I know there is another thread, but I felt my first thread deserved a whole new thread, as its slightly different on content.

I just want to point out that science has over looked a very simple fact and may have got everything very wrong about evolution, when saying we evolved..

If we were created, then that means we are a digital being. That also means that the universe is digital!

yet when i asked a fairly well known scienctist if its at all possible that we were created he said no! I managed to back him into a corner with this argument and he at least agreed that he could be wrong and yes given what I had said it is possible that we were created.

It is perfectly possible that we are a digital being and in order for science to prove we are here as a result of evolution it would need to prove we were not digital. Which science hasn't managed to prove, therefore not one person on this planet can prove that we evolved.

It seems science has turned to things like fossils and DNA in order to prove evolution exists, instead of turning to the very important fact that if we are not digital then we evolved. Which bassicly means that not one scientist can prove we evolved until a scientist can prove we are non-digital

While you may feel real, in the short amount of time we have had computers we are already able to create a digital being that looked like us, acted like us and thinks its real. The only thing we would struggle with is creating a digital being as intelligence as us. however would could probably create for now a digital being as intelligent as a 10yr old child. we could create dna which matched both a monkey and a parrot. we could also create digital beings that adapted to their environments.

The fact is that of todays date, 31/10/2011 after god knows how many years of being on this planet not a single person on this planet can prove we are non-digital. therefore we as a species don't yet know wheather or not we were created or evolved..

What the heck is a digital being??? Can you explain this to me?

I have no reason to think that we were created. In fact, such reasoning does not even make sense. God created man, but what created God? You would need and endless line of creation gods and this is ridiculous. And if you say "Well God has always been" then you might as well save a step and say the universe has always been. If God is just as or more complicated than the universe, why can he "always have existed" when the universe could not have?

So...erm..wait, what?
First off, digital? not following that line of thinking...digital instead of what? explain

And no scientist would definitively state we were not created...there is simply no evidence to suggest it..all evidence founded so far supports, overwhelmingly and accurately mind you, that we evolved through a very long period of time over tens of thousands of generations....

We cannot definitively state we are even here..we just go on the assumption that we aren't dreaming and carry on, measuring things, trying to understand it, etc...and no, some guy coming along saying its just a dream does not give him equal footing because it cannot be disproven..it just is a "thats nice..maybe...but lets assume not"...after all, what would progress if we decided since its not absolutely proven, we should abandon all science and just accept a "meh, maybe" concept that is unprovable?

I find the evidence for evolution to be overwhelmingly convincing that that is the most likely concept...I therefore believe it to be the right answer...however, if tomorrow someone put forth stonger evidence that we are simply in the matrix and everything is a hologram fantasy..well, no worries, I will then accept that also...so long as they show me the absolute proof...otherwise, they are just expressing creative thinking verses a desire for understanding of what we are currently in.

Be careful not to fall for the false dichotomy with subjects such as this. It doesn't necessarily have to be one or the other. It could well be a synthesis of the two or maybe even a third as yet un-thought of option.

because scientists are always right,they can never be wrong,what they say goes and if ur not onboard then ur insignificant.

Originally posted by sparky31
because scientists are always right,they can never be wrong,what they say goes and if ur not onboard then ur insignificant.

Science has proved itself. If you dont like it i suggest you toss out that computer. Or did you think it ran on magic?

A quote from Voltaire (not exact) Anyone who can be manipulated to believe absurdities can be manipulated into commiting atrocities.

You should listen to this people and start learning for yourselves how the world works, instead of some preacher or watever telling you. Now I have absolutely no idea what you mean by us being digital or non-digital or watever it sounds like a bunch of malarky. People evolved from ape like animals here on earth. GET OVER IT! Its like people can't be compared to a monkey, or they won't allow it, so they refuse to believe it and decide to believe in the God story. You know the one where the Earth was created on 4004 BC and was made in 7 days by God. You know the story with the talking snake, and adam and eve, and dinosaurs with humans. Might I just say you must be one hell of an idiot to buy this. No unfortunatley god doesn't exist, he's not listenting to you at night when you pray about watever. I don't understand why people can't just accept reality for what it is. Yes the big bang led to our planet being here, the chances of that, I have no idea how you would come up with an answer but it doesn't matter we are here, that is our proof. Grow up people and please stop feeding into religion which only brings about destruction

Originally posted by piles


While you may feel real, in the short amount of time we have had computers we are already able to create a digital being that looked like us, acted like us and thinks its real.

