Proof of Creational Science

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don’t find it even slightly fascinating or exciting to imagine how far “videogame” technology will evolve if humanity survives long enough? Or to ponder what kind of digital world-building a hyper advanced alien civilization could accomplish with millions of years experience? Would you not consider the construction of alternate universes, or even artificial intelligence, to be a form of “creation science”?

No.

The engineers / programmers making those simulations would be using theories from physics, chemistry etc upon which they engineer that tech.

The computer simulation is a practical applications of plenty of theories of physics.

I created a 3d thing in WPF few years back. It were just some cubes and cylinders falling with collision detection. I added in a source of gravity. I had to use physics equations to accomplish this.
So did the engineers who build the computer.

Without the accomplishments of physics, there is no computer simulation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me repeat then my scientific remark:

the A is the ancestor of the contemporary flea. The latter fact means that ancestor A is a very primitive, under-developed ancient flea.

Not so much a "scientific remark" as a "statement of ignorance".

 

[Aštra’el]

No.

The engineers / programmers making those simulations would be using theories from physics, chemistry etc upon which they engineer that tech.

In other words, science, like I said.

People hear the word “creation” and automatically dismiss it as some wild supernatural or magickal mumbo jumbo, instead of considering all the ways that science/ technology/ engineering etc could be used to do the very things religions have theorized about since ages ago, like the creation of alternate universes and artificial intelligence. I think these things are the inevitable peak evolution of what are called “videogames” today, many years from now if humanity survives long enough.

 

[viole]

Why do we not respect the mind of scientists? But how clever is it to assume that there is a common relative (i.e., ancestor) between the flea (or a virus) and an elephant?

Axioma is a statement that is so apparent that the statement has been proven by its apparency. Obviously, elephants did not occur from fleas. It is infinitely evident.

If the modern flea and modern elephant have a common ancestor A, then the A is the ancestor of the contemporary flea. The latter fact means that ancestor A is a very primitive, under-developed ancient flea. Hence, modern elephants came from very primitive, under-developed antique flea.

The Riemann hypothesis is an unproved statement, but not an axiom, and never will ever become an axiom. Why? Because the Riemann hypothesis's validity is not apparent.

Proving creational science is like proving that bachelors are married. For the simple reason that "creational science" is an oxymoron.

Ciao

- viole

 

[questfortruth]

Not so much a "scientific remark" as a "statement of ignorance".

From flies only flies come!

 

[blü 2]

how clever is it to assume that there is a common relative (i.e., ancestor) between the flea (or a virus) and an elephant?

You don't "assume" it. You point out the genes they have in common.

Axioma is a statement that is so apparent that the statement has been proven by its apparency.

No, it's not "proven" at all. It's simply accepted as correct by agreement. If someone wants to disagree, they can't be shown to be wrong.

Obviously, elephants did not occur from fleas.

No one said they did. They simply had a common ancestor, the same common ancestor you have with fleas and elephants.

 

[night912]

Why do we not respect the mind of scientists? But how clever is it to assume that there is a common relative (i.e., ancestor) between the flea (or a virus) and an elephant?

Are you suggesting that the flea is some sort of virus and not an insect?

 

[Nakosis]

Why would the phrase “creational science” be an oxymoron?

Humans already create our own worlds and life in videogames. Just look at the rate of improvement since the 80s... it hasn’t even been a century. Now imagine what happens in two hundred years. A thousand. A hundred thousand.

What kind of worlds would an advanced civilization whose existed far longer than mankind have the technology to create? What does hundreds of thousands of years experience, or millions of years, developing “videogames”, create? Their creations would be indistinguishable from reality. The creators could become gods within their own realms, create heavenly paradises or hellish prisons, alternate universes, and even live an entire life- however mundane or epic- within their creation only to wake up and do it all over again. The possibilities are endless.

I would not be so quick to separate the words “creation” and “science”.

Creation in the sense of divine supernatural creation. A belief that the universe and all life in it originated in its present form by fiat or divine decree.
No science is required.

 

[F1fan]

Let me repeat then my scientific remark:

the A is the ancestor of the contemporary flea. The latter fact means that ancestor A is a very primitive, under-developed ancient flea.

How is this scientific? It is not likely to be anything like a flea or elephant.

I don't understand your motive to make poorly informed statements like you do. Just get science right.

 

[F1fan]

In other words, science, like I said.

People hear the word “creation” and automatically dismiss it as some wild supernatural or magickal mumbo jumbo, instead of considering all the ways that science/ technology/ engineering etc could be used to do the very things religions have theorized about since ages ago, like the creation of alternate universes and artificial intelligence. I think these things are the inevitable peak evolution of what are called “videogames” today, many years from now if humanity survives long enough.

When we her the word "creation" by people with a history of having contempt for science and having extreme Christian views then we become very suspicious about word choice. We also know the tactics of of using a creationist word with multiple secular meanings, like creation, and getting others to use it, then switching the meaning to smuggle in the religious version.

So just get science right. Be honest.

 

[Aštra’el]

When we her the word "creation" by people with a history of having contempt for science

I have no contempt for science, I embrace it. Who is “we”?

and having extreme Christian views then we become very suspicious about word choice

My views are probably extreme by mundane standards but they are not what I would call Christian.

Who is “we”?

We also know the tactics of of using a creationist word with multiple secular meanings, like creation, and getting others to use it, then switching the meaning to smuggle in the religious version.

So I have some nefarious agenda where I mind trick people into using the word “creation” my own way until they slip up and accidentally become theists. Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

Also... who is this “we” you keep talking about?

So just get science right. Be honest.

