Why are evolutionists convinced we are not created?

Originally posted by PutAQuarterIn

Originally posted by piles
reply to post by Tony4211

 

given the size of the universe though is a hard point to argue, because for all we know every other solar system could have at least one planet with alien life on, and at this point we just don't know.. i remember nasa saying something about they have found worlds with perfect environments which could support life

what are the chances of that?

is it more probable that within the nearest 100 solar systems that 4 planets have an environment that could support alien life, or more probable that someone created 4 planets that could support life using a computer? as i could write a software program which had four planets that could support alien life within the nearest 100 solar systems fairly easily, our creator could have created those worlds.. and im pretty sure thats more likely

(i just searched for a link on nasa website but couldn't see anything immediately that backs up what i'm saying, however distinctly remember watching this on the news over a year ago)

Yeah, and?...It's also easier and quicker for a calculator to do math, but then nature throws out a freak of nature, Scott Flansberg . With an exception to every rule and (recently) 7 billion people on this planet, freak events happen....all the freakin' time. Your chances of hitting the lottery are improbable....yet people continue to win it. you can't count on freak events but they happen all the time everywhere.Of course by your logic someone just X amount of these things with a computer. sigh.

Furthermore by your logic....
Your ''super computer'' thought enough to create X amount of liveable planets but computer programer/God just got tired of the same house hold on sims, so buh bye dinosaurs, helloooo humans? (Ice age was just remodel mode. guess the decor was to tacky) Trying to say a program (known for doing only what they are told) is telling us what to do next, is like saying humans are logical creatures. (your whole argument is proof that no, humans are not logical)

if we were creeated, dinosaurs could have been alive on this planets just days before we got here, and dinosaurs could have died hours before we were put here, the planet could have updated the decor while making it look like dinosaurs were here thousands of yrs before..

to understand everything about creation, we have to make the assumption we are created. if we can take the theory seriously that we were created, then we have to discuss the purpose of a computer program such as this universe. and to understand that we have to theorize one hell of a lot..

i believe that if we are digital then the creator must make money from this computer system, but how? I've spent a lot of time thinking about it and it has kicked up very few theorys...

one was that if the creator species was prepared to watch our species (intelligent life), then the creator would get plenty of stuff to watch on this planet, while we only may'be digital, if the creators species was prepared to pay a subscription to watch us, and the creator had other planets with intelligent life to watch, then the creator would be watching digital beings that treated everything as real, so the entertainment was real...

while we know if we were created its not like we are the creators slaves, you know voice in our heads asking us questions like whats 9 + 7, etc etc...

so how would the creator make money from us? your guess is probably as good as mine

a program can't calculate a number at random, but it can choose many different numbers at once, which can lead to many different people thinking different things while seeing the same thing... its possible... reasoning logic with physics has always been important

I didn't say cats aren't smart, I said they do not interact with humans like dogs do. NO OTHER ANIMAL DOES.

I see what you're saying and agree your points overall, but that statement holds true with a lot of the more intelligent mammals as well. Cats also interact with humans unlike any other animal, and they have evolved to become more domestic in the same manner. Dolphins are unique as well and one of the most intelligent around. Elephants, great apes, pigs, you name it. It seems personality and the ability to relate is something that is based completely on intelligence, which is a good quality to have as a companion.

as i could write a software program which had four planets that could support alien life within the nearest 100 solar systems fairly easily

You could? Which computer language are you proficient in, and how would you go about that? Please enlighten me on the process of simulating reality and sensory perception on that level. What about consciousness? Atoms, particles, and cells all interacting with one another on various levels. Holy over simplification, batman. I'm sure you could easily write a universe program, just like you can easily calculate the mathematical odds of creation over evolution, but won't share it. One thing is certain, if everything was indeed programmed, it was done as a self replicating process, not individually programmed one by one as far as planets and stars go. Evidence of this is evolution and the way earth has changed over the years. If it was programmed it seems like it would make more sense to make everything eternal, but all stars are born and die. Everything has a beginning and end. A digital program would be like a paradise where everything would be in harmony, but there's way too much chaos in the universe to make that probable, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Barcs

I didn't say cats aren't smart, I said they do not interact with humans like dogs do. NO OTHER ANIMAL DOES.

