Let's not debate creationism in the News thread



  • @Benjamin-Hall said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Dreikin It's not the concept I don't like, it's the implementation. Change over time, great. It's the curlicues that have been required to get these specific organisms to fit the theory. I just keep thinking that there's something else, that we're missing something. Not enough to really care, and if I had to deal with it every day I might care more. Totally not on my list of things that matter to me.

    Darwin himself had serious doubts about his theory. IIRC, he found the lack of "missing link" fossils particularly problematic since they posed huge, inexplicable gaps in the record, but he expected archaeology to quickly ante up and start finding them.



  • @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    That's funny, because I could say almost exactly the same thing about "old-earthers". The only difference is that I don't usually try to ridicule them for their beliefs.

    Creationists ridicule themselves.



  • @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    That's funny, because I could say almost exactly the same thing about "old-earthers". The only difference is that I don't usually try to ridicule them for their beliefs.
    As for whether it's the most plausible, I suppose that depends on whether one is a theist or atheist. Atheism requires something like the Big Bang and billions of years to try to explain the origins of the universe. Theism can include that narrative (and many do), but a literal understanding of the Biblical narrative posits a young age for the universe (or mixed age, as I noted earlier).

    You seem to be conflating science and atheism. And you are conceding the point when you say "Atheism requires something like the Big Bang and billions of years to try to explain the origins of the universe." You are admitting that, absent a need to date the world at 6000 years, evidence points to the world being about 4.5 billion years old and the universe some 14 billion years old.

    Scientists didn't come up with those number just to be contrarian. They made models to fit what evidence they had, refined them over time, and arrived at our current understanding of the world. Those models gave us all the technology we have today, so clearly even if they're not perfect, they must match reality closely enough for computers, gps devices, antibiotics, and other advanced technology to work. And in time we'll improve them further and create even more advanced technology.

    Creationism does "science" backwards. Science is a mechanism by which you make assumptions, try to disprove them, and build from what you learned. Creationism already "knows everything", and instead tries to fit new evidence to match what they already knew was the result they wanted. This is the critical flaw in it's "methodology". It can't create new knowledge, because new knowledge risks upsetting the status quo and the status quo is the only thing they care about.

    What advancements in science or technology has adhering to a young Earth view enabled? What discoveries were creationist scientists able to make thanks to being creationists, that were blocked off to scientists doing actual science? Take the way they distinguish between "kinds" and "species", how is that a meaningful distinction other than to allow them to fit evidence that can't be ignored any longer into their worldview?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @djls45
    Only just saw that post. It's funny how you complain about being ridiculed minutes after writing a long rant which tries to ridicule Catholics. (Badly, I might add, because half of your arguments are based on accepting the premise of young-earth creationism and taking the scripture literally in the first place. You're arguing in circles.)



  • Religions are always retreating to the point where they can't be shown to be wrong. The Catholics have codified this! And then there are always some fundamentalists who claim the preposterous. :wtf: Noah's Ark? If you can believe that tale, you can believe anything. And that is not an achievement.

    I'll be over here in the camp where stuff works. Here we have an ever expanding understanding of natural phenomena. People are able to independently apply our knowledge to make predictions that not only converge but actually turn out right at a useful rate. We read old history books for enlightenment on how less civilized people lived. (And for pleasure too.)

    For the people who are questioning evolution: Evolution is a force of nature. If you take it away, you kill biology. All of it. Nothing in biology makes any sense until you understand how life develops. Then it's amazing.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What does it matter whether a student thinks the universe is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old? Will that affect his life in meaningful ways? Will it prevent her from understanding how science works? Will it prevent him from being a good researcher, should he choose to go that route?

    It matters because if a student wholeheartedly abandons the scientific method any time religion has something to say about the topic at hand, that will drastically hinder their ability to participate in any scientific discussions, research, or other endeavors.

    I think you'll find quite the opposite if you look at religious scientists throughout history. They search with more motivation because they want to learn how the Creator configured the universe.

    No. Full-stop, no. If you are ignoring a literal universe of evidence in order to justify what an ancient book says happened, you are not a scientist, religious or otherwise. A scientist does not ignore strong evidence that their hypothesis is incorrect.



  • @asdf said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    As for whether it's the most plausible, I suppose that depends on whether one is a theist or atheist.

    I'm a Catholic, so your argument is invalid.

    You missed the rest of what I said. Atheists cannot include young-earth creation as even among the possible explanations, whereas theists can (though many choose not to).