We have computers programs that can search a database of pre programmed responses and according to what you say, it searches the data base for the most appropriate response. This is the closest thing to A.I we have....

In other words, we don't have anything that truly thinks, let alone thinks it is real..... So.... not sure what you are on about as far as that goes.

Also what in the world is a digital being? I am pretty sure I am biological. Not digital.... Why must we be digital if we were "created'? That makes no sense.

I do believe in Evolution. But I also believe that some how, it is a mixture of creation and evolution. Not just one or the other...But either way, we are biological living creatures. We are ANIMALS. A species of ape, to be exact. We are just intelligent enough that we no longer like to consider ourselves animals.

We are every bit as biological as any other animal.... In other words... We are not digital.... At all...

So.... What are you on about???

Originally posted by Namaste1001
Be careful not to fall for the false dichotomy with subjects such as this. It doesn't necessarily have to be one or the other. It could well be a synthesis of the two or maybe even a third as yet un-thought of option.

Yes - - I consider myself Atheist - - support evolution - - but feel the Terra Papers are closer to the truth then anything else. So I believe we were created by off-planet beings.

I know Seth Shostak believes in off planet beings - - - but as he says "belief doesn't count in science". You can believe whatever you want - - but if it isn't proven by science - - it is not fact.

Where is your thesis proving that a created being would be digital?

Until you can provide it, and it can be independently verified, you are operating on ASSUMPTION.

You ASSume that if we were created we would be digital beings.

It could go the other way too. You are saying that beings created by a creator would be digital. That if it were shown that we are "digital beings" (whatever that means) that it would prove the existence of God. Your assumption is based on the fact that we humans have created digital forms of being. (Not intelligent life.)

So yeah, could it be said that we MUST follow the rules of nature, which evolution also followed, in our technologies? To put it another way; Assuming we are "digital beings" it would not be proof of a creator. It would only be proof that we must copy nature in our technology.


Your argument is... Well it's the kind of argument you'd expect from a religious person. Illogical, without science backing it up, based on personal beliefs and not observable reality.

I'm not saying your ideas are definitely wrong, just that your method of reaching them is.

Originally posted by jheated5
What the heck is a digital being??? Can you explain this to me?

well in effect our species may well be digital. i.e. we are not a real being, we are a simulated digital being.

There is no evidence that we evolved to this day, there is stuff that suggests we 'MIGHT' have evolved, however there is nothing to prove we evolved.

My argument is that we were either created (which means we are a digital being, in a digital universe) or we evolved (which means we got here from a blast) and that the only way a scienctist can prove either we are digital or a real evolutionary being is to either prove we are digital or non-digital.

Instead what science has done is to look at things like DNA (which its perfectly possible for DNA to be digital), fossils (which could have been digital beings that were here before us) darwin and adaption (which if we are digital we would still need to adapt).

Bassicly the only way to settle this argument of evolution versus creation is to prove one way or the other that we are either non-digital or digital.

Its is far more likely (mathematically probable that we are digital) than we evolved.

but yes evolution would have to exist even if we are a digital being because the creator would had to have of evolved...

Digital huh? Like the matrix a completely “created” simulation so real we can't see its a fake?

That is more of a question of humans limited perception than evolution.

For me a better argument is if spider goats exist and glow in the dark pigs exist then 100% proof of intelligent design. This is evidence that if intelligence is a result of evolution then intelligent design is the natural order.

Then is it the chicken (intelligence) or the egg (evolution) that came first?

Don't you just hate when science ties itself in its own knot?

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Where is your thesis proving that a created being would be digital?



so how else could we have been created? err perhaps you suggest we are sclaed down silicone models.. without meaning to sound funny, the only way we could be created was if we are digital.. its really not rocket science

So if we're digital beings, can't evolution be part of the programming? I don't know I can't really understand where you are going with all this, my brain has a hard time operating in the Matrix....

The whole universe could be a digital simulation in some alien creator supercomputer. In that case, both evolution and digital simulation are true. I dont see why these two views should be at odds.