I see what you're saying and agree your points overall, but that statement holds true with a lot of the more intelligent mammals as well. Cats also interact with humans unlike any other animal, and they have evolved to become more domestic in the same manner. Dolphins are unique as well and one of the most intelligent around. Elephants, great apes, pigs, you name it. It seems personality and the ability to relate is something that is based completely on intelligence, which is a good quality to have as a companion.

Dogs have social intelligence that no other animal has. I'm not just claiming this on a whim, it's been tested and proven. No other animal understands a human's facial expression. Dogs can see that you are sad, happy, whatever, based on your expression.

topdocumentaryfilms.com...

You can watch this doc for proof. I watch a lot of documentaries then read up on the things that interest me. I understand other mammals are intelligent, but NO other mammal has the same type of intelligence as a dog.

@ piles: You ask me what I don't understand about your statement "if we are digital then we must be created"

Well, you have not qualified that claim in any way whatsoever. You are making a broad generalization and not backing it up with any factual data. I can tell you that the sky is red.. You probably see a blue sky. For you to believe me, I must prove my claim. Simply stating something is fact without evidence of it being fact does not make it a fact.

Originally posted by piles

Like i have said I can't on this very day prove we evolved, i can't prove we didn't, nor can anyone on this planet,

Funny thing, science.
Did you know, gravity is still a theory?

I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I let go of an apple, it will fall to the ground..now, common sense and previous evidence will make this almost a sure thing, but in the end, gravity is still being worked on and not completely understood...yet we just take it as a fact that we know enough to speak of it as an absolute.

I cannot prove in every single measurement there is that gravity will continue to work the way it will in 5 minutes, but I have enough proof to assume it will.
What your stating is that, since gravity is still considered theoretical in regards to the fine details, then there is just as much proof of that as tiny invisible angels holding us down to the ground...no...its comparing apples to cars...totally different, yet this is what the spiritualists, religious, and otherwise "free thinkers -cough-" do all the time...they take advantage of a scientific misunderstanding of what theory is, and match up their own unfounded hypothesis, pretending it has the same weight.

You know...the universe may be digital, or made of chocolate..now, how would you propose we study and funnel billions of dollars in order to get to the next star system? work in this understood universes physics, or try to make some chocolate based propulsion system on the off chance we live in chocolate universe?

See, for all the random ramblings of the day to day hypothesis's, it doesn't actually move anything forward and in fact attempts to try and dumb down the current understanding of the universe...imagine you tried to learn a subject and spent 60 to 70 years of your life on say..fishing. the best methods, the best seasons, etc...sure, you haven't become a messiah of the lake, but you do quite well with what you have learned...then some snot nosed kid comes up to you and suggests all you have to do is wiggle your fingers and sing row row row your boat for fish to simply jump on the boat...granted, you never tried it, but since your decades of research is not some pure scientific absolute, his hypothesis is just as good as all the gained knowledge you have accumulated.

One would be forgiven if you were to simply slap that kid and tell him to investigate verses just yammer bull--it on the shore.

So, find some evidence of your digital universe and stop telling the entire cosmological community that wiggling your fingers and singing will produce fish..or a chocolate universe...

Originally posted by Barcs

as i could write a software program which had four planets that could support alien life within the nearest 100 solar systems fairly easily

You could? Which computer language are you proficient in, and how would you go about that? Please enlighten me on the process of simulating reality and sensory perception on that level. What about consciousness? Atoms, particles, and cells all interacting with one another on various levels. Holy over simplification, batman. I'm sure you could easily write a universe program, just like you can easily calculate the mathematical odds of creation over evolution, but won't share it. One thing is certain, if everything was indeed programmed, it was done as a self replicating process, not individually programmed one by one as far as planets and stars go. Evidence of this is evolution and the way earth has changed over the years. If it was programmed it seems like it would make more sense to make everything eternal, but all stars are born and die. Everything has a beginning and end. A digital program would be like a paradise where everything would be in harmony, but there's way too much chaos in the universe to make that probable, in my opinion.