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    but a literal understanding of the Biblical narrative posits a young age for the universe

    First and foremost, taking every single word of the Bible literally is a ridiculous idea due to the many contradictions in the scripture, and the arbitrary selection process during the creation of our "standard" Bible; and also due to the fact that you're probably not reading it in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic.

    Secondly, the part we're talking about here, the description of the creation inside Genesis, contains a few obvious contradictions itself.

    What contradictions would those be?



  • @Kian said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    That's funny, because I could say almost exactly the same thing about "old-earthers". The only difference is that I don't usually try to ridicule them for their beliefs.
    As for whether it's the most plausible, I suppose that depends on whether one is a theist or atheist. Atheism requires something like the Big Bang and billions of years to try to explain the origins of the universe. Theism can include that narrative (and many do), but a literal understanding of the Biblical narrative posits a young age for the universe (or mixed age, as I noted earlier).

    You seem to be conflating science and atheism. And you are conceding the point when you say "Atheism requires something like the Big Bang and billions of years to try to explain the origins of the universe." You are admitting that, absent a need to date the world at 6000 years, evidence points to the world being about 4.5 billion years old and the universe some 14 billion years old.

    No, I'm not conceding anything. I'm pointing out that an atheistic worldview requires interpreting the data as supporting billions of years, because that's the only mechanism their worldview allows, but a theistic worldview can take the same data and interpret it within a 6,000-year timeframe.

    Scientists didn't come up with those number just to be contrarian. They made models to fit what evidence they had, refined them over time, and arrived at our current understanding of the world. Those models gave us all the technology we have today, so clearly even if they're not perfect, they must match reality closely enough for computers, gps devices, antibiotics, and other advanced technology to work. And in time we'll improve them further and create even more advanced technology.
    ...
    What advancements in science or technology has adhering to a young Earth view enabled? What discoveries were creationist scientists able to make thanks to being creationists, that were blocked off to scientists doing actual science? Take the way they distinguish between "kinds" and "species", how is that a meaningful distinction other than to allow them to fit evidence that can't be ignored any longer into their worldview?

    What advancements has a view of an old earth produced? When has a belief in billions of years affected what discoveries people have made? People can "science goodly" ( :P ) regardless of their ideas on the age of the earth.

    Creationism does "science" backwards. Science is a mechanism by which you make assumptions, try to disprove them, and build from what you learned. Creationism already "knows everything", and instead tries to fit new evidence to match what they already knew was the result they wanted. This is the critical flaw in it's "methodology". It can't create new knowledge, because new knowledge risks upsetting the status quo and the status quo is the only thing they care about.

    You're comparing apples and oranges. Creationists and evolutionists can both use science. Science is a tool that can be wielded by both. Creationism and evolutionism (or old-earth-ism) are both worldviews that color how adherents to both interpret the data that they find through science. Evolutionism also takes data and tries to fit it into its pre-existing framework.

    Conflating a model or an interpretation with the science used to fill that model or interpretation with data is a problem that is common to both evolutionists and CAGW's.



  • @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    No, I'm not conceding anything. I'm pointing out that an atheistic worldview requires interpreting the data as supporting billions of years, because that's the only mechanism their worldview allows, but a theistic worldview can take the same data and interpret it within a 6,000-

    You're once again putting the cart before the horse. Not surprising, given your gullibility.

    The atheistic worldview does not require anything. Unlike religion, atheism does not have commandments or You-Must-Believe-In-This-Stuff-Or-You're-Damned-To-Hell.

    If anything this thread shows your complete ignorance how other worldviews work. It also shows your complete inability to take a viewpoint other than your own.

    If the actual real-world data showed an age of 6,000 years then an atheist would have no problems with that.

    However, there's no such real-world data.



  • @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    an atheistic worldview requires interpreting the data as supporting billions of years, because that's the only mechanism their worldview allows

    Exactly, one where you only know what the evidence suggests. Where you do science without bias.

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What advancements has a view of an old earth produced? When has a belief in billions of years affected what discoveries people have made? People can "science goodly" ( ) regardless of their ideas on the age of the earth.

    Pretty much all of biology requires an old earth, since the idea that nearly all life comes from a common source is fundamental to our understanding of DNA, genes, and such. If you were to partition genetic analysis by "kinds", you'd limit what you can learn from one "kind" and apply to another.

    The geology required to extract oil from buried deposits also requires an old earth approach, since knowing where, how and why the deposits are where they are relies on modelling processes that are understood to have taken millions of years.

    Your gps device requires that general relativity work, which rules over our understanding of cosmology, which implies an universe that is billions of years old. If the universe isn't billions of years old, we'd need to patch general relativity significantly, but then your phone shouldn't be able to report your position accurately.

