h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

FAITH. I would say that faith does not require a COMPLETE absence of evidence; it does, however, require an INSUFFICIENCY of evidence for the belief in question. A "qualified" faith may be rational if there is no competing explanation for which there IS a sufficiency of evidence, AND there is no evidence that is clearly contrary to the belief.

OCCAM'S RAZOR. In an explanation one should not postulate the existence of any entities that are not required for the explanation.

The whole of Insight's option 2 requires the postulation of no entities other than the Laws of Physics. Option 1 requires the postulation of an additional entity (God). The question is whether this postulation adds anything to the explanation. In this case whether this postulation EXPLAINS the laws of physics. The answer is clearly no. Explanation requires reference to a rule; the CONTENT of all such rules has an empirical basis. No one has ever observed God creating the universe. So no rule; so no explanation.

Noggin

Thanks Noggin - a very concise answer. Now for the verbose one...

"A "god" is an incredibly complex, poor and most importantly USELESS description of the reason for anything.>

Why do you say this? Practically every person in the world, from the very young to the very old, whether educated or not, understands the concept of God. So why do you say it is incredibly complex?"

I say it is incredibly complex, because it is. If I say a stone falls to the ground because of gravity, that force can be explained and quantified using a relatively few simple equations and models. If I say a stone falls to the ground because "god makes it fall", that begs all sorts of questions like "why?", "does it always work?", and most importantly "but where did HE come from?".

If you think that things like "evolution" are complex, and "god" is simple, I'm afraid you don't seem to understand what the words "complex" and "simple" actually mean. Ask someone to help you.

"which... requires the least assumptions?

1: There is an intelligent omnipotent being

2: the universe ... happened to have the correct universal laws and constants to allow stable atoms to form. "

The latter. Option 1 MASSIVE assumptions. Option 2 requires that you assume reality is as we see it. Which hardly even counts as an assumption at all, more of an "observation".

"Earth, was extra special."

The only reason you think Earth is extra special is your ignorance of other identical examples. The reason for your ignorance of other identical examples is nothing to do with their absence and everything to do with our inability to see very far.

Six hundred years after Copernicus shattered this whole "the Earth is special" myth, what *IS* it with some people that they STILL haven't understood the fundamental lesson? WE ARE NOT SPECIAL. WE ARE NOT THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE. Everything we know about everything we know about suggests that we are nothing particularly unusual or unexpected. Rare, perhaps. But the chances of us being unique, even in this small galaxy, let alone the universe, are so small as to not be worth talking about.

"Whereas all the other planets had quite elliptical orbits, Earths was pretty much circular"

Lazy, ignorant boy. Did you even BOTHER to check the orbital eccentricity of the nearest planet to Earth? Obviously not. Because if you had, you would have discovered that our orbital eccentricity is 0.0167, and that that of Venus is a mere 0.0067. Our orbit is 40% more elliptical than Venus's. Statement of utter falsehoods as fact is a common tactic of stupid people and Christians. (tautology alert...)

I'm going to skip over your verbose "explanation" of the start of life, because if you're too stupid to check an easily discoverable single number like orbital eccentricity, there doesn't seem much point debating evolutionary theory with you in detail. Suffice to say you're LAUGHABLY wrong in almost every way it's possible to be, and that you are desperately in need of education by someone who hasn't got a religious axe to grind. Buy some textbooks and read them, please.

"there was no need for survival of the fittest"

You very, very obviously have no idea what this phrase means. Please don't bandy about terms you manifestly don't understand, unless it's to ask what they mean.

"We can then suppose that life forms gradually evolved, even though in some cases it cannot be imagined how"

Not by you. But then your imagination is clearly so limited it didn't even extend to thinking "if I mention the circularity of the earth's orbit, I wonder if this person will check up on those facts and make me look like an utter idiot who has no idea what I'm talking about?".

This is something a lot of Christians obviously have real trouble with. Just because you people don't understand how it could have happened, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

You posed a two option question above. Here's one for you. The universe is a complicated place. There is a mountain of very clear evidence that something happened, and your brain can't work out *how* it could have happened. Now, which is more likely?

(1) despite the mountain of evidence, it didn't happen.
(2) it happened, and you're too stupid to understand it.

Based on your postings so far, I know where the smart money would be...

"God is quite a lot simpler than the alternative theories of how we got here."

Your definition of "simple" seems to be "something you understand". This is not the definition most people use, and it's not technically accurate, either. If you don't understand WHY a god is a complex explanation please ask someone to explain it to you in small words, because frankly I can't be bothered.

"Since 'poor' isn't a very specific term, I can't argue with it"

It's a poor explanation because it doesn't explain anything. This reminds me of the exasperated cry of the parent who abandons logic when speaking to a child and screams "BECAUSE I SAID SO!". That's not a reason.

And "Because that's how God made it" is NOT an explanation. It's an excuse for not knowing the right answer, and a crap excuse it is too.

There. That's what I meant by "poor". So argue with that.

"it's difficult to see how you can call it useless."

It's useless as an explanation because it makes no predictions. Theories like relativity, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, etc. make USEFUL predictions about the world. They're useful because you can depend on them to come true, on time, every time. "God made it that way" is useless as an explanation, because it doesn't GET you anywhere. I accept it's a good psychological crutch for people who feel themselves inadequate to cope with their relatively insignificant place in the universe, and have a need to delude themselves that in the teeth of the evidence they are in some way special. In that sense, "god" is useful, in much the same way that alcohol and marijuana are useful. They're all sops for people who can't deal with reality as it is. But as an EXPLANATION of anything - it's useless.

"The Hebrew word usually translated 'day' doesn't mean quite the same thing as the English word 'day'."

So translate it as something else then. *I* am not the one here trying to take the Bible literally. If you want to tell me what, exactly, each word in the Bible means, feel free. When trying to discuss the Bible, I'm limited to discussing the English translations available to me. Every single translation I've ever read uses the word "day". If that's not an exact translation, isn't it surprising that not one of the translators EVER used another word or phrase? It would have been very easy, but not one of them did. Odd, that.

In summary:
- look up "simple" and "complex" and get someone cleverer than you (should be easy to find one) to explain what they mean
- learn a little basic history of astronomy, with particular reference to Copernicus
- never try to debate orbital mechanics from a position of utter ignorance
- do a GCSE in biology (if necessary, do it again, this time at a non-church school) and this time, PAY ATTENTION

H.

Sorry Insight, but as a biologist I have to support the criticism you have recieved from Hoovooloo. It seems you have just pulled a few words out of a well-jumbled hat. Suffice to say that it appears you have got your "science" from the Institute of Creation Research.

You have demonstrated your ignorance of contemparary science, I would sincerely suggest moving past this and debate on a different level.

Ste

An analogy:

A man wearing a sleeveless shirt shows you very clearly that his hands are empty.

He picks up a little silk hanky off the table.

He makes a fist, and pushes the hanky into his clenched fist.

He opens his hands.

The hanky is gone.

I've done exactly that, many times, for many people, almost invariably right in front of them, within a couple of metres. It works a treat.

Now, there are two explanations for the above occurrence.

Explanation 1 is: I've performed a miracle. I made a material object vanish into thin air using bare hands and in full view of a crowd of spectators.

Is this a "simple" explanation? Well, by "Insight"'s definition, yes, it is. After all, we all know what a miracle is. Therefore, it's "simply" a miracle.

Of course, it's not simple at all. Material objects cannot just disappear, without violating the laws physics. If something violates the laws of physics, then something is seriously wrong with those laws - despite hundreds of years of observations of things conforming to them, in this man's hands they suddenly seem not to operate all the time. So, in fact, although ON THE SURFACE, to a naive, uneducated observer the "simple" explanation is that the hanky vanished, the ramifications of that explanation are incredibly complex and far reaching.

The less naive observer seeks another explanation. Although they may not know precisely what it is, or how it works, most normal people today when they see me do that effect say something along the lines of "wow! How did you do that?"

The clear implication being that they KNOW that I've just done a TRICK. They instinctively understand that although the *effect* was simple (a hanky just disappeared), there was something more complicated going on that they didn't see. But they usually also understand that, although what was concealed from them was more complex that what they thought they saw, it was still, in essence, simple - it's *just* a trick. It *might* be a complicated trick to perform, requiring hours of practice or expensive, custom made equipment, but underneath all that - it's just a trick, which violates no laws of physics at all. It is, at root, SIMPLE.

(not sure why I'm bothering typing all this as I don't think for one moment "Insight" is going to understand it, but one can but try...)

So, to bring the analogy back:

You have two explanations for the Creation: God, and science.

The god explanation is attractive to the naive and uneducated because it's simple on the surface - the hanky just *disappeared*. You just accept the effect without question, if you're the type who accepts things without question. But it doesn't satisfy those of us who choose to think.