edit on 1-11-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

to try and enlighten you on the process of simulating reality and perception on the level of how real you feel, by using extremely complex binary maths you could simulate the environment we are in and make it feel real. we are talking about binary maths that would have to be upwards of a trillion digits for something simple like an apple tree.. while this is very comples its possible

to discuss if it makes more sense to making everything eternal, one would need to theorize about the purpose of this universe, taking the assumption that this universe is digital in the first place, you say all stars born and die and while we know stars are born and die, we don't know that all stars born and die, thats just a theory. again if we take the assumption we are digital there may'be a reason why stars are born and why you think all stars die. although assuming we are real and here through evolution we assume that all stars are born and die..

to define a digital program, i am defining that the universe if it was created would have to be digital and a computer program (while you feel too real to believe we could be digital) a digital program could be like paradise, and in many ways if we take the assumption that this universe is digital it is our species that makes this anything but a paradise. If it was just me and my family living on this planet it would be like paradise.. the binary maths that would have to go into us would be unbelievably complex. however in order to define and understand why our species is not programmed to be more perfect, we again need to understand by taking the assumption we are digital for could be the computer programs purpose?

most creationists say its a giant experiment , but i feel if the universe must if its digital make the creator money.. and perhaps by taking the assumption it makes the creator money the reason why this is not paradise for you is because the creator makes more money having it like this..

reply to post by piles


the point i was trying to make in the first place was that evolution is a theory, which most educated seem to believe.. however if its not the correct theory then we must have been created and the only way its possible for this universe to have been created (considering everything we know about it) would be if the universe is digital

Therefore in order to prove we evolved or were created someone has to either prove we are non-digital, or digital... and then this age old debate about creation vs evolution will be settled once and for all...

while my mathematics may not stand up in court, until we know more about this universe (like if aliens exist etc) its possible that we are digital, and i still stad by my point that its more probable, however i don't take into consideration into those figures that if we are created the probability of how the creators species came about...

I'm just pointing out that it is more likely given everything we know that this universe was created, and thats how billions of stars burn endlessly, and that given what would have had to have happened to get us to this point if were not created it is more likely that we were created...

i would believe we were real more if our existence wasn't reliant on our sun, if we lived on a living rock which contiously grew, if the majority of species on our planet were a-sexual, if there wasn't such an intelligence gap between us and the next most intelligent species on our planet etc

Originally posted by piles
to try and enlighten you on the process of simulating reality and perception on the level of how real you feel, by using extremely complex binary maths you could simulate the environment we are in and make it feel real. we are talking about binary maths that would have to be upwards of a trillion digits for something simple like an apple tree.. while this is very comples its possible

It could be possible for this to happen one day, but as of now it is not possible based on our current knowledge of programming and designing. Sure we can make all kinds of digital games and programs, but adding a living element that makes its own decisions and is somehow conscious/aware is completely new ball game. I'm not sure if you've seen the show "Caprica", but they had a virtual digital alternative reality that anybody who had the technology could access. Something like that would be a step closer to that, but we haven't come close to perfect virtual reality technology yet.

Question for you. If we are programmed, then wouldn't that make our entire existence pre-written, giving us no actual control over our lives/destiny?

we don't know that all stars born and die, thats just a theory. again if we take the assumption we are digital there maybe a reason why stars are born and why you think all stars die. although assuming we are real and here through evolution we assume that all stars are born and die..

All stars burn on some kind of fuel, so yes, they eventually run out of fuel and "die". This is fact and more evidence to suggest it is not programmed. Why would a programmer waste tons of time programming all kinds of extra unnecessary stars that run out of components to sustain fusion and that's pretty much the end. Why not keep it simple? That would make sense if it was a computer program. Diseases and plagues... Why include that kind of thing in the programming? I'd like to hope that any species or entity creating a digital universe would have evolved far beyond the petty need for money.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by piles
to try and enlighten you on the process of simulating reality and perception on the level of how real you feel, by using extremely complex binary maths you could simulate the environment we are in and make it feel real. we are talking about binary maths that would have to be upwards of a trillion digits for something simple like an apple tree.. while this is very comples its possible

It could be possible for this to happen one day, but as of now it is not possible based on our current knowledge of programming and designing. Sure we can make all kinds of digital games and programs, but adding a living element that makes its own decisions and is somehow conscious/aware is completely new ball game. I'm not sure if you've seen the show "Caprica", but they had a virtual digital alternative reality that anybody who had the technology could access. Something like that would be a step closer to that, but we haven't come close to perfect virtual reality technology yet.