    I could keep going, but anyway, I expect your reply would be that "none of those require an old-earth", and that you can use that science while adhering to a young earth view. But that is the problem with Creationism. Creationism waits for non-Creationists to make advances, then tries to justify those advances within their framework. It is forever playing catch up. They don't produce new knowledge, they just try to classify what's already there and justify why it doesn't really disprove them.

    Evolutionism also takes data and tries to fit it into its pre-existing framework.

    No, here you betray a misunderstanding of how science works. Science does the opposite of trying to fit evidence into a framework. When done properly (scientists can also be hacks), you propose a model or hypothesis, determine what should happen if your model is wrong, and try to test that. If you fail to find evidence for your model being wrong, it adds to the support for it being right. If you uncover evidence indicating your model is wrong, you refine the model and try again, maybe even scrap it entirely. Some of our understanding of light, for example, came about from trying to determine the qualities of the "luminiferous ether", the proposed medium through which light ought to move through to display the qualities it has. No experiment ever managed to succeed in not disproving it though, so it was eventually discarded. That's the core of doing science.

    Creationism fails at doing science because the question "what evidence would prove me wrong?" is never asked, much less tested.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @asdf said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    I'm a Catholic, so your argument is invalid.

    HYPOCRITE!


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @sloosecannon said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @asdf said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    I'm a Catholic, so your argument is invalid.

    HYPOCRITE!

    Nah, I'm not gonna bite…



  • Have we gotten to the argument about how the craters on the moon were caused by the Earth's crust "falling" onto a magic layer of water between it and the mantle? I need to go prep my 'Divine Falcon Punch!' GIFs...




  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @MathNerdCNU said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    Have we gotten to the argument about how the craters on the moon were caused by the Earth's crust "falling" onto a magic layer of water between it and the mantle? I need to go prep my 'Divine Falcon Punch!' GIFs...

    Reading that caused a segmentation fault.
    Ow.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What does it matter whether a student thinks the universe is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old? Will that affect his life in meaningful ways? Will it prevent her from understanding how science works? Will it prevent him from being a good researcher, should he choose to go that route?

    It matters because if a student wholeheartedly abandons the scientific method any time religion has something to say about the topic at hand, that will drastically hinder their ability to participate in any scientific discussions, research, or other endeavors.

    I think you'll find quite the opposite if you look at religious scientists throughout history. They search with more motivation because they want to learn how the Creator configured the universe.

    So they go in to it with preconceived notions and fit the evidence to their dogma?

    Yes, that is exactly what we have been saying.



  • @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What does it matter whether a student thinks the universe is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old? Will that affect his life in meaningful ways? Will it prevent her from understanding how science works? Will it prevent him from being a good researcher, should he choose to go that route?

    It matters because if a student wholeheartedly abandons the scientific method any time religion has something to say about the topic at hand, that will drastically hinder their ability to participate in any scientific discussions, research, or other endeavors.

    I think you'll find quite the opposite if you look at religious scientists throughout history. They search with more motivation because they want to learn how the Creator configured the universe.

    So they go in to it with preconceived notions and fit the evidence to their dogma?

    Yes, that is exactly what we have been saying.

    The creator obviously used autoconf to configure the universe. That explains why none of the physical constants are nice numbers and why compiling the universe takes 13 billion years.



  • @ben_lubar said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    The creator obviously used autoconf to configure the universe. That explains why none of the physical constants are nice numbers and why compiling the universe takes 13 billion years.

    You should see the suckers that ended up in the windows port of the universe, though. Some guy cobbled together some stubs to make it compile, and now if too many things happen in close proximity, the whole thing crashes. Takes ages to come back online too after a reboot -since recently- with that Creators Update (re-)applying and failing.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    an atheistic worldview requires interpreting the data as supporting billions of years, because that's the only mechanism their worldview allows

    The worldview of looking at facts and trying to find a model to explain them requires billions of years. Is that because the only models that support all the known facts require billions of years?

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    a theistic worldview can take the same data and interpret it within a 6,000-year timeframe

    A worldview that doesn't require proof for its assertions can interpret data however it wants. This is not a plus point for your theist views


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What does it matter whether a student thinks the universe is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old? Will that affect his life in meaningful ways? Will it prevent her from understanding how science works? Will it prevent him from being a good researcher, should he choose to go that route?

    It matters because if a student wholeheartedly abandons the scientific method any time religion has something to say about the topic at hand, that will drastically hinder their ability to participate in any scientific discussions, research, or other endeavors.