The science explanation is less attractive than the god explanation, because it requires real knowledge. It also might turn out to be horrendously complicated in the middle (i.e. the learning of the trick or the manufacture of the equipment/the learning of the science and the testing of the theories), but in the end it allows you to see the underlying simplicity - the finger pushes a catch *here*, and the hanky disappears, and that's all there really is to it/ E=mc^2.

I hope you see, "Insight" (that name really *is* ironic), but I doubt you do.

H.

If the information I had about eccentricity of orbits was wrong, I'm sorry - perhaps my information was referring to average orbits of planets in general, rather than in our solar system.


Surely it makes no difference to the complexity or usefulness to say that someone must have determined the law of gravity. The laws of physics are finely tuned to each other to make things such as atoms possible - does not therefore makes sense for them to be designed?, especially seeing as I have heard of no theory that would explain how physical laws could evolve over time.

<(1) despite the mountain of evidence, it didn't happen.
(2) it happened, and you're too stupid to understand it.>

People keep insisting that there is a mountain of evidence, but I am yet to be shown any of it - public scientists seem to assure us of their views correctness simply by stating that the evidence does exist. The similarity of two life forms, with no records of an in-between stage, does not constitute proof that one gradually turned into the other.

And surely if evolution was simple, scientists would not still be debating how it happened.


A large assumption perhaps, but only one, and one with no contrary evidence. Option 2, in general, requires the assumption that large, organised and self-sustaining systems come about with noone to design them. And the spontaneous arising of life, even in a single celled form, can hardly be said to be reality as we see it.



1.Perhaps you could explain, Hoovooloo : If you are so clever, then why is it that every single time you reply to someone who disagrees with you, you must resort to name-calling?
3.Having some incorrect data at your disposal does not constitute a position of utter ignorance. Considering that I have recently passed, with full A's, my A Levels in Physics, Maths, and Further Maths, and that by describing me as ignorant, you are also classing as ignorant everyone who did any worse than me, perhaps you should reconsider your definition of ignorance.
4.I have never been to a church-school, but got my double-A* in GCSE Science.

Heres a scientific question (which I accept there may be an answer to, as I have only just started thinking about it):
The scientific method consists of finding a theory, making predictions from it, and seeing which fits the facts.
It seems to be that the creation theory would suggest a DNA model that made mutations rare, whereas evolution would find DNA to better, more adaptive, if mutations happened more often. Now I remember reading in a book back at high school that our DNA, out of the possible different compounds that could have existed (about 40,000 of them, though I don't know how these different possibilities were theorised) is the best suited to prevent mutation.

It is, primarily, from a scientific standpoint that I reject evolution, because of all the reasoning and incredible probabilities against it. At the moment I consider evolution to be impossible. If you can answer this question, I can consider evolution to be possible (on the basis that anything physical has some possibility, according to quantum theory), albeit improbable:

If we evolved, then how are we conscious, and why?
It seems to bestow no natural advantage on a life form for it to be conscious, rather than merely being an intelligent robot, fundamentally unaware of it's own existence. Our brains our merely quarks and leptons undergoing electrochemical reactions. Such things do not exhibit consciousness of their own accord, any more than a microchip is conscious, or even than a battery is conscious.
A robot arm can take an instruction, pick something up, and inform you of it's success, without actually knowing that it has done any of it. It is simply a physical construction, just like a house. There is no reason that we could not have achieved anything we have done if we were not conscious. There is no physical explanation, either experimental or theoretical, of how we are conscious.
And yet, I know beyond all doubt that I am conscious (although I have no proof that anyone else is!). I cannot explain that fact other than as the act of a god who created me, as more than merely a physical being, and wanted me to enjoy life.
Can you?

If I may address some of these points H...,

"The laws of physics are finely tuned to each other to make things such as atoms possible - does not therefore makes sense for them to be designed?"

How do you know that they were fine-tuned? Where is this evidence? The "Anthropic principle"? Don't make me laugh, everything is 20:20 in hindsight. The Anthropic Principle neatly addresses the gaps in scientific knowledge (as does intelligent design, a coincidence??). You are arguing from a position of ignorance. How do you know that ANY constants in the universe are fine-tunable, or could have had different outcomes? How do you know that the universe exploded with the perfect amount of velocity for galaxies to form? You don't. How do you know that if they could be different values to the cosmological constants that life/galaxies/stars would not have come to be? You don't. No-one does.

What the AP basically states, when it comes down to it, is that stuff exists. It makes up the rest out of thin air!

We are only able to ask such questions because we exist in a form to be able to do so, i.e., that the constants exist that enable the universe to be in it's current form. If the constants were different there might be noone around to ask these questions! Knowing this, what else do you expect to observe? Talk about stating the obvious.

The greatest value that the AP has is that you cannot disprove it because of its intrinsic nature. It is a clever trick. It deals with stuff outside of current scientific knowledge, *THEN* has the audacity to engage science with these amazing revelations! The AP is simply a trivial and amusing side-show, but ultimately useless and logically flawed.

If you cannot see any evidence of evolution then I'm afraid you are blinding yourself. I have given people evidence of evolution on this website too many times. Use google, sift through the creationist crap and it's all there for everyone to see. Why do creationists insist that there is some sort of scientific conspiracy that is hiding proof of evolution? Do you know how many scientific journals deal with this aspect of biology alone? Niether do I specifically, but it's a lot.

"The similarity of two life forms, with no records of an in-between stage, does not constitute proof that one gradually turned into the other."

So if two life forms were similar morphologically, anatomically, physiologically and genetically could we say that the similarities happened by chance? Yes, I think that could be the case. But what about when both of these life forms is similar with the same criteria to two other life forms? And those four similar to another four and so on? What then? Can a branching (evolutionary) tree of relatedness independantly verified with anatomical, genetic, DNA sequence information which includes millions upon millions of organisms happen by chance?

It has been recognised for many decades that there is no gradual change from species to species. Another creationist cliche: arguing with a 150 year-old book as if the theory hasn't been updated since. Have you heard about "punctuated equilibrium", an idea which arose exactly *because* there are no gradual differences between species. I could go on about species defintions a ton but a wrote an Edited Guide entry on it, so I can't be bothered (@ A750953).

"And surely if evolution was simple, scientists would not still be debating how it happened."

Perhaps before deciding that evolution *cannot possibly* happen you should aim to understand it first. Evolution exhibits fractal-like behaviour; simple laws (natural selection, gene flow, mutations, etc.) iterated (inherited) give rise to infinite, branching complexity. Scientists debate because they all have different ideas, and new stuff regarding evolution is being discovered and experimented upon all the time. It's called *Science*.

"The scientific method consists of finding a theory, making predictions from it, and seeing which fits the facts."

Nope.

DNA *competed* with and *evolved from* other self-replicating molecules (like RNA for example). DNA is massively stable and has astounding fidelity when replicating. But still errors (mutations) occur all the time (miscopying, mechanical damage, ionising radiation, allsorts), if it were too stable then there would be no raw material for natural selection, if it was too unstable then it would be useless as an information-carrying molecule. A happy medium was reached by *natural selection* of the best replicator? Simple.

"It is, primarily, from a scientific standpoint that I reject evolution..."

And it's just a pure coincidence that you believe that God created the universe in six days? How can you reject it on those grounds when you have clearly demonstrated that you do not understand the scientific standpoint? You are arguing from the position of "personal incredulity", as Dawkins puts it.

"If we evolved, then how are we conscious, and why?"

Well, to start off with we don't really know what consciousness is. But (happliy ignoring this inconvenience) human brains have evolved to communicate ideas. That is the primary difference between us and other mammals. One interesting theory argues that these ideas, or "memes" are just using us as vehicles much as genes us an individual as a vehicle to be passed on. Consciousness can be seen as a trick used by memes (not consciously of course, but an evolved trick) to get themselves spread about more effectively. There are other theories, but I am not specialised enough in them to decide whether this or any other theories on consciousness are correct.

Ste

Preventing mutation: Because of the astronomically large number of DNA bases in a genome even a very small ratio of mutations gives evolution a large enough total number of mutations to work with. If the number of mutations was too high there would be no stable genetic lineages at all. At worst life would die out altogether. (Hoovooloo can probably give you the numbers, but the principle is a simple example of how humans misjudge the effects of indefinitely large numbers.)

