Blog Documentation Book a Demo
Vanilla 1 is no longer supported or maintained. If you need a copy, you can get it here.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.

Why the Probability that You Are Living in a Matrix is Quite High

2»

Comments

  • KosmoKosmo
    But we have proof of evolution, there are fossils depicting different states of a dinosaur going in to some bird like, and then there are test with banana fly where tampering with it's genetic material reproduced wingless, legless and eye less flies. And even after that there is bacterial mutation. There is no IF in Evolution, it's as much true as it can be, and natural selection or survival of the fittest is a nobrainer.
  • BergamotBergamot
    I'd like to make some statements in clarification of Kosmo's post, but I don't have time now. Give me until the end of the day :D
  • 3stripe3stripe ✭✭
    edited March 2006
    The bit that interests me is the bit before evolution/god ... how did anything come to exist in the first place? The only route that seems to make any sense to me is that what we know of the universe is only one slice of it... and all the answers are outside the box so to speak...
  • BergamotBergamot
    edited March 2006
    Ok, I have an hour, so here goes.

    "The Theory of Evolution" is actually two separate, but complementary hypotheses:

    1. The evolutionary process (genetic mutations leading to differences between living creatures, and the creatures with positive attributes reproducing more often than those with negative attributes) happens.

    2. This process is solely responsible for the variety of life we observe around us.

    The first hypothesis *can* be experimentally verified, and has been many times, both in rigid lab conditions and in general.

    The second hypothesis is historical in nature, so the "experiment" process breaks down, but that doesn't mean we can't test it against things we know to be true. It's impossible to run an experiment to prove that Napoleon invaded Waterloo, but we can certainly compare the expected consequences of that hypothesis with the actual historical records and artifacts, and get a pretty good idea what happened.

    The evolutionary hypothesis does make predictions about what sorts of things we should find in the fossil record (no complex fossils in 3 billion year old rock, similar species should descend from a common ancestor, fossil shape should change slowly over time), and in fact we do find all these things.

    None of this, of course, "proves" evolution is the One True Law of Existence. For one thing, it presupposes a universe like the one we observe, an earth like the one we see in geologic records, and the existance of an already-living cell, capable of reproduction. Given the fuzzy nature of exactly what "life" is, it's not entirely unplausable that, in 2 billion years on a volatile planet, a self-replicating molecule happened to form.
  • WallPhoneWallPhone
    (Most) transition fossils are called 'missing links' for a reason... But enough of this. Thinking out of the box, I believe that the truth is elusive precisely because this hypothetical creator wants people to believe. Positively prove or refute a creator's existance and you defeat that purpose.
  • KosmoKosmo
    You all should listen to Bill Hicks, he was the man on the 'know'
  • BergamotBergamot
    There's no such thing as a "transition fossil", so getting annoyed when you don't find them seems a little silly. There *are* plenty of holes in the fossil record, because fossils only form under specific conditions, but the pieces we do have paint a pretty consistent picture.
  • 3stripe3stripe ✭✭
    "Positively prove or refute a creator's existance and you defeat that purpose." What if the whole purpose of creation was to develop a lifeform that could do just this? (ps. when's someone gonna write a quote extension for here!? would be handy)
  • BergamotBergamot
    I *wrote* a quote extension, and suggested to Mark that he install it. So far, nothing.
  • MinisweeperMinisweeper New
    quote shmote. Now if i can all direct your attention to line 16 of bergamots previous post...
  • WallPhoneWallPhone
    "What if the whole purpose of creation was to develop a lifeform that could do just this?" Expanding on that... when creation has fulfilled its purpose and is destroyed to make room for the next godly experiment... we better change the subject quick! Quoting is good! Just don't do it on that forbidden subject again!
  • leasonleason
    Yeah, this got pretty heavy. I don't know everyone's background here, but I doubt any of us are really qualified to speak authoritatively on fossil record's and such. However, one thing you may or may not have heard is that Darwin himself said that if transitional species were not found in the fossil record then everything about evolution was bunk and unprovable. Also, and I'm not completely behind everything this guy says, but Ken Ham has some interesting opinions on the fossil record. He seems to think a global flood would create just the right kind of conditions for the fossil record we have. It's also interesting to me that every major culture on the planet has a global flood story in their verbal or written history.
  • 3stripe3stripe ✭✭
    wallphone, lol, so you're saying we shouldn't talk about this stuff...
  • WallPhoneWallPhone
    I subcribed to one group then found viewpoints from the other, and concluded debate on the issue is a futile exercise.

    Best thing to do is your own research and critically decide which camp you belong.

    I found some sound arguments and some lousy ones from each side. And decided that right now I don't belong to either camp.
  • 3stripe3stripe ✭✭
    Interesting links, cheers dude.
This discussion has been closed.