Would Anyone Care To Defend The Creation Model?

[DogmaHunter]

I don't have one, you don't have one.

That depends on the subject.
When it comes to the diversity of life, we have a perfectly reasonable answer: evolution.
When it comes to the origins of life, we have a couple of plausible ideas at best.
When it comes to origins of the universe, we are quite clueless.

I am given one

..which you adopt dogmatically.

, which is very reasonable.

Not really.

You don't want that one. (in fact, I don't really care you do or don't).

I want answers that are verifiable, testable, not presented dogmatically as THE truth, ...

Your tale is not verifiable or testable. And it IS presented dogmatically.
Your "answer" is not an answer at all. It's just a rather random religious claim, which you just happen to buy into, most likely by geographic accident.

 

[juvenissun]

/facepalm

Genetic algorithms are based on the evolutionary mechanism:
- fitness test
- reproduce with random variation
- repeat

How is that different from natural evolution?

Number of parameters and relationships among parameters.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All these options STILL NEED evolution to develop and to continue. You can not escape the process of evolution, EXCEPT the creation.

In creationism, it is: Created, and Done.

Not really.

Creationism doesn't exclude evolution.

Worse then that even, YEC style creationism requires SUPER evolution.
For the few "kinds" (whatever those are) that were created/on the boat to produce the enormous diversity of millions upon millions of species we have today.... It would require evolution to go much, much, much faster then what evolutionary biology actually expects.

Which makes no sense at all.

You are argue against evolution, but the "atlernative" you propose requires even more "evolution" then evolution theory itself....

What's that about?

 

[juvenissun]

I want answers that are verifiable, testable, not presented dogmatically as THE truth, ...

Your tale is not verifiable or testable. And it IS presented dogmatically.
Your "answer" is not an answer at all. It's just a rather random religious claim, which you just happen to buy into, most likely by geographic accident.

The contents of the Bible is verifiable and testable. Thus, it is qualified to be dogmatic.
I encourage you to try one (raise one specific question), then you will see.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Number of parameters and relationships among parameters.

Wich only results in a more complex fitness test.

And which changes nothing about the mechanism:
1. fitness test
2. reproduce with random variation
3. repeat


Making 1 more complex does not change the process. At all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The contents of the Bible is verifiable and testable.

Some parts are. And some parts turn out correct and a lot of parts turn out wrong. Like global floods and all humans being descendents from a single couple etc.

That ship has sailed a long time ago. This things have been known to be false for quite some time now.

Thus, it is qualified to be dogmatic.

NOTHING is EVER qualified to be dogmatic.

I encourage you to try one (raise one specific question), then you will see.

Try what? One question about what?

 

[juvenissun]

Not really.

Creationism doesn't exclude evolution.

Worse then that even, YEC style creationism requires SUPER evolution.
For the few "kinds" (whatever those are) that were created/on the boat to produce the enormous diversity of millions upon millions of species we have today.... It would require evolution to go much, much, much faster then what evolutionary biology actually expects.

Which makes no sense at all.

You are argue against evolution, but the "atlernative" you propose requires even more "evolution" then evolution theory itself....

What's that about?

Evolution is more than variation. Dog is dog, no matter what dog.
Get the definition of evolution right. That is a pre-requisite of this thread. Otherwise, it will be a mass and I would be out.

 

[juvenissun]

Wich only results in a more complex fitness test.

And which changes nothing about the mechanism:
1. fitness test
2. reproduce with random variation
3. repeat


Making 1 more complex does not change the process. At all.

Correct. If you do that, you will NEVER get human from anything else. (Unless you cheat by burying something not possible into the rules)

 

[juvenissun]

Some parts are. And some parts turn out correct and a lot of parts turn out wrong. Like global floods and all humans being descendents from a single couple etc.

That ship has sailed a long time ago. This things have been known to be false for quite some time now.

The Global Flood IS a possibility.
The origin of human IS impossible according to any evolutional point of view.

Don't stop on these two. So far, they don't prove or disprove. There are more. Think ...

 

[The Cadet]

The Global Flood IS a possibility.

No, actually, it's not.

In fact, if we follow your logic back, then if creation is wrong, evolution must be right. But the flood model present in your version of creationism is completely bonkers. Where would the water go to or come from? How could they possibly store enough food for all the animals, particularly those with highly specified diets? How did the plant life survive underwater for a year (and if it didn't, how did the earth refoliate)? How did salt-water and fresh-water fish both survive the deluge? How did the numerous parasitic, species-dependent pathogens survive - did Noah and his family carry every human disease? Remember, "a miracle happened" is not a viable answer - we're examining scientific models of reality, and if you have to say "a miracle happened", you have conceded that what you are proposing is impossible in reality.

