Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
There is no world that could exist without being created here. That is not trivial.
Evos, eat your heart out!
I really must be missing something here, that you could actually try to brag about this?!
But evolution is true, to a large degree, so this seems where you are getting confused.
Too bad you can't falsify creation, or test the past state. Hope you don't think just speaking a certain way will help evolution from granny bacteria become true.
No, you certainly can't begin to do that! You can't limit what God created, the universe as it was and will be, let alone test it. I haven't seen granny in for a check up, either, lately, at the doctor's office.
Not by you. But my ideas do have limits, like the limits of this temporary universe, the limits of actual evolution, etc.
If anything I say evet fails at this modus tollens, do let us know. That isn't my modus operendi, to fail, it takes to great a toll.
Uhhh, yeah, like superman can lift anything, so that is why he is a weakling, got it. Maybe you ought to go way back to the basics and check your elementary deductive logic?
My ideas don't fail, they succeed. As for the greater ability to explain, sorry, that is just how good the ideas are. Why languish, and moan, and remain in darkness not really being able to explain things, when the Great Explainer gave us all the cheat cards we ever need??!!!
When an explanation can accommodate any hypothetical observation, it explains less, not more. This is because it doesn't actually expect to find anything specific.
For example, the explanation that the universe was created last tuesday by Bucky the Wonder Ferret, with the appearance of a false history, including people with false memories, doesn't actually explain anything. Although it is consistent with any hypothetical observation
No. I don't say there is some special creation of all creatures, some things have hundreds of species. It is the creation of the original kinds that happened.
That's still very complex, because you still have a large number of kinds that you have to describe explicitly.
Originally Posted by dad
That is a lot simpler than stuffing the universe in a thimble, adding billions of imaginary years, having earth finally appear, then some lifeform that happens to do it all for no apparent reason!
Nope, not at all. I can explain the entirety of the universe by taking two things:
1. Right before our own universe began the universe was undergoing inflation. This is simple because it can be described by just one particle with a mass.
2. After inflation ended, or perhaps sometime before, the laws of the universe sort of condensed out to what we know today. We need to select the values of something like 10-20 numbers to describe this physics.
And that's it. With just about 10-20 numbers we have everything we need to describe the entire universe. All of existence. Everything that ever was, is, or will be described with less than a single page of information. You couldn't describe one single kind of plant or animal with a mere 10-20 numbers, let alone all life on Earth.
__________________ “It took me years, but letting go of religion has been the most profound wake up of my life. I feel I now look at the world not as a child, but as an adult. I see what's bad and it's really bad. But I also see what is beautiful, what is wonderful. And I feel so deeply appreciative that I am alive. How dare the religious use the term 'born again.' That truly describes freethinkers who've thrown off the shackles of religion so much better!” - Julia Sweeney
When an explanation can accommodate any hypothetical observation, it explains less, not more. This is because it doesn't actually expect to find anything specific.
It finds plenty. My explanation does not cover any imagination you can cook up, but it does cover what we actually have. And that is plenty. Evolution from the pond explains nothing, why didn't we evolve into blobs of doo with spider legs? Why did we evolve with a spirit? Or do you deny all souls, and spirits of every kind? Your theory simply seeks the glory for what we have, it gives no reason it has to precisely be this way. Who are you trying to kid?
For example, the explanation that the universe was created last tuesday by Bucky the Wonder Ferret, with the appearance of a false history, including people with false memories, doesn't actually explain anything. Although it is consistent with any hypothetical observation
No, I have observed otherwise, in the real present, unlike your theory which has observed nothing is the actual past! No wonder you guys consider last week unprovable.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
Last edited by dad; 27th October 2006 at 01:54 AM.
It finds plenty. My explanation does not cover any imagination you can cook up, but it does cover what we actully have. And that is plenty. Evolution from the pond explains nothing, why didn't we evolve into blobs of doo with spider legs? Why did we evolve with a spirit? Or do you deny all souls, and spirits of every kind? Your theory simply seeks the glory for what we have, it gives no reason it has to preciseley be this way. Who are you trying to kid?
At least try to understand very simple logic, please.
Originally Posted by dad
No, I have observed otherwise, in the real present, unlike your theory which has observed nothing is the actual past! No wonder you guys consider last week unprovable.
Your observations of the past are simply false memories created by Bucky the Wonder Ferret.
