Prove creationism...I'll shut up!

Originally posted by Nactous
After it was inputted by man of course...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's all 1s and 0s.

01001001 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01110111 01110010 01101001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100010 01110101 01101110 01100011 01101000 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01111010 01100101 01110010 01101111 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01101111 01101110 01100101 01110011

This is an excellent angle on things, and has an excellent way to prove who is right and wrong as Atheism and Creationism is concerned.

Maths can be 1 and 0´s but can also but algorithms, shapes and other weird and wonderful stuff.

Maybe its the same with "the answer", ie that there isn´t just one answer but many variations.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It does make you look quite silly.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Predicting exactly what will happen over millions of years with hundreds of thousands of unknowable variables is totally different from being predictive under controlled conditions. Nice try.

Not exactly, who said anything about an exact predictability?? Not me... and evolution has NO predictive qualities AT ALL. And predictability is not just for labs. That is just the first stage, the first tests. If predictability works in a lab, than it should aslo work outside of the lab. For instance, in archaeology, if one has a theory how certain historical events came to pass, the prediction is that one would eventually find inscriptions or other proof that confirms the theory. If something is found that confirms, then that confirms the theory. If not, teh theory is debunked. In evolution, the theory in that sense can not be debunked in the sense that one cannot predict how species will evolve. Only that more species can be found historically. But since evolution is not only a historical concept (i.e. species only developed in the past) but also that of the future, then the theory should have predictive qualities and it does not.

Heck, evolution doesn't even take place in a lab. They can't even predict how things evolve there.

Look, evolution is not a bad theory, but don't go shouting it's the end all of science. The theory is faulty and no scientist disagrees on that. Only people who don't understand science very well and mistake it for truth.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
... I thought that 1's and 0's are a part of math?

01001001 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01110111 01110010 01101001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100010 01110101 01101110 01100011 01101000 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01111010 01100101 01110010 01101111 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01101111 01101110 01100101 01110011

I was talking about color from the point of view of a computer.

Maths does know and describe what colour is. Silly to suggest otherwise, at most some semantic idiocy.

And computers aren't necessarily just 0s and 1s, in fact that is just a mathematical representation of what digital computers do in the real world. A computer itself can actually be a multitude of things...but..no need to go into that too deep, really.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was talking about color from the point of view of a computer.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Once a computer has the mathematical calculations of colors it will know better what a color is than any human. A computer can pickup colors that the human eye can not, we program the computers to pick up colors that we can never see.

You have to start with us. However, I don't see how this has anything to do with the topic.

Yeah, different angle... 😉

Xyz seems to have shut up. Does this mean someone proved creationism?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have to start with us. However, I don't see how this has anything to do with the topic.

Ridiculous... who condoned a topic to this thread???

Originally posted by queeq
Ridiculous... who condoned a topic to this thread???

Originally posted by Da Pittman
The OTF and RF should switch places and watch the "hell" that would arise 😆

shock

Originally posted by Da Pittman
The OTF and RF should switch places and watch the "hell" that would arise 😆

Is there a difference between the two?

Originally posted by queeq
Is there a difference between the two?

Originally posted by queeq
Is there a difference between the two?

Ya, one is filled with out of control kids who can't keep a continuous train of thought, and the other one is more popular. 😂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, one is filled with out of control kids who can't keep a continuous train of thought, and the other one is more popular. 😂

Originally posted by Da Pittman
It is a subtle but huge difference 😉

I'm not into subtleties. 😉

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can prove plenty of things by providing positive evidence for them.

Barring omniscience there is no circumstance in which logic will ever allow you to prove a negative. Take the teapot example: we have no way of proving that there is not a teapot orbiting Pluto, we have no way of checking. The same applies to pretty much any omnipotent being.

We do and its called the Hubble Telescope and a computer.

Prove God created Man and Woman.