Let’s just have a fun debate
Evolution offers a better alternative to bible creationism
Posts
Total:
63
-->
@Moozer325
creationism is superior because it is parsimonious
-->
@3RU7AL
A quick google told me that “parsimonious” is basically equivalent to Occam’s razor. Correct me if I’m wrong. If that is what you meant, first, how is creationism the simplest explanation? (This is a genuine question, sorry if It came of a sarcastic). Second, if you are right, it’s Occam’s Razor versus tons of scientific evidence, so you tell me who wins.
-->
@Moozer325
A quick google told me that “parsimonious” is basically equivalent to Occam’s razor. Correct me if I’m wrong. If that is what you meant, first, how is creationism the simplest explanation? (This is a genuine question, sorry if It came of a sarcastic). Second, if you are right, it’s Occam’s Razor versus tons of scientific evidence, so you tell me who wins.
Anything is superior to biblical creationism.
A more serious and fun debate would be evolutionism vs panspermia, for example.
-->
@3RU7AL
Honestly, that was a really funny video. I couldn't tell if it was being sarcastic or not, I think it was? Anyways, if it wasn't sarcastic, it said some things about questions that just don't have an answer, and God can explain those questions. It kind of makes sense, but science can come up with a better way to answer them, if you just give it time. The video talked about them not knowing what caused the rain, and thus, God did it, but given a little time, science discovered the water cycle, which is actually proven, and not just made up to explain something we don't know. Same goes for evolution. IDK if I'm taking this too seriously tho.
-->
@Moozer325
Honestly, that was a really funny video.
some (if not most) people prefer simple explanations
so, when you say "better alternative"
perhaps you could be slightly more specific
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, even if you prefer the simpler explanation, sometime, it’s the more complicated one. Take earthquakes for example. If the ground suddenly shook without warning, you would probably assume something simple, like it was god who was mad at me. But now we know about tectonic plates and all that stuff. The god thing was simpler, but it wasn’t correct.
-->
@Moozer325
The god thing was simpler, but it wasn’t correct.
i'm not sure plate tectonics proves or disproves the wrath of god
"Observation is essential in science. Scientists use observation to collect and record data, which enables them to develop and then test hypotheses and theories. " - Science Learning Hub
The theory of evolution, though rooted in the ancient Greek philosophy of Aristotle, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Anaximander, became a failed metaphysical experiment based on the racism popularized by eugenics during the industrial revolutions in order for academia to usurp the authority of the apostate "Christian" church.
With steam, coal and oil powered engines international travel became more accessible, and to the prudes of that time, who literally would cover the legs of pianos, the Chimpanzees from abroad, especially when dressed in clothes, were adorably humanesque. Theory after theory was created designed to make dark skinned peoples appear apelike.
Microevolution is supported by the Bible and observable. Macro evolution isn't in accordance with the Bible and has never been observed. Creationism is nonsensical apostate theology that has little to do with the accurate understanding of the Bible.
In conclusion, both evolutionism and creationism are stupid. Not surprisingly so well received.
-->
@RaymondSheen
Genuine question, if not creationism or evolution, what would you say is the best explanation of how life originated on our planet?
-->
@Moozer325
The Bible. Creationists aren't particularly adept at representing the creation account of the Bible.
-->
@RaymondSheen
I thought that's what I meant by "creationism", but enlighten me as to the difference.
-->
@Moozer325
Okay. The difference is pretty obvious. You know how when you see a dog food commercial and it says a slogan like "Science did that!" to sell you dog food? Same thing.
-->
@RaymondSheen
Macro evolution isn't in accordance with the Bible and has never been observed.
Iwould like to propose another way of looking at the theory of Evolution.
First, lets recognize that the "mechanism" Darwin proposed is a tautology. Survival ofthe fittest really says that in hindsight, the survivors survived...ok...nogreat shakes there.
But what was Darwin'sreal accomplishment?
At a point in time when Science was at its peak of materialistic anddeterministic hubris, Darwin applied the scientific method to life...and here is what he found.
1) That life was contingent. Contingent upon the rest of creation, its growthand development was a mysterious interplay between nature and nurture, betweenthe individual and the environment, between the part and the whole. Heproclaimed all of life to be a unity and stated that in time and space we areall interconnected to each other and to everything.
2) That life was probabilistic; consequently, it was not deterministic.Darwinian evolution has no predictive quality, life is open ended, withinfinite possibility, and its history shows endless variety.
3) That all of life is one life. He demonstrated that all life is interconnected;all life is related to each other and to the rest of the world. In time, hedemonstrated that all life had descended (ascended would have been a betterword) from one initial instance of life. He did not explain away the mystery oflife, to date science has not even touched upon the mystery of life.
Darwin, byapplying the scientific method, rigorously and in a comprehensive way, to life,determined that life was contingent, probabilistic, and constitutes a unity. Heput science to Genesis, in no way contradicting it in word or in spirit. Hecorrelated the facts of science to the overriding image provided by theology.
This was at the peak of Science'sdeterministic and materialistic arrogance, and in one fell swoop he turnedscience around, he changed the direction of Science's journey so to speak.Somewhere along the line, the prodigal son of Science had diverged and now,with centuries of new knowledge and experiences under its belt, it had turnedback around and begun a journey down a path that would someday intersect andconverge with the original path.
Weshall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
T.S. Eliot
-->
@Moozer325
Evolution offers a better alternative to bible creationism. Let’s just have a fun debate
Okay. My premise is that there is no alternative to Bible Creationism. Hence, it is not possible for evolution to offer a better alternative, since it is not yet established as an alternative.
16 days later
-->
@Tradesecret
@Moozer325
Creation followed by a prolonged period of evolution seems pretty logical.