No, I have observed otherwise, in the real present, unlike your theory which has observed nothing is the actual past! No wonder you guys consider last week unprovable.
What exactly have you observed that specifically proved that Bucky the Wonder Ferret didn't create the world last week?
And if you claim we can observe nothing in the actual past, why is the Bible exempt from this line of reasoning? After all, if we don't know what really happened 2000 years ago, we can't possibly base anything on it, ne?
What exactly have you observed that specifically proved that Bucky the Wonder Ferret didn't create the world last week?
I observed last month, believe it or not, I wasn't born yesterday! As hard a concept that may be for some evos to grasp.
And if you claim we can observe nothing in the actual past, why is the Bible exempt from this line of reasoning?
It was written in the past, and from records that represent further back in the past, by one who made the past. We own the past!
After all, if we don't know what really happened 2000 years ago, we can't possibly base anything on it, ne?
We need to know more than what happened. We need to know if the state of the fabric of the universe was the same when it happened.
When it comes to 5000 years ago, we do not know this. When it comes to recorded history, long after the flood, we do know this.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
It finds plenty. My explanation does not cover any imagination you can cook up, but it does cover what we actually have.
Your explanation covers as much as Last Thursdayism. That's the problem.
Evolution from the pond explains nothing, why didn't we evolve into blobs of doo with spider legs?
Who is we? These types of questions only illustrate your lack of critical thought.
Why did we evolve with a spirit? Or do you deny all souls, and spirits of every kind?
There is no need to deny things that are unevidenced. Something has to have evidence in support before anyone can deny them.
No, I have observed otherwise, in the real present, unlike your theory which has observed nothing is the actual past! No wonder you guys consider last week unprovable.
Still tilting at windmills I see.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
I observed last month, believe it or not, I wasn't born yesterday! As hard a concept that may be for some evos to grasp.
How do you know those memories were not implanted from a pre-split world by the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You don't, therefore you can't say that you observed anything.
Hahahaha, all hail His Noodleness.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
That's still very complex, because you still have a large number of kinds that you have to describe explicitly.
No it is mind bogglingly simple, they were created within days of each other! It is your ideas that mind bogglingly complex, face it! The only thing that makes creation with the subsequent evolution complex is your strange insistance that the past had to be the same. Now your have to try to figure out how to explain all this in that framework. That is your problem, since there was no same past, don't try to pin that on us.
Nope, not at all. I can explain the entirety of the universe by taking two things:
1. Right before our own universe began the universe was undergoing inflation. This is simple because it can be described by just one particle with a mass.
With a 'mass'? A PO mass that was this whole universe, more precisely, and in a size at one time. (So this is also a defacto claim there was no spiritual, or that developed from this speck as well. I've heard that God is in the details, but that is ridiculouus! )
Add to that, that you have no clue where this magic vreator speck came from, or why, or how, all you seem to care about is having a 'when'!! This whole wonder soup was, according to you, smaller than a fingernail!
2. After inflation ended, or perhaps sometime before, the laws of the universe sort of condensed out to what we know today.
Oh, gee, that nails it then. So the laws of this yuniverse we know are your to play with!? I think there is a difference beteen simple, and simpleton. That is sheer speckulation, and raw assumption that there never was anything else but the material temporary universe.
We need to select the values of something like 10-20 numbers to describe this physics.
No, just one week. The rest is your problems trying to sort out your same past mess. It isn't much more comlicated than the elephant tree I gave a little picture of. You just seem to not want to stop at the first kinds, and keep trying to make all the smaller creatures evolve up to the elephant. There are creation "dots" we can connect all the way up, and down. You need to learn how to connect the dots.
And that's it. With just about 10-20 numbers we have everything we need to describe the entire universe.
Yeah, right, I think you could have done that in 2 words. PO poof. Sorry, your poof is not proof!
All of existence. Everything that ever was, is, or will be described with less than a single page of information.
Yes, indeed, the PO poof really is a semi interesting tale.
You couldn't describe one single kind of plant or animal with a mere 10-20 numbers, let alone all life on Earth.
Cut the uknowwhat here, whether God created it, or it hatched and popped, and expanded, and produced itself from nothing for no apparent rhyme or reason, you have no claim on simplicity in any good sense of the word over us.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
Linear Mode
