My Breakfast Challenge

[gaara4158]

Yeah, copying someone else's style, I'm clever.

Suppose you're sleeping in on a sunday morning, while your brother and sister eat breakfast downstairs. When you finally decide you're done sleeping, you wander into the kitchen, you find yourself alone and there's a note on the table that reads: "Your brother and sister had cereal; go ahead and make yourself a bowl. I'm taking them to their soccer game, be back later." -Mom
However, there are a few problems with this note. For one, the only cereal in the house is an unopened box sitting on top of the refrigerator. There are no bowls in the sink, but there are plates with syrup and bacon residue on them. Further investigation yields plenty more evidence for a bacon and pancakes breakfast and none for cereal.

What do you think happened?


I think you all know what I'm getting at. But for this analogy to be any good, the creationists must first agree: is this a fair analogy for creation vs. evolution?

 

[Tammisto]

Concidering it is a sunday morning and I slept in I would be way too hung over to read a note, let alone bother myself with what someone had for breakfast before I get either a cold beer or some coffee and aspirine.

After having gotten through that ordeal I would have to conclude based on the evidence that they had bacon and pancakes for breakfast.

 

[Patashu]

It's a good thing that Mother documented this act of breakfast.

 

[Tammisto]

It's a good thing that Mother documented this act of breakfast.

But the fossilized bacon fragments found in the Breakfastus layer of the garbage bin disagree with the documentation, Mother seems to be a deceptive higher being.

 

[Cabal]

Finally, a chance to use my Embedded Toast theory! (tm)

And the best part is, there's no way any evidence can exist to back it up, so you're all going to BURN IN HELL, I mean, in my toaster.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

The devil read the note first and in a cunning plan place the remains of a wonderful cooked breakfast in your kitchen, knowing you would find them. The devil done this so that you would throw a hissing fit, pout all day, pinch dads gun that evening, get up Monday morning, go to school and kill several people, and when asked why you did it, you could answer

I don’t like cereals

 

[Cabal]

Intelligent Cooking theory anyone?

 

[atomweaver]

Intelligent Cooking theory anyone?

There's no such thing at my mother-in-laws house.

(ba dum bum...)

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

The devil read the note first and in a cunning plan place the remains of a wonderful cooked breakfast in your kitchen, knowing you would find them. The devil done this so that you would throw a hissing fit, pout all day, pinch dads gun that evening, get up Monday morning, go to school and kill several people, and when asked why you did it, you could answer

I don’t like cereals

I find that more hilarious than I should.

 

[[serious]]

The devil read the note first and in a cunning plan place the remains of a wonderful cooked breakfast in your kitchen, knowing you would find them. The devil done this so that you would throw a hissing fit, pout all day, pinch dads gun that evening, get up Monday morning, go to school and kill several people, and when asked why you did it, you could answer

I don’t like cereals

making you a cereal killer

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Yeah, copying someone else's style, I'm clever.

Suppose you're sleeping in on a sunday morning, while your brother and sister eat breakfast downstairs. When you finally decide you're done sleeping, you wander into the kitchen, you find yourself alone and there's a note on the table that reads: "Your brother and sister had cereal; go ahead and make yourself a bowl. I'm taking them to their soccer game, be back later." -Mom
However, there are a few problems with this note. For one, the only cereal in the house is an unopened box sitting on top of the refrigerator. There are no bowls in the sink, but there are plates with syrup and bacon residue on them. Further investigation yields plenty more evidence for a bacon and pancakes breakfast and none for cereal.

What do you think happened?

Sandwiches and black coffee - just as the note says.

 

[dlamberth]

Mothers don't lie. Your brother and sister ate cereal just as she said.

But as we all know mothers, being very special, are able to perform what sometimes seems like miracles. Mom wanted to play a joke on you and so shw proofed into existence into the palm of her hand plates with bacon and syrup residue which she than placed in the sink. She cleaned up the bowls, put them away and hid the open box of cereal where you could not find it.

Don't worry about it. In fact don't even question it. Mom left a note saying that your brother and sister ate cereal, just accept it and just ignore all evidence to the contrary. If your play friends who come to visit, from looking at the evidence before them says otherwise, just know that they speak with forked tongue because they don’t like your mother and so you should kick them out of your house and never play with them again.

.

 

[Uphill Battle]

flaw in example:

Note doesn't say what Mom, or Dad ate. They very well could have had bacon and eggs for breakfast. Ah well. Silly example anywho.

 

[gaara4158]

flaw in example:

Note doesn't say what Mom, or Dad ate. They very well could have had bacon and eggs for breakfast. Ah well. Silly example anywho.

ah, quite right. it's possible that the breakfast evidence belongs to them. however, there is still no evidence of a cereal breakfast, nor is there the logical possibility of one (the only cereal box was unopened).

 

[Uphill Battle]

I don't know about that. See, your example proves a sticking point between creationists and those who aren't... the beliving only what you see principle.

lets take your example.

Suppose you're sleeping in on a sunday morning, while your brother and sister eat breakfast downstairs. When you finally decide you're done sleeping, you wander into the kitchen, you find yourself alone and there's a note on the table that reads: "Your brother and sister had cereal; go ahead and make yourself a bowl. I'm taking them to their soccer game, be back later." -Mom

all good up to this point.