I have no idea what you even mean by that.

I was hoping you would use your imagination
to envision what kind of digital world building humans might be capable of aeons from now, and how those hypothetical achievements might be similar to certain creation concepts theorized about in ancient religions (such as the creation of alternate universes and artificial intelligence) but all you want to talk about is how offended you are by the word “creation.”

 

[Aštra’el]

Creation in the sense of divine supernatural creation. A belief that the universe and all life in it originated in its present form by fiat or divine decree.
No science is required.

My entire point was, these ideas are often dismissed as supernatural fantasy, when we are developing the means to achieve them ourselves. My argument in this topic was not that our universe was created, but that we humans are becoming the creators ourselves, and when we do, it won’t be with “divine supernatural” powers, but with things we have learned from and developed through science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

From flies only flies come!

Sure.

And from mammals, only mammals come.
And form eukaryotes, only eukaryotes come.

Under evolution, cats don't come from dogs.
Speciation is a vertical process.
Speciation results in sub-species.

 

[F1fan]

I have no contempt for science, I embrace it. Who is “we”?


My views are probably extreme by mundane standards but they are not what I would call Christian.

Who is “we”?

"We" who accept the results of science. If you accept science, then you are part of the well educated.

So I have some nefarious agenda where I mind trick people into using the word “creation” my own way until they slip up and accidentally become theists. Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

You are a conservative and have made comments that support various right wing views, so your comment about using the word "creation" relevant to a discussion about evolution is a red flag.

I have no idea what you even mean by that.

You don't know what getting science right means? Or what being honest means?

I was hoping you would use your imagination
to envision what kind of digital world building humans might be capable of aeons from now, and how those hypothetical achievements might be similar to certain creation concepts theorized about in ancient religions (such as the creation of alternate universes and artificial intelligence) but all you want to talk about is how offended you are by the word “creation.”

I am offended by creationists and their efforts to undermine science, which is organized fraud by the religious right wing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In other words, science, like I said.

No. What you insist on calling "creation science" is in fact "engineering".

People hear the word “creation” and automatically dismiss it as some wild supernatural or magickal mumbo jumbo

That is what "creation science" refers to. Or at least how it is understood and used all the time by the vast majority of people.

Why would you want to sow confusion by using those terms when you in fact just mean engineering?
We have a word for it. "engineering".

If you insist on calling it "creation science", then go on right ahead. I don't mind. I'll just interpret it as you actually meaning "engineering" and not religious pseudo-science.

Not really sure what you hope to accomplish with that though.

, instead of considering all the ways that science/ technology/ engineering etc could be used to do the very things religions have theorized about since ages ago

You mean.... the very "supernatural and magical mumbo jumbo" you were just talking about?

, like the creation of alternate universes and artificial intelligence.

GTA5 and Red Dead Redemption 2 and alike are not "alternate universes".
They are computer simulations. They aren't real.

I think these things are the inevitable peak evolution of what are called “videogames” today, many years from now if humanity survives long enough.

You mean Star Trek holodeck style?
Maybe. Still not real though. Still not an "alternate universes".

Still just simulations.

 

[Nakosis]

My entire point was, these ideas are often dismissed as supernatural fantasy, when we are developing the means to achieve them ourselves. My argument in this topic was not that our universe was created, but that we humans are becoming the creators ourselves, and when we do, it won’t be with “divine supernatural” powers, but with things we have learned from and developed through science.

Ok, but my post wasn't about human creativity.

 

[Aštra’el]

@TagliatelliMonster

Of course they are computer simulations. For now. They are improving at a rapid pace. Aeons from now, if we do not first go extinct, our “computer simulations” may become indistinguishable from reality. There may come a point when “simulation” might not even be the most appropriate word anymore, and at that point I would view it as an “alternate reality” or, depending on the scale, even an “alternate universe”.

But to be honest, I am glad I won’t be around when that happens. I imagine the ways it might be exploited as well, to imprison and enslave people against their will in whatever horrible environment is imagined. It is nice to imagine the beauty and awesomeness of such achievement but I also see the potential for great cruelty and terror.

 

[Aštra’el]

"
You are a conservative and have made comments that support various right wing views, so your comment about using the word "creation" relevant to a discussion about evolution is a red flag.

So that is why you basically ignored everything I said, and instead obsessed over me using the word “creation”? Because somewhere out there in some far away topic I expressed some political views you find problematic, even though that has nothing at all to do with what we are talking about?

 

[Aštra’el]

Ok, but my post wasn't about human creativity.

Fair enough. This is probably not the topic to discuss how our own creations might take shape and evolve through science aeons from now, in ways that are reminiscent of ancient myths.

You guys can go back to your spectacular argument about fleas.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course they are computer simulations. For now. They are improving at a rapid pace.

A computer simulation so advanced that one no longer can tell the difference with reality (like the matrix), is still a computer simulation. Just a really good one.

Aeons from now, if we do not first go extinct, our “computer simulations” may become indistinguishable from reality.

Maybe.
They'ld still be simulations.

There may come a point when “simulation” might not even be the most appropriate word anymore, and at that point I would view it as an “alternate reality” or, depending on the scale, even an “alternate universe”.

I don't see how. It would still be a machine that you can just unplug / disconnect from whatever power source it's using.

But to be honest, I am glad I won’t be around when that happens. I imagine the ways it might be exploited as well, to imprison and enslave people against their will in whatever horrible environment is imagined. It is nice to imagine the beauty and awesomeness of such achievement but I also see the potential for great cruelty and terror.

Ok.

Not sure where the original point of "creation science" vs "engineering" went though.