Evolution or Creation?

[AllthatFunk]

Wil Wheaton is also very wise, and I think we would all do well to familiarize ourselves with Wheaton's Law.

Castanet is a gathering place for people who break Wheatons Law. On a thread like this there are bound to be hoards of them.

[fluffy]

Or is this just another version of the "if a tree falls in the forest" question?

That old question has been under some revision lately too. The accepted answer for quite a while was "No". All a tree falling in the forest will do is set off a series of disturbances in the surrounding air, but unless there is an ear nearby to translate those disturbances into sound then there is no sound. But then there's a current theory among physicists that says until someone actually sees the tree, it doesn't exist.

We're into some pretty heady territory here, and like Cliffy says, cutting edge science does tend to take on a serious spiritual bent these days as mystical explanations start to factor into what has traditionally been a nuts-and-bolts world.

[I Think]

It has recently been announced that there may be two sorts of Bosun Higgs particles - AKA the god particles, does that mean there are two gods?

[cliffy1]

Wil Wheaton is also very wise, and I think we would all do well to familiarize ourselves with Wheaton's Law.

Science will never be able to measure or explain the correlation between thought and belief and the resulting actions, how focused consciousness can manifest into 3rd dimensional reality, how ritual and ceremony assist in focusing attention. Science has its place and so does spirituality. They do not have to be exclusive and they can be complimentary but as long as scientists hold to the dogmatic idea that one cannot exist in the face of the other, all science is doing is causing derision.

[fluffy]

This post happily existed in all possible states before you observed it. Now it has collapsed into a single state.

I hope you're satisfied.

[zzontar]

Oh, you got me there. I can't use science to disprove your deep thought of the day. Sorry, that's not how it works. If you want to spout off your deep thoughts as though they were statements of fact, then it's up to you to support them. Burden of proof is on you.

I'll give you a clue, you don't have to be in the forest to prove that a tree makes a noise when it falls even if no one is there, but you have to exist. You figure it out, in hindsight it's actually quite simple.

[fluffy]

...you don't have to be in the forest to prove that a tree makes a noise when it falls even if no one is there, but you have to exist. You figure it out, in hindsight it's actually quite simple.

But you do have to be there, if not in person then at least by some sort of proxy such as a mechanical listening device. This goes hand in hand with the creation issue. At best we can develop a likely theory, but since we were not there how can we know for sure?

[zzontar]

But you do have to be there, if not in person then at least by some sort of proxy such as a mechanical listening device. This goes hand in hand with the creation issue. At best we can develop a likely theory, but since we were not there how can we know for sure?

Exactly, a listening device would work, but not without someone to monitor the device, so you can prove a tree makes noise when it falls without being there but you cannot prove nothing exists unless there is a conscious being to confirm this. This being said, a consciousness confirming nothing would obviously mean there is something (the consciousness) IF on the same plane or dimension.

[fluffy]

Like I said earlier, this is pretty esoteric stuff. Our entire universe is based upon our perception of it, whether by first person of through technological means which in essence is the same, someone is looking. The tree in the forest thing is a good example, without someone/something there to hear, there is no noise. The noise is our interpretation of events set in motion by the falling of the tree, without that interpretation the so-called "noise" takes another form completely.

The whole idea is that if we can be there, we can't be sure. What came before the big bang? What sparked the first life to form in the primordial ooze? Was there ooze? Was there a bang? All we have is theory. Guesses. Some of them might be real good guesses, but they're still just guesses.

[hobbyguy]

The question is the answer?

Is there anything that is "unknowable"?

Do you think that there is nothing that is unknowable because you can not accept the concept of "unknowable"?

Do you think that there are things that are "unknowable" because you choose not to know them?

And the coin spins...

[fluffy]

Good point. How about "beyond our current knowledge" ?

[cliffy1]

Is there a right or wrong answer?

The truth is what a person is willing to believe it is. Thus you have many different answers to the same question and only the one you are willing to accept will be the truth to you. Thus, the truth is relative to the beholder. The creationist believes he has found the truth. No amount of facts or stats will budge them from their position. The same goes for atheists, scientists and everybody else.

For example, I have had experiences with aboriginal people that is outside the accepted "norm" of western culture. Scientists have tried to explain that it must have been caused by perturbed brain chemistry or something because they cannot accept the possibility that it could actually occur as I describe it. To me, I experienced it. It was real to me and I don't care how or why. I don't care to analyze it. It just happened.

[JLives]

It has recently been announced that there may be two sorts of Bosun Higgs particles - AKA the god particles, does that mean there are two gods?

It was originally called the *bleep* particle in a book because it was so difficult to find. The editor shortened it and the name stuck unfortunately.

[fluffy]

It was originally called the *bleep* particle in a book because it was so difficult to find. The editor shortened it and the name stuck unfortunately.

Well, they can't all be majorana fermions. At least it's easy to spell.

[Process]

This is all just typical Creationist crap - all subterfuge and obfuscation. What I want to know from the frothing fundamentalists is how the kiwi birds got to the ark, and then back again? Clearly, they have either hidden abilities to swim across oceans, or fly the same route. I guess that Creationists, being the great scientists they purport to be, will gather up few bushels of kiwi birds, and toss them off some cliffs to see if they can fly, or dump them into the ocean to see if they can do the backstroke. While they're at it, how about testing the unique cave fauna found on that far-flung island - like the glow worm? The unique vegetation too, must have some secret transportational abilities - even if there was a parting of the sea (down to the depth of the Marianna Trench - or deeper than Mt. Everest is high), the plants couldn't have made the journey. I WANT ANSWERS! You woolly headed intellectual relativists think you're pretty damn hot and trying to find holes in science, but have no answers yourselves - just carping by the ignorant, for the ignorant. You're all a waste of time.

Good day!