How are we conscious: Consciousness is, as far as anyone knows, always associated with functioning brains. (And vice versa.) Even if we don't know how consciousness arises this fact alone is criterial for consciousness being a natural phenomenon. Why don't we know how it arises? This at least is no mystery. It's because we can't OBSERVE what's going on. Check out Alan Turing and the Halting Problem for the logical basis. What use is it? Objectively, as opposed to subjectively, we don't know. If it's a natural phenomenon it may come as a side effect of certain brain activities that do have survival value. Certainly far more goes on unconsciously than most people realise. To say that there is consciousness in the universe because a conscious being put it there is to beg the question.

Physical laws evolving: They don't. They underwent phase transitions as the energy density of the universe declined with expansion (during the first second after the big bang).

Noggin

"If the information I had about eccentricity of orbits was wrong, I'm sorry"

What do you mean, "if"? Have you still not bothered to check? You flaunt your qualifications in science, yet you seem to be unable or for some reason unwilling to make the most basic checks on very widely available data. Speaks volumes about the quality of students they're giving top grades to, to me...

" - perhaps my information was referring to average orbits of planets in general, rather than in our solar system."

From the sublime to the ridiculous. If you can provide even *one* example of a figure for orbital eccentricity for an extra-solar planet which pretends to any degree of accuracy I shall be astounded. Aren't you even conscious of how stupid that concept sounds? Average orbits of planets in general??? Do you have ANY idea of the detection techniques being employed to detect such planets? Are you aware of the distances involved? Or the limitations of the information available? Are you, for instance, aware that no extra-solar planet with a mass much less than that of Saturn has been discovered?

"Surely it makes no difference to the complexity or usefulness to say that someone must have determined the law of gravity."

No difference at all. Your point? So someone discovered the laws. The laws were there all along. They were not invented. This is simplicity.

"The laws of physics are finely tuned to each other to make things such as atoms possible - does not therefore makes sense for them to be designed?"

Absolutely not. The opposite in fact. You should EXPECT to see physical laws apparently "finely tuned" to allow your existence - because if they were any other way, you wouldn't be here to see them. Look up "anthropic principle".

"especially seeing as I have heard of no theory that would explain how physical laws could evolve over time."

You really don't understand what the word "evolve" means, do you? It doesn't just mean "change", you know.

Physical laws may, it seems, be able to change over time. There is a theory being bandied about that the speed of light was once much higher than it is now. At present it's just one solution to a bunch of difficult equations, but it *might* be right. So the "constant" c may not be as constant as we thought.

But they don't evolve. There's no environment to shape them, no other physical laws in competition with them, and physical laws don't reproduce. I have come to expect this kind of sloppy use of language from religious people with a rudimentary knowledge of science. Thanks for meeting my expectations, again.

"People keep insisting that there is a mountain of evidence, but I am yet to be shown any of it"

Insight - the mountain of evidence is out there. Go into any branch of Waterstones and pick up a book by Richard Dawkins. Go to the Natural History museum. Talk to a molecular biologist. If you have not seen this evidence, it's because you've been assiduously avoiding it, or ignoring it. I can understand why someone like you would do that - it conflicts with your faith. But then again, so does the fact that the earth is a sphere. You've managed, I assume, to reconcile that with your beliefs. (I hope so...).

If you are honestly complaining that you haven't been shown the evidence, give me a clue what sort of evidence would convince you. Serious question - what would it take to convince you evolution happens (note the use of the present tense - it's going on RIGHT NOW)? Answer that, and I'll show you the evidence, or find someone who can.

" - public scientists seem to assure us of their views correctness simply by stating that the evidence does exist."

No, they don't. They publish their methods and results in publicly available peer-reviewed journals. You can read them if you like. If you become sufficiently qualified, you can personally question their methods and challenge their results. They absolutely DO NOT "simply state the evidence exists" and it is a gross distortion of the truth to claim they do. (Again, gross distortions of the truth are what I've come to expect from religious types, and once again, you don't disappoint. Well done.)

"The similarity of two life forms, with no records of an in-between stage, does not constitute proof that one gradually turned into the other."

True. But we've been through this, over and over and over again. Creationists complain the fossil record isn't complete, like that's some kind of "loophole". It isn't. Do some microbiology. Lifecycles are much, much quicker on that scale, to the point where you can SEE evolution happening.

Also, what about the example of the horse?

I could show you a fossil of Eohippus (now called Hyracotherium), from 58 million years ago. It's about the size of a large cat and has lots of toes, and is adapted to the soft earth of the North American jungle.

If I said "that evolved into a horse", you'd be right to say "how do you know?". I could point to the many skeletal similarites. But, unfortunately for your "there are no transitional species" argument, I could also point to Mesohippus - a slightly larger creature than Eohippus from 36 million years ago, and quite clearly related, but closer to a horse in that its middle toe is larger and the other toes are smaller. And then Merychippus, of 25 million years ago, larger still, and with a more developed hoof. And Pliohippus, again quite clearly related to the others, but from only 13 million years ago, and larger still (pony sized), with an almost completely developed hoof. There's a clear progression from the four toed jungle dweller of 58 million years ago, through AT LEAST three distinct transitional species, before you reach the hoofed plains dweller of 1 million years ago - the modern horse. I ask again - how much evidence do you need?

"And surely if evolution was simple, scientists would not still be debating how it happened."

Oh dear, confusing principle with practice again. The PRINCIPLE is simple. The application of that principle, and precisely how it manifested itself, is open to debate. But note your own wording - "debating how it happened". No scientist worth the name is debating WHETHER it happened - and it seems you know that too.

"A large assumption perhaps, but only one, and one with no contrary evidence."

Only one. The point being that if you're prepared to make that assumption, all bets are off. You've thrown the rule book away. It's like saying "there's only one rule, and that's that there are no rules". It's pointless.

"Option 2, in general, requires the assumption that large, organised and self-sustaining systems come about with noone to design them."

It does not require that assumption at all. What it DOES do is confirm the observation. Nobody "designs" an ant colony, or a beehive. Yet these are large, organised, self-sustaining systems. Examples abound of undesigned systems like this. This is, as I said, not an assumption. It's an observation.

"And the spontaneous arising of life, even in a single celled form, can hardly be said to be reality as we see it."

Meaning you've never seen it. Once again, you're saying that because you, personally, don't understand how something could happen, then it can't have happened. This implies that you think you are a god, you know...

"1.Perhaps you could explain, Hoovooloo : If you are so clever, then why is it that every single time you reply to someone who disagrees with you, you must resort to name-calling?"

Interesting point. I suggest you check out this thread:

F55607?thread=192835&skip=150

Also Posts 162 and 166 et al.

I've disagreed there quite strongly with a Druid who calls himself "Matholwch". He is educated, intelligent, and thoughtful. He does not reject the evidence of reality, merely my interpretation of it. He doesn't back away from evidence, he embraces it and interprets it differently from me. We disagree, but we do so with mutual respect (after an initial rather frank exchange of views). I've also regularly disagreed with Jordan, who I think you know, but who seems well able to hold his own in a debate.

You, on the other hand, in just your last couple of posts, have presented as fact a complete falsehood which was easily checked (orbital eccentricity), made a ludicrous statement as though it was sensible to try to defend your ignorance (orbital eccentricities of extra-solar planets may have been included in your source figure), stated an outright lie about the way the scientific community works (saying they simply say the evidence is there, when in reality they are strictly monitored by their competition, other scientists, in whose interests it would be to find fault if it is there) and postulated unnecessary complexities in the universe to suit your beliefs. It is possible to be religious and still be able to maintain some semblence of grip on reality - Jordan and Matholwch show it possible. You, on the other hand, close your eyes firmly, stick your fingers in your ears, sing "lalalala", and are now apparently complaining that I find it necessary to call names to grab your attention.

Here's a thing - at least part of the reason is frustration, and a feeling of impotence. You tell me you got great exam results - wonderful. I'm happy for you, I really, honestly am. What depresses me more than I can say is to think that you will take what is most probably quite a good brain, and waste it. All my shouting and blustering at you is an attempt to get you to WAKE UP and LOOK at the world. The fact that you can, above, say that you can't see the evidence for evolution, is in itself evidence enough that you're blinkered more than I would have hoped was possible in a modern nation like the UK. Possibly I'm just hopelessly idealistic, but I kid myself that a person reaching your age MUST, surely, with our public museums, education system, television service and libraries, have been exposed to enough information about the world to understand certain things. Of course, I'm projecting. I *went* to museums, I listened at school, I watched television (documentaries) and I read books voraciously. It just VEXES me, to the point of venting, that someone with your mental resources can be applying them to the dead end that is Creationism.

It vexes me even more that you don't even seem to be very good at defending it. I've heard a lot about "Creation Science", and I've asked several Creationists here what it is. I've heard nothing other than badly phrased, ill-informed and just plain wrong attacks on evolutionary theory. I've certainly heard no evidence FOR Creation. Got any?