Question for you. If we are programmed, then wouldn't that make our entire existence pre-written, giving us no actual control over our lives/destiny?

we don't know that all stars born and die, thats just a theory. again if we take the assumption we are digital there maybe a reason why stars are born and why you think all stars die. although assuming we are real and here through evolution we assume that all stars are born and die..

All stars burn on some kind of fuel, so yes, they eventually run out of fuel and "die". This is fact and more evidence to suggest it is not programmed. Why would a programmer waste tons of time programming all kinds of extra unnecessary stars that run out of components to sustain fusion and that's pretty much the end. Why not keep it simple? That would make sense if it was a computer program. Diseases and plagues... Why include that kind of thing in the programming? I'd like to hope that any species or entity creating a digital universe would have evolved far beyond the petty need for money.

i think if we accept computers haven't even been around for 100years, that if we were created no doubt the creator has probably had computers for millions of years.. and if you think what we have managed to do with computers in the few years we have had them, then yes its entirely poosible

i'm not sure what you mean by if we were programmed that, that could mean our destiny could be pre-written. if we are programmed we all do seem to go forwards, however to understand if we were created we really would need to understand what are purpose was/is... without knowing our purpose i could only guess an answer for you.. it certainely could make our destiny pre-written, however I don't think it means if we are programmed that our destiny is definately pre-written..

while i agree with your theory that all stars die in the end, i just doubt that if there was a creator that he would end our lives because a digital fuel used for our survival had run out, i would find it more credible that he would perhaps give a star enough fuel for it to burn far longer than he intended us to exist..

diseases and plagues, again one needs to address the issue of our purpose, and the reason behind why we were created... nothing i have thought of ulitametly conclusivily proves what our purpose is if we are digital... the entertainment theory for example would make the creator more money if we treated everything as real... the more real we treated everything, the more real the entertainment the creators species got to watch for example..

while you would like to think if we have a creator, his species would have evolved past the need for money.. one thing is certain.. it would take a lot of time to create this universe, the binary maths would have to be extremely complicated.. and to say the creator species just felt like it, so built this computer doesn't hold much water with me.. if we are digital there must be a reason why we were created...

To me explaining a programmer type god is just another way of describing a god with no evidence as usual.

You fall into the same trap believing we must have a purpose when the only purpose that can be seen is for life to live.

Evolution does not challenge your creation story because that is not what evolution does. It describes the way life has evolved.

If you wish you could say that it describes the programs subroutine that deals with cause and effect that generates the diversity we see and ensures life continues.

I have scanned through the thread but wont pretend to have read it all but you seem to be saying this digital life is placed here for us. That we are its prime function yet we know that life existed before us and has no reason not to continue after us.

Seems to be a pretty standard model for most beliefs.

I have no desire to challenge your beliefs of how life began or what you believe the meaning of life is but ask why you link evolution to it or maintain those that see evolution to be true means a denial of creation?

Originally posted by colin42
To me explaining a programmer type god is just another way of describing a god with no evidence as usual.

You fall into the same trap believing we must have a purpose when the only purpose that can be seen is for life to live.

Evolution does not challenge your creation story because that is not what evolution does. It describes the way life has evolved.

If you wish you could say that it describes the programs subroutine that deals with cause and effect that generates the diversity we see and ensures life continues.

I have scanned through the thread but wont pretend to have read it all but you seem to be saying this digital life is placed here for us. That we are its prime function yet we know that life existed before us and has no reason not to continue after us.

Seems to be a pretty standard model for most beliefs.