Meanwhile, the best naturalistic explanation for life not based on evolution... Do you want just any possible explanation, or one that actually fits the data we have? Because if you want the latter, then I'm sorry, but it's going to be some variation on the theory of evolution, because somehow we have to work in the facts we observe - facts like a universally shared genetic code, the concordance in the nested heirarchies of morphology, genetics, embryology, virology, and more, and the fact that we reproduce with variations. No matter what comes out at the end, it's going to look like evolution, because evolution is what we observe! It's like asking me to create a new model for physics, but exclude the calculation of F=M*A. Well, okay... P=R*B (Phorz = Rass * Bacceleration)? What do you want from me, this is what we observe in nature! This is the case in all science - no matter what model is proposed to explain the facts we have, it needs to explain the facts we have! Evolution does that beautifully, and any replacement for evolution will end up looking an awful lot like evolution 2.0.

 

[bhsmte]

The Global Flood IS a possibility.
The origin of human IS impossible according to any evolutional point of view.

Don't stop on these two. So far, they don't prove or disprove. There are more. Think ...

It's also a possibility I was abducted by aliens last night.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolution is more than variation. Dog is dog, no matter what dog.

You can continue to pretend that that is true, no matter how many times it has already been pointed out to you that it's wrong.

It won't change the fact that GA's are based on the basic mechanism of evolution: fitness, reproduce, repeat.

Get the definition of evolution right. That is a pre-requisite of this thread. Otherwise, it will be a mass and I would be out.

I'm talking about the mechanism. Survive, reproduce, repeat.

That's what produces diversity. That's how wolves turned into st bernards and chiwawas. That's how humans developed ethnicities. It's how primates turned into humans and chimps.

Survive till breeding age and succesfully find a mate (=fitness test), reproduce with random variation, repeat.

Do you object to that being the root mechanism of evolution?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Correct. If you do that, you will NEVER get human from anything else. (Unless you cheat by burying something not possible into the rules)

So now, you agree that those 3 points are the root mechanism of evolution and that GA's are modeled around that?

As for your bare assertion, please identify wich part of the human genome could apparantly not have been produced by biological evolution and explain why.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The Global Flood IS a possibility.

Everything is a "possibility", but not everything is plausible.

It is "possible" that a deity flooded the planet and then erased all evidence of it. Good luck showing that that "possibility" is actually plausible in such a way that the same argument can't be used for any other religion (or anything else your imagination can produce).

It is also "possible" that nothing is real and that we are just brains in jars.

If we just go by the actual evidence instead of unfalsifiable nonsense, however, then no... the flood story is not possible.

The origin of human IS impossible according to any evolutional point of view.

No. According to the facts.
We know this because DNA is hereditary. It's measurable. All humans do not share a common great, great, great... mom and dad 6000 years ago. It's a genetic fact.

Either we go by those facts or we go by an unevidenced bronze age story and assume that the actual facts are wrong.

Don't stop on these two. So far, they don't prove or disprove.

Those 2 are disproven. It is not correct.
All humans don't come from a single couple 6000 years ago.
The entire planet was not flooded 4000 years ago.
There are no recent genetic bottlenecks in all animals or plants while there should be if the flood story is true.

These 2 points are definatly not true.

The only way to continue to say that they aren't disproven is by simply ignoring the actual facts.

There are more. Think ...

Do you have one in mind?

In any case, I need only one disproval to show that the book is not "the truth and nothing but the truth".

 

[juvenissun]

No, actually, it's not.

In fact, if we follow your logic back, then if creation is wrong, evolution must be right. But the flood model present in your version of creationism is completely bonkers.

Not at all. The Global Flood is more likely to be true than not. Scientifically, you are absolutely in no position to argue with me on this issue.

 

[juvenissun]

You can continue to pretend that that is true, no matter how many times it has already been pointed out to you that it's wrong.

It won't change the fact that GA's are based on the basic mechanism of evolution: fitness, reproduce, repeat.



I'm talking about the mechanism. Survive, reproduce, repeat.

That's what produces diversity. That's how wolves turned into st bernards and chiwawas. That's how humans developed ethnicities. It's how primates turned into humans and chimps.

Survive till breeding age and succesfully find a mate (=fitness test), reproduce with random variation, repeat.

Do you object to that being the root mechanism of evolution?

It is a mechanism, not a definition.

 

[juvenissun]

So now, you agree that those 3 points are the root mechanism of evolution and that GA's are modeled around that?

As for your bare assertion, please identify wich part of the human genome could apparantly not have been produced by biological evolution and explain why.

They are processes. I do not know if it is a root mechanism of anything. If you apply it to evolution (definition?) it won't work.

 

[bhsmte]

Not at all. The Global Flood is more likely to be true than not. Scientifically, you are absolutely in no position to argue with me on this issue.

Why is it then, that the vast majority of geologists disagree with you?

 

[juvenissun]

Do you have one in mind?

In any case, I need only one disproval to show that the book is not "the truth and nothing but the truth".

So far, you have zero.

I have many many. But you should be the one to raise question. If you don't have a question, then either quit, or try to find one.

 

[juvenissun]

Why is it then, that the vast majority of geologists disagree with you?

The vast majority of geologists did not think about this question. Some do (by a variety of reasons, most of them are related to the Bible). Those people are studying the mountain building process and the magma process in the mantle of the earth. Confused? Not a surprise.