"3.Having some incorrect data at your disposal does not constitute a position of utter ignorance. Considering that I have recently passed, with full A's, my A Levels in Physics, Maths, and Further Maths, and that by describing me as ignorant, you are also classing as ignorant everyone who did any worse than me, perhaps you should reconsider your definition of ignorance."

'ignorance (n.) - lack of knowledge, information or education; the state of being ignorant'. Not my definition - the dictionary's. You lacked the knowledge of of orbital mechanics. You were, further, lacking this knowledge despite the fact that you were provably sitting in front of a machine which could have provided you with that information in less than sixty seconds, had you bothered to check. You were therefore, indefensibly, utterly ignorant. You have further demonstrated your ignorance by apparently not even knowing what "ignorant" means. Well done.

"4.I have never been to a church-school, but got my double-A* in GCSE Science."

Good for you. Does *anyone* fail GCSEs any more?

"The scientific method consists of finding a theory, making predictions from it, and seeing which fits the facts."

Wrong AGAIN. You really aren't any good at this at all are you? Typically, you've missed out the first and most important part. It's called OBSERVING REALITY. The *first* thing you do is look at the evidence. Only then can you theorise. The stereotypical examples of this are Newton's apple, Galileo dropping balls off the Tower of Pisa and Archimedes lying down in his bath.

Theorising in the absence of observational evidence is PRECISELY what I would expect from a Christian. Do you even realise that this the fundamental mistake you are making in your entire LIFE?

"It seems to be that the creation theory would suggest a DNA model that made mutations rare"

Try "non-existent". Or "impossible". They're more accurate, just in case you're at all concerned with getting your facts straight all of a sudden.

"whereas evolution would find DNA to better, more adaptive, if mutations happened more often."

This doesn't seem to make any grammatical sense. Despite that, I *think* I know more or less what you mean.

"Now I remember reading in a book back at high school that our DNA, out of the possible different compounds that could have existed (about 40,000 of them, though I don't know how these different possibilities were theorised) is the best suited to prevent mutation."

Yes. And your point is? If the Creation story is true, mutations should be impossible - end of story. If your position is that the earth is 6000 or so years old and that the earth's species are as they were created, then you can allow no mutations whatsoever. Short-lifespan creatures can mutate in response to environmental pressures in a matter of decades, so if the Creation story is to stand up, there must be NO examples of ANY mutation whatsoever.

On the other hand, evolution would favour lifeforms with a genome which is generally very resistant to mutation (because severe mutation is almost invariably bad) but does allow minor mutations to occur in response to environmental pressures.

And what do we observe? A genome which, while it is strongly resistant to mutation, but which can mutate slightly from generation to generation without causing catastrophic disorders in development.

"It is, primarily, from a scientific standpoint that I reject evolution, because of all the reasoning and incredible probabilities against it."

You really need someone who understands probabilities to sit you down and explain them to you, because you obviously just don't get it. This is nothing to be ashamed of, as humans just don't GET probabilities - it's not something we understand at a gut level. If we did, nobody would ever bet on a horse, play roulette or buy a lottery ticket.

My own analogy is the lottery. The odds of winning the lottery are huge - almost 14 million to one. Do you buy a ticket? Probably not - it's against your religion. The point being, if you did, your chances of winning would be TINY. But someone wins almost every week - because so very many tickets are bought, it's almost inevitable that someone will win, somewhere. It's just not likely to be you.

Now imagine the lottery of life. You've got the primordial soup, and in it the ingredients for life to begin - simple chemicals, formed by well understood mechanisms. But the chances against it happening are phenomenally slim. They make the lottery look like a dead cert. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that at any given second, the odds against a self-replicating molecule forming in any given cubic metre of primordial soup are a trillion to one. Huge odds. Ridiculous odds. It's so unlikely to happen it's hardly worth even considering.

But here's the thing. There's not just one cubic metre of sea water. And there's not just one second for it to happen in. There are billions of cubic metres of sea water (even at the surface, where it probably occurred), and there are TRILLIONS of seconds for it to happen in. Suddenly it stops being incredibly unlikely, and starts looking more like a dead cert.

And here's the other, almost as important thing - in the whole history of the planet, it only has to happen ONCE. ONE single event, one single formation of a self-replication molecule, and you're away. Because by definition, that molecule will copy itself, and again, and again and again. The only way you could stop it is if you dropped a meteorite right on that particular square metre of ocean in that particular hour. And the odds against that really ARE so slim as to not be worth talking about.

If you UNDERSTAND probability (which you clearly don't) the question is not "how could life form when it's so unlikely?", and more like "how many times did it happen?". Because there's no reason at all to suppose that other self-replicators didn't arise. It's just that DNA, with its peculiar combination of general resistance mutation, while still allowing for slight mutations to be propogated, demonstrably out-competed everything else.

"At the moment I consider evolution to be impossible."

Then you require further education. Ignorance is forgivable. Deliberate, wilful ignorance is not. Are you seeking the evidence for evolution? Or avoiding it? Because you seem to be avoiding it.

"If you can answer this question, I can consider evolution to be possible (on the basis that anything physical has some possibility, according to quantum theory), albeit improbable:"

See above for my opinion of your grasp of the laws of probability and their application to the real world...

"If we evolved, then how are we conscious, and why?"

Excellent question. I'm impressed, because this really is a good one. There IS a good answer, and I wish I could refer you to the Guide Entry I've been planning on writing about it for about three months. However, I haven't started it yet. So, I shall refer you to a book, since the explanation is long and complicated. If you can't be bothered reading the book (and let's face it, if you can't be bothered to check the figures for orbital eccentricity when you could do it for nothing in less than a minute, what are the odds you're going to bother to read a BOOK? Oh, never mind, you don't understand odds...) I'll try to summarise it poorly in my next post. But you really should read "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", by Julian Jaynes. Buy it. Read it carefully. It will answer your question more fully than I can hope to. It will explain the advantages of consciousness.

"Such things do not exhibit consciousness of their own accord, any more than a microchip is conscious"

How would you test a microchip for consciousness? Come to that, how would you test ME for consciousness? This is a serious question. How do you know you are not conversing with a complex computer program on a microchip? (and don't bother saying "because there aren't any that could do that" because YOU don't know that).

(interestingly, for a while earlier this summer, I was quite happy to believe that one of the users of this site was in fact a computer program - mainly because he seemed incapable of what I would characterise as conscious thought and his responses seemed quite rigid, predictable and devoid of reasoning or empathy - and also partly because someone turned up and claimed to be his programmer: U197974. Oddly enough, the guy whose consciousness was being impugned was devoutly religious...)

"There is no reason that we could not have achieved anything we have done if we were not conscious."

Once again... wrong. Without consciousness, you have no introspection. Without introspection, you have no despair, or self-doubt, or ambition. You have no love, as we understand it. You have no suicide, as we commonly experience it. Animals do not kill themselves because they've lost their job or their girlfriend has left them. These are not "achievements", I'll grant you - but the point I'm making is that it is literally impossible for you to put yourself in the position of a non-conscious human, because that very act of empathy is itself the failure to achieve what you're trying to do.

"There is no physical explanation, either experimental or theoretical, of how we are conscious."

Arrogance in the extreme again. You really aren't learning, are you?

What you mean when you say that is "there is no theoretical explanation of consciousness KNOWN TO ME". Fine, another area of your ignorance. Rejoice, because you have met someone who can help you. Read that book I mentioned. It contains a very complete theory of the origin of consciousness. The fact that you were previously unaware of it is forgivable. The fact that you are once again publicly stating that it doesn't exist, even though you obviously haven't bothered to check, isn't. Are you getting the message on this yet?

"And yet, I know beyond all doubt that I am conscious (although I have no proof that anyone else is!)"

Ah! The crux of it. So you have no proof that the writers of the Bible were conscious, or for that matter that the people who first introduced you to religion were conscious. How can you trust these potential automata to instruct you? I'll leave that one for you to ponder...

"I cannot explain that fact"

Once more, using your own ignorance as justification for your own theories. You really need a better basis than this you know.

"...other than as the act of a god who created me, as more than merely a physical being, and wanted me to enjoy life."
Can you?"

Yes. But it's midnight, and I have work in the morning. Read that book, it will tell you more than I can here, and more eloquently too. Please, do read it. You may not believe it (I have perfectly rational, scientific friends who reject its central thesis), but anyone who can think at all (and despite the evidence I still believe you can think - you just choose not to) should read it. It's fascinating.

H.

"Bad design from a perfect designer?", an amusing aside to this conversation:

http://pub7.ezboard.com/fcbbbfrm14.showMessage?topicID=12.topic



Ste

To Insight:
Don't take names to you. No matter what you'll end up in believing, it's always worth trying the other's point of view from time to time. That implies assuming it's true for a little while and then choosing.