    I think you'll find quite the opposite if you look at religious scientists throughout history. They search with more motivation because they want to learn how the Creator configured the universe.

    No. Full-stop, no. If you are ignoring a literal universe of evidence in order to justify what an ancient book says happened, you are not a scientist, religious or otherwise. A scientist does not ignore strong evidence that their hypothesis is incorrect.

    As @flabdablet might say if he were around: When @Fox and I are in violent agreement on an issue, you can probably take it as the stone cold truth.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What advancements has a view of an old earth produced? When has a belief in billions of years affected what discoveries people have made?

    Telescopes and the ability to see farther than 6,000 light years away.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @ben_lubar said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What does it matter whether a student thinks the universe is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old? Will that affect his life in meaningful ways? Will it prevent her from understanding how science works? Will it prevent him from being a good researcher, should he choose to go that route?

    It matters because if a student wholeheartedly abandons the scientific method any time religion has something to say about the topic at hand, that will drastically hinder their ability to participate in any scientific discussions, research, or other endeavors.

    I think you'll find quite the opposite if you look at religious scientists throughout history. They search with more motivation because they want to learn how the Creator configured the universe.

    So they go in to it with preconceived notions and fit the evidence to their dogma?

    Yes, that is exactly what we have been saying.

    The creator obviously used autoconf to configure the universe. That explains why none of the physical constants are nice numbers and why compiling the universe takes 13 billion years.

    Did he use Git? That would explain platypuses.



  • @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @ben_lubar said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What does it matter whether a student thinks the universe is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old? Will that affect his life in meaningful ways? Will it prevent her from understanding how science works? Will it prevent him from being a good researcher, should he choose to go that route?

    It matters because if a student wholeheartedly abandons the scientific method any time religion has something to say about the topic at hand, that will drastically hinder their ability to participate in any scientific discussions, research, or other endeavors.

    I think you'll find quite the opposite if you look at religious scientists throughout history. They search with more motivation because they want to learn how the Creator configured the universe.

    So they go in to it with preconceived notions and fit the evidence to their dogma?

    Yes, that is exactly what we have been saying.

    The creator obviously used autoconf to configure the universe. That explains why none of the physical constants are nice numbers and why compiling the universe takes 13 billion years.

    Did he use Git? That would explain platypuses.

    Are you saying platypuses are the merge conflicts of the animal kingdom?


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @ben_lubar said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @ben_lubar said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What does it matter whether a student thinks the universe is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old? Will that affect his life in meaningful ways? Will it prevent her from understanding how science works? Will it prevent him from being a good researcher, should he choose to go that route?

    It matters because if a student wholeheartedly abandons the scientific method any time religion has something to say about the topic at hand, that will drastically hinder their ability to participate in any scientific discussions, research, or other endeavors.

    I think you'll find quite the opposite if you look at religious scientists throughout history. They search with more motivation because they want to learn how the Creator configured the universe.

    So they go in to it with preconceived notions and fit the evidence to their dogma?

    Yes, that is exactly what we have been saying.

    The creator obviously used autoconf to configure the universe. That explains why none of the physical constants are nice numbers and why compiling the universe takes 13 billion years.

    Did he use Git? That would explain platypuses.

    Are you saying platypuses are the merge conflicts of the animal kingdom?

    Fuck it, it's Friday, deploy to production.



  • @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @ben_lubar said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @ben_lubar said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Polygeekery said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    What does it matter whether a student thinks the universe is 6 thousand or 6 billion years old? Will that affect his life in meaningful ways? Will it prevent her from understanding how science works? Will it prevent him from being a good researcher, should he choose to go that route?

    It matters because if a student wholeheartedly abandons the scientific method any time religion has something to say about the topic at hand, that will drastically hinder their ability to participate in any scientific discussions, research, or other endeavors.

    I think you'll find quite the opposite if you look at religious scientists throughout history. They search with more motivation because they want to learn how the Creator configured the universe.

    So they go in to it with preconceived notions and fit the evidence to their dogma?

    Yes, that is exactly what we have been saying.

    The creator obviously used autoconf to configure the universe. That explains why none of the physical constants are nice numbers and why compiling the universe takes 13 billion years.

    Did he use Git? That would explain platypuses.

    Are you saying platypuses are the merge conflicts of the animal kingdom?

    Fuck it, it's Friday, deploy to production.

    I've heard that it was a case of botched autocompletion.



  • @Rhywden said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    botched autocompletion.

    It was Accalia all along!