I have no desire to challenge your beliefs of how life began or what you believe the meaning of life is but ask why you link evolution to it or maintain those that see evolution to be true means a denial of creation?

i'm saying

if we are digital we must have been created for a reason

to create a computer program that housed this universe would take us billions of hours even if we had the technology available to us... if we are digital then i highly doubt the creator species would one day say 'what the heck lets create digital life' for no reason at all, other than the creator felt like it

therefore if we are digital then this universe must serve some kind of purpose

if we evolved then obviously there is no meaning of life, and we have no purpose

my belief is we could be digital, and i know its possible. I can't prove we are digital, and nobody can prove we are not..

I don't think people really understand what it means to be created, i think people have this common misconception that we would be anything but digital if we were created, when in fact if we are created we would be digital (i know i keep saying it)

and i don't think science has put this into its equation of evolution, perhaps because computers were either non-existent or very basic when the evolution theory came about... I don't think darwin for example understood that a computer was even possible back then, and what I'm saying is that in order to prove we evolved we need to prove we are a non-digital entity.. the fact is we could be a digital entity, while it may not sound plausible to you, it's a possibility

reply to post by piles


I can’t say I agree with anything you just wrote.

The reason for some creator making the effort to make the program is beyond me but I would also suppose it would be and there is no reason why no purpose would not be an option.

Cant say that I agree that evolution means we have no purpose or meaning, the truth is it is just not the purpose or meaning you want it to be.

I see no reason to believe if we were created we must be digital, it’s an option but not a given.

Science has no need to put this in the equation with regards to evolution. In fact creation has no part in it as I have said before.

Whether I believe it plausible or not has nothing to do with evolution.

Why does evolution being correct or incorrect hang on whether we can prove or disprove a digital existence?

Here's a thought before I go to bed.

Suppose we are digital. The purpose is to show the people to whom the programer belongs to who say man did not evolve that they are wrong and evolution is the answer.

So he becomes the creator of the simulation. Evolution has resulted in us and his finger is poised over the delete button but he is waiting to see where this goes.

Trouble with that is we have a purpose but no meaning or value as we are taking up space on a cosmic hard drive.

There is another option I suppose. That we are a by product and he is waiting for the sperm whale to evolve and we have fooled ourselves that we are the important ones

Originally posted by andersensrm
People evolved from ape like animals here on earth.

Yes, it is funny how evolutionists get so animated about the supposed precursor to man and ape. It was an ape-like animal, i.e. it looked like an ape, acted like an ape and was hairy. It was an APE. Even man is an ape, scientifically speaking so why do you people make such a big deal about it? If macro-evolution is true, we evolved from apes. It does not harm your theory in any way. Trust me

As for the OP, there is an easy answer: there is no scientifically testable proof that God exists or that we were created.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


First off I thought I was replying to piles so where does "Actually, my statements were 100% correct" come in to this? I was not even responding to you! However.....

If dogs were bred and changed overtime, isn't that the same as evolution?

There are like 15 documentaries and a ton of science backing up what I've said. I didn't just make this all up. And no, dogs would not immediately revert to wolves without humans around, because dogs carry a gene that only very few wolves carry that makes them less aggressive. This gene evolved in dogs as they were evolving from wolves. Again, SCIENCE. Go read a book.

No breeding is not the same as natural evolution.

I don't need to read a book. I have kept dogs all my life and I have seen dogs revert. I frankly don't give a toss what the scientists and documentaries think because they are generally idiots and are not dog owners and are not able to tell people what dogs actually are because they would be castigated for telling the truth. Can't let the people know we keep wolves in our midst. If you seriously think a dog is less aggressive then you want to see a hungry cornered dog that has injuries. In addition to which who says wolves are aggressive? Because they might attack humans? Oh dear what a pity. So they cannot consider us as meat then? They are no more aggressive than dogs within the operational parameters of the pack.

If you keep dogs you have to think like a pack leader. Many of the problem dogs around are because the stupid humans that own then have not got a clue about pack psychology and allow the dog to become the pack leader. In fact most people should not be allowed to keep dogs as they have not got a clue how to handle them.