To Hoovooloo:
Trying to be apodictically right is only one of the ways of convincing someone else. Some simple algorithms can reach the goal faster than exhaustive ones.

To the fact and NthN:
About the content of a rule being founded upon empirical basis, I'm not quite sure. What about maths?

This is the question that bothers me. It's not a rhetorical, ironic question. I really don't know and would be curious of all of you think about it.
Are mathematical theorems based on any kind of empiria?

Typolifi:

THANK YOU! "Apodictically" - a FANTASTIC word - it isn't even IN my hardcopy dictionary, I had to look it up on the net. I LOVE it when people teach me things I didn't know before.

Insight:

Some more orbital mechanics, from someone who *can* be bothered to do some research.

Above, I asked "Insight" if he could produce orbital eccentricity data for extra-solar planets. Unsurprisingly, he hasn't. I've found some though.

At the time of writing, there are 101 confirmed extra-solar planets orbitting main sequence stars. Of these, the AVERAGE orbital eccentricity is approximately 0.29. This is quite an eccentric orbit by solar system standards. Only one planet, one of three orbitting 55 Cancri, has an orbital eccentricity which is anywhere near that of earth. Several others have recorded eccentricities of zero, but that is more to do with limitations of measurement.

So - has the Earth (and Venus...) got an unnaturally circular orbit? No - because you're not comparing like with like.

First, know this - Jupiter is HUGE. Jupiter is not just the largest planet in our solar system, it is bigger than everything else in the solar system combined - every planet, every asteroid, every comet, all put together are not as big as Jupiter ON ITS OWN.

Now look at the extrasolar planets. The very smallest of the hundred or so confirmed to date has a mass 0.12 times that of Jupiter. That's ENORMOUS.

The AVERAGE extrasolar planet mass is 3.18 times the size of Jupiter. That's bigger than enormous.

There are many which are over ten times the mass of Jupiter, and the largest is nearly SEVENTEEN TIMES Jupiter's mass, and the only term that can reasonably be applied to that is f**kin huge. Such bodies are not far off being stars in their own right.

So comparing the orbital eccentricity of these massive gas giants with that of the small terrestrial planets in our own system is pointless.

I trust we can lay to rest that particular fallacious ignorage of the Copernican principle now.

H.

Good question Typolifi, and I'm not at all sure of the answer.
I had actually been thinking of the content of causal rules, where you DO have to look to see what actually happens. Mathematics (and Logic) seem to have a different status, often called a priori, although they seem to require acquaintance with reality to be activated, and a lot of maths (especially) involves rules for joining other rules together to make the more complex rules.
There is a case, off the top of my head, for saying that we formulate the basic rules by observing what we actually DO, but I'll have to think about it. (hopefully not for seven million years, though.)


Noggin

About 'apodictically', I must say it's easier to know it for me than for you, Hoovooloo, since my everyday language is french. There such kind of latin-origin words are common, whereas in English the same words look abstract and conceptual. The other way round, I first knew a word like 'stack' as an obscure programming word, and only later learnt its everyday meaning.

As for mathematics, the issue is the more difficult that this 'different status' you speak of, Noggin, looks a bit like fog covering the lack of a real, well-defined status. We assume, at least since Kant, that maths are based on the internal way our mind functions, and that therefore they are a conceptual field which doesn't need to be connected to reality to be working. But on the other hand, mathematics are grounded in real problems, from surveying or astronomical previsions to modelling relativist space. Many words that mathematics use are taken from natural language, and the logics it runs on is the much same logic I apply in other, non-scientific matters. But clearly it has grown to become far more than that. Steps alike to the questioning of Euclid's axiom about only one line connecting two points, or furthermore the works at the beginning of the last century that aimed at the setting of clear foundations for maths and logic, all this seems to be part of a process of disconnecting maths from any real world contingencies.

What's in a dark corner of my head is that mathematics were not born with a 'different status', but that they progressively build it for themselves.And it raises three questions for me:

What method was used to transform this status?

How could we describe the present status?

Can it go on for ever?

Well, it might only take you sixty seconds and cost nothing, but broadband internet access hasn't reached my area yet. I still use it rather slowly, and can't afford the time to check on every fact I hear.
Still, you said :
Now the Bible itself states that the Earth is a sphere, so it doesn't conflict with my faith at all. You evidently didn't realize that. But your not realizing that one fact, simple though it may be, doesn't make you ignorant, does it? No. After all, why should you know that? And why should you check it? You assume you can go off what you've been told. A general warning when making statements on that subject though - don't assume that what Christianity in general has said is the same as what the Bible has said. Churches ignored the Bible for centuries, and many still do.


But that's just how it looks from your viewpoint. It's equally bewildering, and, indeed, depressing to me that anyone can look at all the beauty in the world and believe that it all arose by chance and is all to no purpose.

The evidence for creation is in two forms:
1. Attempting to disprove evolution, as this is the theory, in simple terms, that life came about without design. If it is disproved, then life must have come about WITH design.
2. Proving the trueness (is that a real word?) of the Bible, by archaeology and other historical accounts. If the things that Jesus did (including such as being born of a virgin, rising from the dead, and after his resurrection, dematerializing and ascending to heaven) can be proven, then that will prove the existence of spirit beings.

Anyway, I think there is plenty of evidence that creation happened, and little that evolution happened (and their are plenty of professional scientists that agree, by the way, so it isn't true that 'none doubt WHETHER it happened'). You think the opposite. Many people have held both beliefs for many decades, and many books (and guide entries!) have been written on both matters. So it is unlikely that we will resolve the argument. And in that case, we might as well drop it, right?, and move on the to far more interesting (and hopefully, far more productive) issue of consciousness.

<"Such things do not exhibit consciousness of their own accord, any more than a microchip is conscious"
How would you test a microchip for consciousness? Come to that, how would you test ME for consciousness? This is a serious question. How do you know you are not conversing with a complex computer program on a microchip? (and don't bother saying "because there aren't any that could do that" because YOU don't know that).>
I must admit, there is no answer to that. It's just that if that was conscious, you could say an individual transistor was conscious, then that a molecule was conscious, then that elementary particles were conscious. Now, I have quite a bit of practise at imagining things that I can never actually experience, like four-dimensional space (It is that particular instance of Insight after which I name myself, Hoovooloo. There is probably a better word for it, but I liked the sound of Insight). And when I go so far as to imagine the possibility of self-aware quarks, I think my brain shorts out.
Actually, a possible solution does occur to me. Suppose (just as an example microchip) my computers CPU is conscious. As I said, that could (and logically, would) mean lots of smaller collections were conscious. Where would it be determined that, say, the CPU stops and the motherboard begins? Why would it even be determined that they are separate beings? Why would they not share the consciousness?
I'm starting to realise that I'm going on a bit, but as you said, this is a serious question.
Now suppose that the same argument applied to my body. Suppose my body was made of two particles, A and B. A could be conscious. B could be conscious. A & B could have a shared consciousness. There are three conciousnesses ( (2^2)-1 ), any of which could be the consciousness that is designated to actually be 'me'. Now suppose my body was made of twenty particles. Now there would be 1048575 ( (2^20)-1 ) conciousnesses inhabiting my body only one of which would actually be 'me'. Now say X is the REAL number of particles in my body. According to a reference book I have (which may or may not be correct, Hoovooloo!), there are 100,000,000,000,000 cells in my body, and I'll consider each one to be a particle, because you could say they ARE the particles of life. Now X=(2^100000000000000)-1. There are that many consciousnesses in my body, and each one only had a 1 in X chance of being the conciousness that actually got control of my body. The rest lie idle. So from my standpoint (being the consciousness that got control of my body), the chance of this theory being correct is also 1 in X.
Of course, if another consciousness had gotten in, it would be saying the same things, while I sat there idle.
But then, if the others are idle, do they exist?
After all, what is a consciousness if it has nothing to be conscious of?

That argument makes my brain hurt, and despite having put it forward myself, I'm not sure whether I understand it. It's too much for me to envisage it all at once, so I can't think about it in the way I normally think about abstract concepts.

Here's another possibility, though not one that I think is correct.
Suppose there is just one consciousness, that inhabits us all. We don't remember other peoples memories, because memories are purely in the brain, and we don't think about another persons experience, because thinking is purely in the brain.
It's probably from a similar train of thought that Buddhism came. How plausible does anyone else think this theory sounds?

Re post 34: the evidence of creation.

Point 1 Read Daniel Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". This is far and away the best exposition of how the logical space of all possible structures can be explored in small increments to give the appearance of design (and much more).