  • @Luhmann said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Rhywden said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    botched autocompletion.

    It was Accalia all along!

    So, @accalia , what do you have to say for yourself, Old Lady?


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Rhywden said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Luhmann said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Rhywden said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    botched autocompletion.

    It was Accalia all along!

    So, @accalia , what do you have to say for yourself, Old Lady?

    We'll clean it up on the next sprint, it works for now.


  • sockdevs

    @Rhywden said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Luhmann said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Rhywden said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    botched autocompletion.

    It was Accalia all along!

    So, @accalia , what do you have to say for yourself, Old Lady?

    Kyon? :confused:‍:fox:



  • @remi said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    So whether scientific models are "the final truth" is something that science doesn't really care about and believing that there is a God behind all that is not contrary to science.

    I would say that it does care about whether a model is the final truth, in that it should always be assumed that the model can and should be improved, and that we should be on the lookout for opportunities to do so.

    That's not really disagreeing what you were saying, of course, but I think it's worth making that elaboration.



  • @RaceProUK said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @ben_lubar said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @RaceProUK said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    Which, let's be honest, is vague enough to disregard it as proof π == 3.

    I think it's quite clear that the person who wrote that passage thought pi equals three. Not that that has any bearing on the actual value of pi, but still.

    And let's not forget that the original passage was written before the invention of the decimal point and the discovery of irrational and transcendental numbers.

    Not to mention the letter pi!



  • @Fox said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    @Benjamin-Hall said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    the truly wacky (but harmless).

    False. They are attempting to spread their insanity and thereby undermine reason in general.

    So sayeth the pot!



  • @remi said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    I'm not going to say "your point of view is valid but...", I'm going to say "you are wrong and (hopefully!) I can prove it".

    But you said ridicule, which would be more like:

    "You are an idiot and I can prove it!"

    I think you are smart enough to know how well that is going to work out.



  • @djls45 said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    One problem with this interpretation of the Biblical narrative is that it puts the creation of the sun, moon, and stars after the creation of plant life.

    So you're saying God can create the sun and moon after plant life, but he can't sustain plant life for years without a sun and moon?

    To me the most likely case is that either the bible is ambiguous about creation, or our ability to date things is inaccurate after a certain point.

    I mean, Genesis is God trying to explain to uneducated slaves what happened a few 1000 years ago in a way they'll accept. In Job, God doesn't even bother and basically says, "Where were you when I did a bunch of stuff?" Stuff which is all metaphorical about creation, unless you know where the Earth's foundation is?

    To suggest that we know exactly how things started, whether we use observable data, or an account from Genesis, is silly to me.



  • Why would Genesis be more likely to be true than Hesiod's Theogony?



  • @owatson said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    Why would Genesis be more likely to be true than Hesiod's Theogony?

    Why would anything be more likely to be true?

    This very moment I could be an AI that just booted up in a virtual reality with even my memories of the start of the sentence being implanted.

    If we're even one artificial reality removed from the reality mentioned in any book, then any of it is possibly true.

    Philosophies, even religions, have their own context, and it's not worth mixing them.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @xaade said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    This very moment I could be an AI that just booted up in a virtual reality with even my memories of the start of the sentence being implanted.

    That explains so much about every @xaade-post, including the rest of that one


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @xaade said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    This very moment I could be an AI that just booted up in a virtual reality with even my memories of the start of the sentence being implanted.

    That's the essence of Last Thursdayism. We choose to believe that the world is not just some elaborate charade, that it can be studied and meaningfully learned from, and that our lives can have the meanings that we create ourselves. We don't know that these choices are true, but the opposite leads to a profound nihilism that I really do wish to reject; I want the world to exist other than for purely my benefit, I want the world to be reasonably predictable, and I want freedom of action (subject to the ensuing consequences).

    Those are (some of) my axioms, and I think they're reasonable ones. You might have others.



  • @dkf said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    leads to a profound nihilism

    Well, yeah.

    @dkf said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    We choose to believe that the world is not just some elaborate charade,

    It would completely confuse our survival instinct for starters. We NEED the world to be consistent, whether it is or isn't.

    Besides, the point is that we CAN'T know. We can only use the information we have and make the best educated guess, assuming that everything we observed is part of a consistent universe that isn't purposefully playing tricks on us.



  • @Rhywden said in Let's not debate creationism in the News thread:

    I've heard that it was a case of botched autocompletion.

    No no no no. It was a classic case of communication error. Everyone did legs and no-one did wings, the the person doing the bill was working to a different scale than the people responsible for the body. it was supposed to be a duck.



Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.