evolved that way without a guide- so be it.

But if someone deliberately set out to make things so... *shudder*. That would be one SICK being.

Albeit with a great sense of humor.

I mean, have you ever really LOOKED at a cow? Weird, weird animals.


True.
The creator also seems to have a fetish for beetles. How many species of beetles are there :o ?

In any case, let us sing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9Lp4-y4RFE
Last edited by The Alma Mater on Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
Deathly
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 118
Founded: Dec 08, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Deathly » Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:03 pm

Wamitoria wrote:
Whairtia wrote:Sorry to say but no it has not.

Evolutionary Theory has been proven.

If it is proven then why is it still called a Theory?
I see both, creation and evolution, happening. I do not see how the big bang theory is true. I believe God created the opportunity for evolution, as well as helped it.
Disclaimer: I have the attention span of a squir..... oh look its a butterf.... crap what was I saying?
Thus I apologize if I get off topic.. a lot.
Best Forum ever: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=59092

The Pink Unicorn is displeased. -Norstal


I believe in Evolution, no I am not going to Hell for it. I also believe in Intelligent Design. I believe Yahweh created the ability for organisms to Evolve. After all, would not an Intelligent Designer design the creation to survive and adapt to the environment?
Even though the Mayans may have made a really good calendar; I will put my trust in the God who created time.

User avatar
Kobeanare
Minister
 
Posts: 2767
Founded: Nov 02, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Kobeanare » Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:05 pm

Deathly wrote:
Wamitoria wrote:Evolutionary Theory has been proven.

If it is proven then why is it still called a Theory?

:palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm:

Read the thread.

User avatar
Beldonia
Senator
 
Posts: 3827
Founded: Jan 07, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Beldonia » Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Kobeanare wrote:
Deathly wrote:If it is proven then why is it still called a Theory?

:palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm:

Read the thread.

Synchronized smileys!! :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 25619
Founded: May 23, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby The Alma Mater » Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:06 pm

Deathly wrote:
Wamitoria wrote:Evolutionary Theory has been proven.

If it is proven then why is it still called a Theory?


What else would it be called ?
Of course, it indeed is not proven. Nothing outside mathematics ever is.
But a theory IS the highest title something can get in science.
Last edited by The Alma Mater on Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
Genivar
Minister
 
Posts: 2737
Founded: Feb 11, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Genivar » Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:08 pm

Dionabad wrote:I say both. In my opinion evolution is true, but people who believe in a religion usually are nicer and have more morals.

God bless Dionabad, \m/

Don't make me invoke Godwin on you.
In case of forum argument, I'm on the side of the Socialists.
I am a far-left social libertarian.
Left: 8.33, Libertarian: 5.52

Come share the fruits of my labor, and we will share the burdens of your toil.

“I’m sorry if my atheism offends you. But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, murdering of albinos, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia, and rejection of science and reason offends me. So I guess we’re even.” - Mike Treder

User avatar
Deathly
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 118
Founded: Dec 08, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Deathly » Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:09 pm

The Alma Mater wrote:
Deathly wrote:If it is proven then why is it still called a Theory?


What else would it be called ?
Of course, it indeed is not proven. Nothing outside mathematics ever is.
But a theory IS the highest title something can get in science.

Would not law be the highest, example Law of Gravity. Scientific proven through mathematics, yet still science.
Disclaimer: I have the attention span of a squir..... oh look its a butterf.... crap what was I saying?
Thus I apologize if I get off topic.. a lot.
Best Forum ever: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=59092

The Pink Unicorn is displeased. -Norstal


I believe in Evolution, no I am not going to Hell for it. I also believe in Intelligent Design. I believe Yahweh created the ability for organisms to Evolve. After all, would not an Intelligent Designer design the creation to survive and adapt to the environment?
Even though the Mayans may have made a really good calendar; I will put my trust in the God who created time.

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 25619
Founded: May 23, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby The Alma Mater » Mon Feb 21, 2011 1:10 pm

Deathly wrote:
The Alma Mater wrote:
What else would it be called ?
Of course, it indeed is not proven. Nothing outside mathematics ever is.
But a theory IS the highest title something can get in science.

Would not law be the highest, example Law of Gravity. Scientific proven through mathematics, yet still science.


Nope. Go check out the difference between laws and theories and the historical reasons for the names. It is fascinating ;)
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Arvenia, Castelia, Enormous Gentiles, Eternal Algerstonia, Fartsniffage, Galloism, Lysset, Port Caverton, The Jamesian Republic, Zurkerx

Advertisement

Remove ads