Point 2 I have read some Creationist literature and it's biggest weakness is that it is totally unclear which of two possible, but mutually exclusive, creation scenarios it is trying to prove.
Scenario A: The world was created by supernatural means (ie means outside the laws of physics). Problem - this would leave no scientific or empirical evidence of the Creation. What would be the giveaway on day 7 that NONE of the stuff you could see even existed a week previously?
Scenario B: The world was created in seven days in accordance with the laws of physics. Problem - Creationists give us absolutely NO idea WHATSOEVER of how the laws of physics could be made to accomplish this.

Consciousness: To start at the end. What you are describing is, by definition, multiple consciousnesses. The limit of a single consciousness is set by what that consciousness is aware of. If I am aware of my memories, but not of yours, this is the CRITERION which decides that my memories are part of one consciousness, and yours part of another.
To go back to the beginning: Jaynes is an interesting read, though personally I withhold judgement on his central thesis. I'm also not sure that it EXPLAINS consciousness in the sense you mean. In that sense, nothing does, including god, souls or whatever. There is, however, ample reason for regarding it as a natural phenomenon associated with brain activity (see post 27; also anything on the effects of strokes etc. on cognitive function, and also Sperry on split-brain patients.


Typolifi: I'm aware of both Kant and Wittgenstein.
Current research suggests that we are born with an inbuilt small number module (a priori tracking of up to about 6 or 7 objects), whose proper functioning underpins mathematical understanding. For the rest I'll get back to you when I've more time.

Noggin

"Insight" - that name looks more ironic every time I have type it.

"Well, it might only take you sixty seconds and cost nothing, but broadband internet access hasn't reached my area yet."

Avoiding the obvious cheap gag about all the other sources of information which obviously haven't reached "your area" yet... For your information, I use a modem connection which never connects much above 31200bps - a mediocre speed. I was nevertheless able to get from n h2g2 to a NASA page of orbital eccentricity statistics in 56 seconds by typing the words "orbital eccentricity" into Google. So I repeat - you could have easily and very quickly checked your "facts" before spouting them. You chose not to. This is to be expected of someone who has no real concern for whether they're right or not.

"I still use it rather slowly, and can't afford the time to check on every fact I hear."

I wasn't asking you to check a fact you *heard*. I was asking you to check a fact YOU'D "*said*", before typing it. I don't expect you to check the factual accuracy of everything *I* say, because I don't believe for a second that you are interested. Luckily, I check my facts. Further, I don't, usually, state as bald fact something I haven't bothered to check - because doing that can make a person look very stupid and ignorant, as you've just found out.

"Now the Bible itself states that the Earth is a sphere"

OK. You've stated that as a fact, and your personal space trumpets you as an expert - "My most knowledgeable fields are ... the Bible" . So, Mr. Expert - book, chapter, and verse, please, where the Bible states that the earth is a sphere.

Isaiah 40:22 says (in the KJV): "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, ...that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

Circle. Not ball, not sphere, not any three dimensional surface. Circle. Naturally - because how could you spread the heavens out like a tent over a three dimensional object?

Or Daniel, 4:11. "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:" The only way a tree, no matter how tall, could be seen from all the earth would be if the earth was flat, obviously.

And finally everybody's favourite, Revelation 7:1 - "I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, " Where, precisely, are the corners on a sphere? (the phrase "four corners of the earth" appears several times, this is just the last of them)

" your not realizing that one fact, simple though it may be, doesn't make you ignorant, does it? No."

No, it doesn't, because I've CHECKED MY FACTS, and in fact I turn out to be right. And you turn out to be wrong. Again. Unless you can give me book, chapter and verse where the word "sphere" is used... Which won't, of course, negate the flat earth sentiments of the verses I've given above, merely contradict them. I'm sure you'll be able to ignore that for the sake of your faith though.

"After all, why should you know that? And why should you check it?"

I should check it so that I don't look stupid. So I checked it. I've given my sources. Give me yours.

"You assume you can go off what you've been told."

Ooh, have you heard of a psychological phenomenon called "projection"? That's where a person ascribes characteristics to someone else which actually apply to themself.

Anyone who interacts with me for any length of time on this site finds me to be a meticulous, careful checker of facts. I don't like being proven wrong, so I rarely say something I haven't checked is true FIRST. On the rare occasions I am proven wrong, I admit it, and say "it's a fair cop". This is a matter of record which you can check on this site. Oh, silly of me, you can't afford the time to check facts. Never mind.

Anyone who interacts with you, or reads what you write, will find you to be an arrogant, immature, and self-important person (judging from your personal space) with no apparent critical faculty whatsoever and a complete willingness to state outright lies as fact and a complete unwillingness to admit to it when caught out.

So that last comment is a clear case of projection. One of us is a credulous fool, and it isn't me.

"A general warning when making statements on that subject though - don't assume that what Christianity in general has said is the same as what the Bible has said."

Here's a general warning for you then. Don't assume that what you've been told the Bible has said is what the Bible has said. Try actually READING it. I have. You apparently haven't. Please, prove me wrong.

"Churches ignored the Bible for centuries, and many still do."

Well, they're obviously not all stupid, then...

"... you're blinkered more than I would have hoped was possible in a modern nation like the UK.>
But that's just how it looks from your viewpoint."

Agreed. True.

"It's equally bewildering, and, indeed, depressing to me that anyone can look at all the beauty in the world and believe that it all arose by chance and is all to no purpose."

Why is its chance origin depressing? I think it's FANTASTIC! It is, to me, wonderful beyond words that everything we see around us arises from the expression of a few simple laws and the original chance interaction of a relatively few elements.

I can understand your deep need for life to make sense and for there to be a purpose to things. It's an unpalatable thought, that the only *real* point to our existence is to breed and die. Some people use alcohol as a psychological crutch to avoid facing the truth, some use drugs. You use religion. Fine. It's not like you're unusual in that.

"The evidence for creation is in two forms:
1. Attempting to disprove evolution"

Once again - ignorance. Disproving theory A is no kind of proof at all for theory B.

I could disprove Newton's theory of gravitation. However, I cannot use that disproof of Newton as support for *my* theory that gravity is a force caused by the interaction of fluffy pink bunny rabbits. The fluffy pink bunny rabbit theory of gravity has to stand or fall on its ability to explain the evidence. The disproof of Newton is utterly irrelevant to that.

So - give up the "disproving evolution" idea. It doesn't help. (And if you can get an A level in mathematics without having the basic knowledge of logic required to understand this, I have no further need of evidence that A levels are now so easy as to be pointless. No wonder engineering undergraduates are such a rare and innumerate breed these days if that's the quality of exam they're being put through)

"2. Proving the trueness (is that a real word?) of the Bible, by archaeology and other historical accounts."

Try "accuracy". And I shouldn't bother if I were you. The Bible is so riddled with historical inaccuracies that you'd be wasting your time.

Examples: In Joshua 8 the Israelites destroy the city of Ai. But archaeology has revealed that Ai was an abandoned city by the time of the Israelites and that this story is nothing more than a myth invented to explain the ruins of an ancient city that the Israelites encountered.

1 Chronicles, 21:5 - David's army had 1,100,000 men from Israel and 470,000 men from Judah. Two tribal armies in 1000 BC are said to outnumber the standing army of the United States in 2001. Clearly false.

Same book, 29:7 - King David collects ten thousand darics for the construction of the temple in Jerusalem. Darics were coins named after King Darius I who lived five hundred years after David.

The book of Daniel is especially interesting. Apparently, the author of Daniel knew of only two Babylonian kings during the period of the exile: Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, who he wrongly thought was the son of Nebuchadnezzar. But Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC and was succeeded by his son, Awil-Marduk (referred to in the bible as "Evilmerodach" [see 2 Kg.25:27 and Jer.52:31]). In 560 BC, Amel-Marduk was assassinated by his brother-in-law, Nergal-shar-usur. The next and last king of Babylon was Nabonidus who reigned from 556 to 539, when Babylon was conquered by Cyrus. It was Nabonidus, and not Belshazzar, who was the last of the Babylonian kings. Belshazzar was a the son and viceroy of Nabonidus. But he was not a king, and was not the son (or any other relation) of Nebuchadnezzar.

You can try to prove the accuracy of other parts of the Bible if you like, but the proven inaccuracy of these parts mean that you have to take anything not proven with a pinch of salt. It simply isn't reliable.

"If the things that Jesus did (including such as being born of a virgin"

Quite a common explanation for this is the concept that "virgin" is a mistranslation of a word meaning "young woman". I don't know the details behind this claim, so I'm not pushing it, merely mentioning it. If you do have details, please feel free to refute it, quoting sources.

"rising from the dead, and after his resurrection, dematerializing and ascending to heaven) can be proven, then that will prove the existence of spirit beings."

