User talk:Lupe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To whom it may concern,
Question: Which came first Creation or Evolution?
Question: Is my first question not a Scientific Question?
Question: Does my first question exhibit the common fallacy, “begging the question” (petitio principii), and does it employs the term “creation” ambiguously?
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Guadalupe Guerra, Jr. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.116.105.28 (talk • contribs)
Do you mean the idea of creationism or actually creation? --AySz88^-^ 02:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC) In order to evolve, doesn't something need to be created first? --Kainaw (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Evolution is a very recent field of study, while creation myths probably go back all the way to prehistory. Additionally, any act of creation must have occurred before evolution could take place. This is a question about history, not science. History is inherently unknowable without direct observation and reliable records. It's the fallacy of many questions, not begging the question (it presupposes creation and evolution occurred). Creation is also an ambiguous term — there are very many beliefs about what creation might have been, and they basically all contradict each other. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 03:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Evolution has very clearly been around longer. Evolution has been occurring for billions of years now. Creationism, on the other hand, is a relatively recent concept, only a few tens of thousands of years old at the oldest. --Cyde Weys votetalk 03:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Haha, that's a silly argument. But I like it. —Keenan Pepper 03:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Creationism is the believe that some higher being (often God) created the earth and the universe and all animals in it. Evolution is the belief that present-day animals have evolved from prehistoric animals. Personally, I think that if you take creationism a little less strict, both could be true. God created the prehistoric animals from which other things evolved through evolution. Evolution is backed up by fossils and other archeological evidence, but what exactly can be derived from that evidence is a point of debate. Creationism is mainly based on creation myths like Genesis in the bible. It's not really a question what came first. (The earth had to be created at some point for animals to evolve from a primal soup) The question you need to ask is what you believe in. - 131.211.210.11 08:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC) If you are asking which claims the earliest point of origin for the current species on the Earth, then evolutionary theory says early life started to evolve soon after the Earth's formation, some 4.3 billion years ago, whereas the Christian Creationism myth puts it around a few thousand years ago. Other religions put it at various ages, but few go back 4.3 billion years. StuRat 10:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Its not a scientific question. Many believe that God created to world through Evolutionary processes. The two terms need not be opposed. I would saw the fallicy is a false dichotomy. Dominick (TALK) 15:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of begging the question: Who created the creator? DirkvdM 19:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC) The question of all men. Does someone else exist and why does he exist? Tied into the definition of the omnipotent and infinite would be the eternal, so the answer would be nobody, if he exists separate from the created being. We are on a tangent I fear. Dominick (TALK) 19:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Just because some of the versions of the evolutionary theory state that evolution has been around for billions of years dosn't make the concept that old --Shanedidona 03:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Does any one other than ID dispute that?--172.163.114.47 04:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Who's ID? Yourself? The first question was about creation and evolution, not the development of the idea of them. DirkvdM 09:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Well, so far we've seen creation, evolution and evolution created by God. Which leaves one more permutation: God created by evolution. That's just as valid as the one but last option, which happens to be supported by a whole bunch of weaklings looking for a politically correct way out (my God, I'm unforgiving this morning :) ). DirkvdM 09:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot one permutation: neither. In the sense of 'no theory' it's rather unacceptable, so is there a third option? Evolution, creation or .... ? DirkvdM 11:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Mass delusion! How about omphalos or the brain in a vat? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 14:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC) So you're saying that there are philosophical foundations for saying that 'no theory' is actually a third option. True. I've been down that road and it drove me nuts. Try taking the notion that nothing is certain to its logical conclusion - philosophy is a serious potential mental health hazard! But then I accepted that and now try to make sense of the world I think I perceive. What else can one do? So in that perceived reality (which must have something in common with your perceived reality, whether youre a figment of my imagination or not) what could be a third option? DirkvdM 15:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Hm... well, we could be living in a steady-state or oscillating universe, or some other ouroboros-like thing. That takes care of creation, but evolution seems trickier to get away from, because we have lots of evidence for that (and some is from direct observation). Perhaps panspermia could be correct, though, and laboratory experiments demonstrating evolution could be unconnected to the actual development of life. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 16:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Way off topic, I was pointing out science and Faith are not diametrically opposed. All too often thats what this argument devolves into. (pun intended) Dominick (TALK) 13:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that even if creationism was right (which I don't think it is) it would be like a pun made by god to us, so we don't have any obligation in believing in creationism and we are being true to ourselves if we opt for believing in evolution, no matter if fossils are some god's joke to test our faith or whatever. I think that even if fundamentalists are right in every silly thing they say (which may be true because we don't know if the universe is logical) even if that happens, we have sufficient reason to cling to science and dispise religion, even if it is true, because we have never gotten anything good out of it.
Contents |
[edit] Creation & Evolution
Posted on Dec. 25, 2005. No. 6.5
You've asked if my question is part of a system of acquiring knowledge? The answer, is yes.
Sincerely,
Guadalupe Guerra, Jr.