So yes they would revert. They are pack animals and without the human influence would revert to being pack animals again in a very short space of time.

I said they (cats) do not interact with humans like dogs do

Don't they? Not perhaps in the same manner but they sure as hell do interact. Try keeping a few. You might find out the manner in which cats own us humans. (And they can recognise facial expressions as well)

reply to post by TinkerHaus

I have owned and loved dogs my entire life. I have taken classes on how to train basic obedience. I have researched and studied dogs and their evolution. Yes, their evolution. I have volunteered my time to shelters and have fostered animals.. I have a little bit of experience and education about dogs and I'm sorry, but your husky or chihuahua or terrier descended from wolves.

Seems you are a dog owner so you should know that this is breeding and adaptation and NOT evolution.

On the point that they all descended from wolves I completely agree.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus

Originally posted by Barcs

I didn't say cats aren't smart, I said they do not interact with humans like dogs do. NO OTHER ANIMAL DOES.

I see what you're saying and agree your points overall, but that statement holds true with a lot of the more intelligent mammals as well. Cats also interact with humans unlike any other animal, and they have evolved to become more domestic in the same manner. Dolphins are unique as well and one of the most intelligent around. Elephants, great apes, pigs, you name it. It seems personality and the ability to relate is something that is based completely on intelligence, which is a good quality to have as a companion.

Dogs have social intelligence that no other animal has. I'm not just claiming this on a whim, it's been tested and proven. No other animal understands a human's facial expression. Dogs can see that you are sad, happy, whatever, based on your expression.

topdocumentaryfilms.com...

You can watch this doc for proof. I watch a lot of documentaries then read up on the things that interest me. I understand other mammals are intelligent, but NO other mammal has the same type of intelligence as a dog.

Interesting documentary although I could argue that cats interact with humans in the same personal way. Dogs have a more eccentric way of communicating. They whine and bark when they want something, and constantly nag, while a cat is more subtle. A cat might just rub their head on your leg or jump into your lap. Some do whine, however. it doesn't mean they don't interact or have the same love / loyalty to their owner. I'd say that cats can either recognize emotion or read facial expressions as well. My cat knows if I'm angry and doesn't come near, but as soon as I see her and smile she comes over. Dogs are definitely more dependent on humans than cats, however. It's really just like 2 different flavors of pet. It doesn't make dogs a better pet or more attached to humans OR more intelligent. They are unique yes, but so are cats. It really boils down to how you train and interact with them, because yes, they do adapt to you. Dogs can be trained to be viscous unremorseful killers. They can also be trained to be your best buddy. They don't naturally become "man's best friend." If you run into a pack of wild dogs, they won't come anywhere near you. I could just as easily say no other mammal has the same type of intelligence as a cat.

NEITHER EVOLUTION NOR CREATIONISM HAS BEEN PROVEN. we use the knowledge we have to select the most possible theory, at the moment evolution is the most likely theory. who knows maybe one day in the future we will ahve new evidence that outs creationsim in the number one spot, but i doubt it

reply to post by PuterMan


Ugh. I've had cats and dogs. I have fresh water fish, salt water fish, I've taken classes to train obedience school, I've actually RESEARCHED the subject and am not just telling you my opinion. I see you are telling me your opinion though.

Again, you could just read and verify what I've said.

Evolution can be defined as an organism changing and EVOLVING over time to take advantage of it's changing environment. The evolution of dog from gray wolf definitely falls into this category. Whether or not evolution is "natural" or spurred along by man, it's still the same principle.

Again, this is all documented. Dogs are known to scientists to communicate with humans in ways that no other animal is capable. Dogs are more in tune with humans than cats. This is scientific fact. Cats sure do interact with humans, but not in the same intelligent, social manners with with dogs do.

reply to post by Barcs


Cats do not understand the facial cues of humans. Cats cannot understand when you point at something. Cats may fetch (I had a cat that did) but not for the same reasons as dogs. Cats do not have the same social intelligence as dogs - they are not social creatures like dogs.

I'm not saying other mammals aren't intelligent, I'm saying no other animal can communicate with humans like dogs can. Again, there is research and science backing this fact up.