Actually, no, it won't. It will prove something weird was going on. It won't prove what, exactly, it was. Example - all of those things could be as easily explained by reference to aliens, or time travel, with no need for "spirit beings" at all. You do really need to have someone explain to you how proof works, before going round telling people things.

"Anyway, I think there is plenty of evidence that creation happened, and little that evolution happened"

I'd love to see some of it. Please, give me the address of a museum or university in the UK where I can see some of this evidence for myself. You surely must know of such a place, since you abhor the concept of believing something just because you're told. So, where have you seen this evidence for yourself?

In return, I suggest you go to the Natural History Museum in Kensington, London, which has a large quantity of evidence for evolution on display and easy-to-follow visual aids explaining it all. I doubt you'll go, though, since you don't have time, apparently, to even type two words into a search engine. My what a busy life you lead...

"So it is unlikely that we will resolve the argument."

Since you refuse to engage, and persist in lying, ignoring logic, and failing to check even basic facts, I agree, we cannot resolve the argument. One might as well try to debate physics with a recalcitrant toddler.

"And in that case, we might as well drop it, right?"

If you aren't prepared to stop lying, ignoring evidence, and fraudulently representing yourself as an expert in fields in which you are demonstrably extremely ignorant, then yes, we might as well drop it.

"and move on the to far more interesting (and hopefully, far more productive) issue of consciousness."

Fine. Based on your behaviour so far I'm not optimistic, but I'll give it a go.

"How do you know you are not conversing with a complex computer program on a microchip?

I must admit, there is no answer to that."

Nine words in and you've already made a fundamental mistake - good start. THERE IS AN ANSWER.

The answer is something you seem to have enormous difficulty with, in your quite astonishing self-centred arrogance. The correct answer, as most people would be able to tell you is, "I *don't* know".

Savour that possibility for a moment. Try saying it. Try typing it. It doesn't hurt.

"It's just that if that was conscious, you could say an individual transistor was conscious, then that a molecule was conscious, then that elementary particles were conscious."

Utter, utter garbage.

You might just as well say that I'm not alive, because if I'm alive, then the cells of my body are alive, and the chemicals which make them up are alive, and the atoms which make them up are alive. Consciousness, like life, is an emergent property. You can't reduce it like that.

Is a proton wet? Is a hydrogen atom wet? An oxygen atom? How about a single molecule of water? Yet a glass of water is clearly something wet.

I wasn't optimistic, and we're not very far in, and already I'm feeling depressed.

"Now, I have quite a bit of practise at imagining things that I can never actually experience"

Try imagining admitting you're wrong. Try imagining checking your facts. Try imagining looking at evidence and thinking for yourself.

"like four- dimensional space (It is that particular instance of Insight after which I name myself, Hoovooloo. There is probably a better word for it, but I liked the sound of Insight)"

And every time I read your name I smile, because of all the things you could have named yourself, that is possibly the most ironic. And even more ironically, you apparently can't see why.

"And when I go so far as to imagine the possibility of self-aware quarks, I think my brain shorts out."

I could make a joke here, but it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. There's no need to consider the possibility of self-aware quarks. I'd be more impressed if you could show me a self-aware Christian...

"Actually, a possible solution does occur to me."

Oh dear, here we go...

"Suppose (just as an example microchip) my computers CPU is conscious. As I said, that could (and logically, would) mean lots of smaller collections were conscious."

You really do need someone to take you through a course in elementary logic. What possesses you to think that just because a system is conscious that a subset of that system will be conscious? Are the atoms which make up your brain conscious in themselves? What is the problem you have with this concept?

"Where would it be determined that, say, the CPU stops and the motherboard begins? Why would it even be determined that they are separate beings? Why would they not share the consciousness?"

Finally, something approaching an interesting question. How do you define something as conscious? Am I conscious? How can you tell? If I suffered a traumatic brain injury, could you test my consciousness? How?

So - you suggest imagining a CPU as conscious. But a CPU is not a sufficiently complex system to support a consciousness. You need memory storage, you need input and output systems, and lots of other things before anything could support a consciousness it could demonstrate. ALL of those things, TOGETHER, would be the entity you consider conscious, in just the same way as your consciousness (such as it is) is based not just in certain specific cells but in the whole system which makes up your brain - sensory centres, processing centres, memory areas, the lot.

"I'm starting to realise that I'm going on a bit, but as you said, this is a serious question."

*You're* going on a bit?

"Now suppose that the same argument applied to my body. Suppose my body was made of two particles, A and B. A could be conscious."

No, it couldn't. See above. There's a limit of complexity below which it's not possible for something to be conscious. I don't know what that limit is, and I don't think anyone else does either with any certainty, but I AM certain that it's more than one atom/particle/cell.

"So from my standpoint (being the consciousness that got control of my body), the chance of this theory being correct is also 1 in X."

Another basic error of logic. The chances of your theory being right are NOT CONNECTED with the number of cells in your body. The concept of there being any such connection is laughable. If you can't see that... well, this is going to go the way of the discussion above, so we may as well drop it now. Learn some LOGIC, for your own sake. You will be less likely to believe nonsense if you understand the nature of proof and logical connection. It is painfully clear from the statements you've made that you have no understanding at all of either. It is therefore completely unsurprising that you believe many of the things you do, as you lack the mental tools to assess them properly.

"After all, what is a consciousness if it has nothing to be conscious of?"

That is a meaningless question. You might just as well ask what happens if an immovable object is subject to an irresistable force. The two are logically exclusive - in a universe where one exists, the other cannot. Similarly, unless a consciousness has something to be conscious OF - it isn't conscious. You then get onto the question of whether consciousness of itself counts...

Step back from that and consider again how you TEST consciousness. Test your own. How do YOU know YOU are conscious? Is not any test you do contingent on your sensation of external stimuli, either now or in the past? That's one to ponder...

"That argument makes my brain hurt, and despite having put it forward myself, I'm not sure whether I understand it."

No comment.

"It's too much for me to envisage it all at once, so I can't think about it in the way I normally think about abstract concepts."

Given that the way you normally think about any concept can be most economically summed up with the word "wrongly", thinking in a different way is something I would encourage you to try.

"Here's another possibility, though not one that I think is correct."

Then you won't mind if I ignore it...

"Suppose there is just one consciousness, that inhabits us all. We don't remember other peoples memories, because memories are purely in the brain, and we don't think about another persons experience, because thinking is purely in the brain."

And consciousness isn't? Where is it then?

"It's probably from a similar train of thought that Buddhism came."

I hope you know more about Buddhism than you do about science and the Bible (difficult to imagine you could know less, I know...).

"How plausible does anyone else think this theory sounds?"

I think it sounds like the sort of thing I'd expect you to come up with. It takes a subject over which there is some learned debate, and makes a wild, unfocussed claim without any evidence whatever, a claim which cannot be disproved and is therefore deeply unscientific, and a claim which is diametrically opposed to everything science has learned by observation. It wraps this nonsense in pseudoscientific jargon to give it some false credibility. Sounds EXACTLY like Creationism.

I really can't see this debate going very far unless you learn some logic and learn to check your facts. I'm not optimistic about your wish to do this. You apparently don't WANT to know, don't WANT to learn. You sit in front of the most powerful information retrieval device that has ever been available in the history of mankind, and claim you don't have time to check the simplest of facts. You are blinkered beyond belief and won't even admit it.

This website offers you a place where you can come and be self-important and share your views with the world. That's freedom of speech. So's this - you depress me, and if you were a child of mine I'd be deeply disappointed that I'd raised someone so devoid of intellect.

I don't know if you are simply lying about your exam results. Given your quite frequent statements on all sorts of subjects which I've shown to be completely false you aren't exactly a reliable reporter. But assuming for the moment that you are *not* lying - it worries me greatly that the educational system of this country is apparently telling people like you that you are clever. I'm going to have grow old in a country run by people who mostly didn't even do as well as you on those exams. I'm not looking forward to it.

H.

Several answers to things occured to be during that, but I'll just remember a few:

You know that I cannot prove I am conscious, just as I cannot prove that you are conscious. I simply KNOW that I am. I am aware of my existence. There is no proof. For me, it is a fundamental truth - and possibly the only fundamental truth.

If A and B are two perfectly opposite statements, then one of them must be true, so disproving one DOES prove the other. If I disprove that I AM sat on a chair, I have proven that I AM NOT sat on a chair.

The hebrew word for circle IS the hebrew word for sphere. A circle is a 2D object, which cannot, in itself, exist in a 3D universe, so it would not be what was meant.