However, there are a few problems with this note. For one, the only cereal in the house is an unopened box sitting on top of the refrigerator.

While I have serious doubt that the child searched the entire house, as children don't tend to do so, you omit the fact that it is possible that the only cereal in the house is the unopened box, the possibility exists that the box that they were eating from was finished, and tossed in the trash. (or, as I have done frequently, taken the box with me if there was a bit left, to snack on. Cheerios(tm) are great for that.)

There are no bowls in the sink, but there are plates with syrup and bacon residue on them. Further investigation yields plenty more evidence for a bacon and pancakes breakfast and none for cereal.

Omitting the fact that 1) the bowls may have been hand washed, or may be in a dishwasher... another thing the child wouldn't likely be bothered to check. And, as I posited, the possibility exists that the children did indeed have cereal... and Dad and mom had bacon and pancakes. Or, that the bacon and pancakes dishes are from yesterday, and Mom just didn't get around to doing them. (a number of inane possibilities exist.)

this is all assuming, of course, that milk was neccessarily used for the cereal breakfast, it could have been eaten dry, and the box taken... or thrown out.

lastly, you mention "further investigation reveals more evidence of a bacon breakfast" but what futher investigation is that? It really can't be added to the record, if it's that vague.

now to be fair, I'm assuming this is a child. But hey, if it's a 30 something living at home doing this investigation, I suggest a better use of his/her time.

 

[gaara4158]

but what futher investigation is that? It really can't be added to the record, if it's that vague.

I foresaw the objections of "well maybe it's in the dishwasher or trash," which is why I included that clause. It is to be understood that anywhere you might find breakfast evidence, you find bacon and pancake evidence and an absence of cereal evidence. This includes crumbs on the table, floor, trash Perhaps it was a mistake to leave this to the imagination, but I was very careful to word it in such a way that I didn't have to go back and add information after there were a few objections. I dont' want to resemble AV too closely.

This is, of course, an absurd proposition, because we all know that children do not usually tend to investigate breakfast scenes. But this exercise was intended to see if creationists used the "believe the words of a note over the overwhelming evidence" philosophy in everyday life.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I understand. I know that to go on about it is unneccessarily pedestrian. Perhaps we could have our very own C.S.I. (Cereal scene investigation.)

I will forward these few items.

one, that as a creationist, we may not find the evidence anywhere near as overwhelming as is suggeseted.

two, that evience to the veracity of the note is accepted by the one, but not the latter.

three, that the scenario should read more like "we were told it was supposed to be bacon and eggs, but evidence points to sausage and eggs" as we use the same evidences, but interpret them differently. (for instance, I've never once seen a satisfactory rebuttal to the "halos in the rock" argument, only the "that's a PRATT, no point in talking about it" mindset. Nor, to some of the criticisms regarding the grand canyon, etc... don't want to get too specific, because that isn't the pint.)

four, that often enough, evidence will be accepted to fit the paradigm for which you are searching. Much like is accused of creationists, so too, do those who don't believe that fall into this. If a possible explanaition of events fits the paradigm, it's the "most likely."

I could go on, but I don't see the point of adding further to this post.

 

[gaara4158]

one, that as a creationist, we may not find the evidence anywhere near as overwhelming as is suggeseted.

Fair enough, although in my case, it was because I hadn't looked into the evidence as thoroughly as I should have.

two, that evience to the veracity of the note is accepted by the one, but not the latter.

I'm trying hard to understand what you mean by that, but I need clarification.

three, that the scenario should read more like "we were told it was supposed to be bacon and eggs, but evidence points to sausage and eggs" as we use the same evidences, but interpret them differently. (for instance, I've never once seen a satisfactory rebuttal to the "halos in the rock" argument, only the "that's a PRATT, no point in talking about it" mindset. Nor, to some of the criticisms regarding the grand canyon, etc... don't want to get too specific, because that isn't the pint.)

I actually did find a successful and thorough rebuttal to the halos argument, which I used against a fellow named Atlantians, who never responded to it. I'm not sure which criticisms of the Grand Canyon you're referring to, but if they're the ones I'm familiar with, they're rebutted on TalkOrigins.

four, that often enough, evidence will be accepted to fit the paradigm for which you are searching. Much like is accused of creationists, so too, do those who don't believe that fall into this. If a possible explanaition of events fits the paradigm, it's the "most likely."

Well of course; that's human nature. That's why we have peer reviews, to "check and balance" everything out. Of course, it's not going to be perfect, but it minimizes bias.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I haven't found that peer review actually minimizes bias. That asside, #2 is that evidence to the veracity of the not is accepted by the creationists, but not by their counterparts, who believe only what they see, and only those things that fit their "bias."

 

[gaara4158]

It minimizes error, because the more people do it, the less likely it is that they'll all be making the same error. Still possible, of course, but not likely.

That asside, #2 is that evidence to the veracity of the not is accepted by the creationists, but not by their counterparts, who believe only what they see, and only those things that fit their "bias."

Ok, so let me see if I got it: Evidence that could either go completely against evolution, or fit perfectly, is always interpreted by scientists to fit perfectly because they don't want something to go against evolution?

if so, can you provide some examples? I can dig for my answers for the halo thing if you wish.