You don't seem to understand how this works. Any continuation of a discussion should be at the original thread (as you can see others do). You keep on starting new ones, which makes it difficult to follow the discussion. DirkvdM 09:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC) It might not have been you, but I also seen almost this same identical collection of questions asked at other WP:RD. So there are questions and anwers all over the place on this one related thread. I suggest you create a section on your personal talk page, copy & paste all the pieces of the discussion to there, since they are doomed to disappear into the archives any day now, then invite people to continue the discussion there. User:AlMac|(talk) 21:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Zero
Zero To whom it may concern,
Question: Is Zero (0) equal to infinity?
Example: 0 = Infinity
Thank you for help.
Sincerely,
Guadalupe Guerra, Jr.
No, but confusion, may arise as in different contexts, zero, equal and especially infinity have very different meanings and definitions in maths, so even more in general understanding or religion. In geometry, zero is an rather arbitrarily choosen point. You have to understand that maths is only concerned with sets of rules and the inherent consequences thereof. The connection with the "real" world is that we choose to see some of these sets of rules close enough to realworld-problems (such as arise in mechanic, physic, economy etc.) that we take maths as a model for these problems. The Infidel 08:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC) You have posted this question before, and it was answered. Please do not post a question repeatedly. --KSmrqT 16:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC) There was a repost to the question, but I don't think the question was (or is now) answered. If you asked someone "Could you please tell me what time it is?" and the answerd was "Yes, I could" that would be a completely true and logical answer. I think we don't understand what Guadalupe Guerra is really asking, so we can only guess what helps to put a more precise question. So I don't consider it undue to ask again. The Infidel 17:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Nevertheless, it is inappropriate. If the previous answers were unclear or otherwise unsatisfactory, if the question seemed to have been misunderstood, then Guadalupe should have posted additional information in the thread of the original discussion. Instead, the exact same question was posted a second time in the exact same forum. That is a rude waste of everyone's time. --KSmrqT 05:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zero
Zero To whom it may concern,
Question: Is Zero (0) equal to infinity?
Example: 0 = Infinity
Thank you for help.
Sincerely,
Guadalupe Guerra, Jr.
No, but confusion, may arise as in different contexts, zero, equal and especially infinity have very different meanings and definitions in maths, so even more in general understanding or religion. In geometry, zero is an rather arbitrarily choosen point. You have to understand that maths is only concerned with sets of rules and the inherent consequences thereof. The connection with the "real" world is that we choose to see some of these sets of rules close enough to realworld-problems (such as arise in mechanic, physic, economy etc.) that we take maths as a model for these problems. The Infidel 08:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC) You have posted this question before, and it was answered. Please do not post a question repeatedly. --KSmrqT 16:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC) There was a repost to the question, but I don't think the question was (or is now) answered. If you asked someone "Could you please tell me what time it is?" and the answerd was "Yes, I could" that would be a completely true and logical answer. I think we don't understand what Guadalupe Guerra is really asking, so we can only guess what helps to put a more precise question. So I don't consider it undue to ask again. The Infidel 17:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Nevertheless, it is inappropriate. If the previous answers were unclear or otherwise unsatisfactory, if the question seemed to have been misunderstood, then Guadalupe should have posted additional information in the thread of the original discussion. Instead, the exact same question was posted a second time in the exact same forum. That is a rude waste of everyone's time. --KSmrqT 05:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zero
Zero To whom it may concern,
I’m sorry if I was rude “Ksmrq” and thank you “The Infidel”, for allowing me chance to post the question again.
According to history, the Mayans did not create the number Zero (0), but the concept of Zero (0). This discovery, is very important because, by definition, the number Zero (0), not created, should not have a point of origin where infinity exists, but it does.
Infinity, having no beginning and no end but at the same time, the number Zero (0), gives infinity a point of origin, a beginning.
Examples: The number Zero (0), equal to infinity, is the point of origin, in which a number can go positive or negative, to infinity and back to Zero (0).
I had time to sleep on it as to give an example as to how Zero (0) can be the Biggest number & the Smallest number. Here goes nothing.
Example: 1. Zero (0) is the Biggest number when going from Zero (0) to -1, -2, -3, -4, > to Infinity.
2. Zero (0) is the Smallest number when going from Zero (0) to +1, +2, +3, +4, > to Infinity.
I believe this sounds right.
Based on this findings, I'm I correct to believe that: Zero (0 is equal to Infinity?
I love waking up to a great tasting smell of coffee.
Sincerely,
Guadalupe Guerra, Jr.
I'm really sorry, but you still haven't quite understood how this works. Please use the [edit] link on your previous post to continue discussion. enochlau (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry, but this is still just rambling. 37 is the smallest number when going from 37 to +Infinity and the biggest when going from 37 to -Infinity. Zero possesses special significance in cases such as the additive identity but is wholly unremarkable on the number line. — Lomn Talk 20:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You mix up definitions (ideas). Firstly, lets fix this: the numbers in your example are integers. There are two different concepts of "bigger than" for integers, which for natural numbers cannot be destinguished. One is the concept of "order", in the sense that one comes before two and six comes before seven. :The other is the concept of "magnitude" (see absolute value). This is "five sheep are more than four sheep". But with negative values possible, minus four comes before minus three. On the other hand, if have one billion dollars, this is a whole lot of money. If you have one billion dollars in debts, that's also an awful lot of money and in no respect small, althoug in mathematical notation it is "<" (spoken "less than") +1.000.000.000. The Infidel 20:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