<"Anyway, I think there is plenty of evidence that creation happened, and little that evolution happened"
I'd love to see some of it. Please, give me the address of a museum or university in the UK where I can see some of this evidence for myself. You surely must know of such a place, since you abhor the concept of believing something just because you're told. So, where have you seen this evidence for yourself?>
Look out the window, for heavens sake. Consider your brain, which has over 100 times the capacity you'll ever use. The spare room isn't a natural advantage. It's there because, as the Bible says, God intended for us to live a lot longer than we currently do. Forever, in fact.


Gordon Bennett. Your accusations become more innaccurate with each posting. I have read the Bible since I was a child (I learned to read when I was about 4, which was about the time I started to read and understand the Illustrated Dictionary of Science every night. How was I to know it went up to A-level standard, and slightly beyond?), and never read it less than three times a week. At least twice a week I read it in conjunction with literature about it, and sometimes I do an in-depth study of certain things about it.


Another amusing accusation. Since I have written a 5000 line computer game, whose correct operation relies solely on my masses of unfaultable logic, as well as maths and physics of course, I won't worry too much. As well as the fact that apart from you, everyone I know considers me to be possibly the most logical person they know.


Well, lucky you. It takes me about 30 seconds to even load up Google, and every minute has to be paid for. Which is why I'm not going to bother any longer with the futility of trying to convince you of something you don't want to believe, as it would make you accountable to a higher being and give you a responsibility in life. So I'll just go out with one last point.

You referred to an organic soup. But an aqueous environment favours depolymerization rather than polymerization. So proteins would breakdown into amino acids far more quickly than amino acids assembled into protein, and amino acids themselves would break down far more quickly than they would form. So an organic soup would never develop.

One more shred of disproof from the endless list I have seen. One more thing for you to ignore. Christ commanded us to share what we have learned, and I have do so for as long as I can afford for one unresponsive, insulting person. It's not MY everlasting life I've been arguing for the sake of, after all, and there are billions of others who are just as worthy as you.

Hello again Ignorance.

"You know that I cannot prove I am conscious... I simply KNOW that I am. I am aware of my existence."

My point was - how are you aware? How do you test that awareness? Is it not entirely contingent on sensory experiences from outside your self?

"If A and B are two perfectly opposite statements, then one of them must be true, so disproving one DOES prove the other."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Wronger than Wrong Ron McWrong, winner of last year's "Mr. Wrong" competition.

What on earth possesses you to think for a moment that "Creation happened as in the Bible" and "evolution occurred more or less as science describes" are in any way "perfectly opposite"? This is not a simple question. Sadly, you appear to be quite a simple person.

There are DOZENS, perhaps hundreds, of mutually exclusive possible theories of how life arose. Disproving one of them does NOTHING to help prove another. Newton's Law of Gravitation is wrong - provably. If you have the A level you claim, you KNOW this. Its perfect opposite is my Pink Fluffy Bunny Theory of Gravitation. Does that mean my theory is correct? By your "Ignorance-logic", yes. Hurrah for the Fluffy Bunny theory. I hope it holds you down.

"If I disprove that I AM sat on a chair, I have proven that I AM NOT sat on a chair."

You may be able to disprove that you are *sitting* on a chair. Obviously your education in English is no better than your education in science. Do tell me which school you went to - I want to make sure I tell my friends to avoid sending their children there.

"The hebrew word for circle IS the hebrew word for sphere."

Based on your record for accurate research so far, I'm going to stick my neck out. I think you're lying. I think you made that up. If you can provide a source which shows that those two things are the same word, please provide it. Know that I will be looking it up. I've caught you out in blatant lies before, Ignorance. Is this another?

"So, where have you seen this evidence for yourself?>
Look out the window, for heavens sake."

I suggest you do the same, and take that Bible from out of your eye - it makes a rotten filter.

"Consider your brain, which has over 100 times the capacity you'll ever use."

Speak for yourself, Ignorance. I can well believe that *you* use less than 1% of your brain's capacity. It's evident in almost every posting you make here that you barely seem to engage anything much higher than your spinal cord. Don't, ever, for a second, presume to consider that other people are as intellectually limited as you clearly are. We are not.

"The spare room isn't a natural advantage. It's there because, as the Bible says, God intended for us to live a lot longer than we currently do. Forever, in fact."

Learn some biology, Ignorance. I can't be bothered explaining more than that. You have no concept of the mechanisms of life, and never will until you unblock your ears. I doubt you will, and it's a shame.

"Your accusations become more innaccurate with each posting."

Don't waste my time telling me I'm wrong. Prove it, Ignorance. Get something right for once.

"I have read the Bible since I was a child"

Then why are you even now still so very, very obviously ignorant of its contents?

"(I learned to read when I was about 4"

Hmm. Quite a slow child, then. I'm not surprised...

"which was about the time I started to read and understand the Illustrated Dictionary of Science every night."

Don't, please, make me laugh, Ignorance. It hurts.

"How was I to know it went up to A-level standard, and slightly beyond?"

Good grief. Elementary logic evades you. You've managed to remain almost completely devoid of any knowledge of biology. Simple research work taking less than a minute is too much trouble. Astronomy, physics, chemistry, genetics, probability theory, the list of things you are worse than useless at goes on and on. What were you doing with that book? Looking at the pictures?

"and never read it less than three times a week. At least twice a week I read it in conjunction with literature about it, and sometimes I do an in-depth study of certain things about it."

I ask again - how is it you can be so ignorant of its contents then? You asked in another thread where it says there were women in the land of Nod. I gave you the answer - Genesis 5:5. How could you, a Biblical "expert" not know that? It doesn't even take that long to check - you must surely know the rough position of that in the Bible you read every week?

"
Another amusing accusation. Since I have written a 5000 line computer game, whose correct operation relies solely on my masses of unfaultable logic"

You really are an arrogant little boy, aren't you? I wonder, have you ever admitted an error?

"as well as maths and physics of course, I won't worry too much."

I have no doubt that worry never enters your head for a moment. Not much seems to, in fact.

"As well as the fact that apart from you, everyone I know considers me to be possibly the most logical person they know."

Which says a great deal about the company you keep. Christians, mostly, I wouldn't wonder...

"It takes me about 30 seconds to even load up Google"

Time for a change of ISP, or web browser, or both, I think.

"and every minute has to be paid for."

And time for flat rate access. Or possibly University campus access. (You are going to University, I assume? They'll let anyone go these days...)

"You referred to an organic soup. But an aqueous environment favours depolymerization rather than polymerization."

At last. We've had Ignorance's views on biology, Ignorance's views on orbital mechanics, Ignorance's views on genetics, and Ignorance's views on probability theory and logic. And finally, we come to Ignorance's views on my own speciality, chemistry. And true to form, they bear no relation to reality whatsoever, and I simply cannot work up the energy to explain why. Suffice to say, Ignorance, you're hilariously wrong again, as usual. Never mind, I'm sure your arrogant little mind won't worry about it.

"One more shred of disproof from the endless list I have seen. One more thing for you to ignore."

One more lie of yours for me to correct, except I can't be bothered any more.

Lie all you like. Carry on, Ignorance. It doesn't make you right, and it never will.

"...I have do so for as long as I can afford for one unresponsive, insulting person."

Unresponsive??? That's a giggle. Buy a damn dictionary you illiterate cretin. My responses to you have been regularly among the longest postings on this site. I'm about the most responsive person you're ever likely to come across here, because as a result of you and people like you most people here take one look at your views and think "ah, a Creationist. No point talking to him then."

As for insulting, well, I've explained that. I was trying, vainly, to get through your arrogance and point out your lies, inaccuracies, mistakes, errors of logic, and just plain barking mad nonsense. I've failed. One more mind condemned to Ignorance. I wish I could say I didn't care.

"It's not MY everlasting life I've been arguing for the sake of, after all, and there are billions of others who are just as worthy as you."

It's not MY devastatingly high IQ brain I've been trying to pry open and allow a little light into, either. And sadly, there are NOT billions of other who have the same potential you're wasting on primitive superstition.

I consider it criminal negligence on the part of your parents and teachers that you have been allowed to get this old (I can't say "grow up" or "mature", since you have clearly done neither) while remaining so completely empty of useful knowledge or ability to think.

The fact that you so clearly consider yourself quite superior to most people is simply laughable. I hope you do go to University. It may, possibly, have been easy for you to be a big fish in the small pond of the school which has let you down so badly. But if University education in this country retains any quality at all, then you may, possibly, be exposed there to some people who won't consider you the most logical person they know, to say the least...

H.

Insight, you may have noticed that I gave up on Hooloovoo too.
I have rarely seen science taken to such a 'superstitious' level.

Ah well, I hope that we meet again in some (other) discussion.

Uncle Ghengis.

Well, as the discussion here seems to lead nowhere , anyone willing to talk about the nature of mathematical theorems can do it on my space. But don't worry, I won't be too offended if you don't.