More logical than the Middle Eastern Magic Bloke hypothesis...The one where he knocked everything together in 6 days.
-->
@zedvictor4
Creation followed by a prolonged period of evolution seems pretty logical.More logical than the Middle Eastern Magic Bloke hypothesis...The one where he knocked everything together in 6 days.
I'm sure that might be the case for you. Good for you. At least there may be an acknowledgment of a creator in your thesis.
-->
@Tradesecret
Acknowledgement of a logical possibility, rather than of an objective creator.
Which isn't to say that I do not acknowledge the idea of an objective creator.
Though such a creator would be subject to the same causal necessities as every other creation idea.
Same old problem.
Whereas seemingly, you unquestioningly accept one particular idea.
Though it's fair to say that such an Idea is as analogically sound as any other.
That is to say:
In the beginning there was stuff.
And that stuff developed/was developed into other stuff.
-->
@zedvictor4
Acknowledgement of a logical possibility, rather than of an objective creator.
LOL - spin again.
Which isn't to say that I do not acknowledge the idea of an objective creator.
Of course you don't. Just speak the truth dear Zed. Stop lying to yourself.
Though such a creator would be subject to the same causal necessities as every other creation idea.
Why? That is the question you never answer.
Same old problem.
Only for you. Not for me.
Whereas seemingly, you unquestioningly accept one particular idea.
Intriguing. What question is that? What idea do you think I never question?
Though it's fair to say that such an Idea is as analogically sound as any other.
I am not sure of what you are talking about.
That is to say:In the beginning there was stuff.And that stuff developed/was developed into other stuff.
Okay, yes, I do laugh. It is either - the following:
In the beginning there was nothing and nothing exploded. (evolutional and atheist position) or
In the beginning - God created the heavens and the earth. ( the creationist point of view)
THERE is no other possibility or alternative that any one has posited. the idea of aliens - alien experiements, falls within the first.
-->
@Tradesecret
In the beginning something occurred.
BANG, GOD, DAVE.
Whatever.
(Pragmatists position)
36 days later
The basic chemical ingredients of life – the carbon-hydrogen molecule (CH), the carbon-hydrogen positive ion (CH+) and the carbon ion (C+) – were produced by ultraviolet light from stars. Complex molecules, including organic molecules, form naturally both in space and on planets.
There is no creative mechanism behind evolution. Something cannot come from nothing.
-->
@FLRW
You should stick to laughing at the biblical creation theory, you're not in any position to make abiogenisis look likely.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis and the emergence of cell membranes. But you think God did it 6000 years ago, right?
Life wouldn't have formed if there weren't 10^25 planets in the Universe.
-->
@FLRW
I think I know a lot more science than you do, and one of the things I know is that hand-waiving isn't science.
Life wouldn't have formed if there weren't 10^25 planets in the Universe.
You haven't a clue if that is true or not. Let me be a little more specific:
You don't know the full range of possible life-systems (Earth is just one)
You don't know how many planets could support those unknown life systems
You don't know the frequency at which any particular or any at all life system might form from inorganic matter on any given planet (only 8-20 of which you have any interesting data about)
You don't even have a working hypothesis for the formation of the Earth life system which is also why you have no clue what the probability of it happening was (regardless of whether it happened or not).
Scifi speculation can be a lot of fun, but not when people think they're imparting scientific literacy while doing it.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No one knows.
But.
The prevailing scientific hypothesis is what it is.
Scifi speculation.
I think that FLRW was just saying.
-->
@IlDiavolo
@FLRW
IDia...." A more serious and fun debate would be evolutionism vs panspermia, for example. "...
I agree. See Cosmic Ancestry link
FLRW......."The basic chemical ingredients of life – the carbon-hydrogen molecule (CH, the carbon-hydrogen positive ion (CH+) and the carbon ion (C+) – were produced by ultraviolet light from stars. Complex molecules, including organic molecules, form naturally both in space and on planets. "..
FLRW, you forget that they have found left-handed amino-acids in the Murchison Meteorite. See LINK and remmeber that, biologics are composed of only left handed amino-acids. Chiral is left vs right handed this that or the other in Universe.
In geometry the 5-fold icos{20}hedron comes in a left-skew and right-skew version, when deverloped from the contracting torque spin of the 4-fold cubo-octahedron. { VE }See link http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s04/figs/f6008.html
..." 461.03 We discover that an icosahedron is the first degreeof contraction of thevector equilibrium. We never catch the vector equilibriumin its true existence in reality: itis always going one way or the other. When we go tothe icosahedron, we get to [ two ] greatrealities. In the icosahedron, we get to a very prominentfiveness: around every vertex youcan always count five. "...
Chirality { mirror image }= sort of like a left and right hand glove, however, when turning a glove inside-out, we appear to have mirror -image chirality, and that is not totality true, because the inside of the glove is diffferrent from the outside of the alternate, outside-out glove. left /\/.. ..\/\ right
Fuller likes to think of how we discover the chemical elements, and it is not that hard to find them, untill we get to the 93rd element and above. Fuller described this as the negative elements and they are more likend to taking off a difficult glove, as we more slowly get the glove off, we discover these more difficult and exotic elements on the inside of the same glove.
92 positive relatively easy to find elements
92 negative ---if symmetrical--- increasingly difficult elements to find
184 is total if my above is correct with nature/Universe process
..." Scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, announced today that they have for the first time used a beam of titanium to make a known superheavy element, livermorium — element 116. After upgrading the lab’s equipment, the team plans to use similar techniques to try to produce element 120. The heaviest element that has been made so far is oganesson, element 118, which was first synthesized in 2002."