As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

[Astrid]

The fact that the universe and life itself has to exist before the theory of evolution can be used to explain changes in populations doesn't imply that anything is superior to anything else.

It would be like claiming your parents are superior to you because without them you wouldn't exist. And their parents are superior to them, and so on.

It's just nonsensical.

And in ever so many other ways.

 

[Astrid]

No, of course not. Creationism is based on ancient myths, while ToE enjoys multiple independent lines of evidence. Only people committed to rigid, myopic religious dogma accept creationism. There is no need to seriously entertain creationism at this point.

Established scientific models are supported by multiple independent lines of evidence..

If they ever come up with a fact it would be well worth considering

 

[AV1611VET]

That doesn't follow.

Actually, you're right.

Because God does exist, and there is no ylem.

 

[Astrid]

But we don't know that it was necessarily created insofar as creation being a deliberate act. (Assuming that is that what you are trying to imply.)

At the end of the day, you're trying to claim a belief is superior a science. That doesn't make sense.

Again it's that pesky paucity of phacts

 

[AV1611VET]

If they ever come up with a fact it would be well worth considering.

Would you recognize it, if you saw it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Again it's that pesky paucity of phacts

Looks like you're SOL then (short on facts).

 

[HitchSlap]

If they ever come up with a fact it would be well worth considering

The only facts they may ever come up with, is by chance, and even then they're usually unaware of their relevance.

 

[HitchSlap]

Would you recognize it, if you saw it?

Understanding facts is a result of the scientific method, not revelation, ancient myths or prayer.

 

[pitabread]

Because God does exist, and there is no ylem.

Or vise versa.

 

[o_mlly]

Well, what is your criteria for determining whether something is superior or not?

A good criterion is to list the reasonable questions each one claims to answer:

God Created Man (GCM)​

How did man become alive?

GCM: “God created his soul.”
EVO: “Dunno, go ask somebody else.”​

What is the source of natural laws that give order to the universe?

GCM: “God gave us the natural laws directing all nature to support His creation of man.”
EVO: “Gotta give you brute fact on that one (evo code word for ‘Dunno’).​

How is it that mankind is self-aware?

GCM: “God created man in His own image with a rational soul.”
EVO: “Dunno.”​

How do you explain the complexity of living creatures up to man?

GCM: “God created different kinds of living creatures; some simple, some complex.”
EVO: “Gotta give you emergence on that one (evo code word for ‘Dunno’).”​

He asked about emergence, gave an incorrect description of it, so I gave him a concise definition with examples, and a reference to the Wikipedia article:

Concise definition? No, not even close.

Looks like you missed this Wikipedia article:
Emergent evolution - Wikipedia

The hypothesis has been widely criticized for providing no mechanism to how entirely new properties emerge, and for its historical roots in teleology.​

 

[Astrid]

Understanding facts is a result of the scientific method, not revelation, ancient myths or prayer.

Going by the kind of insane religion * based
"explanations" **one sees, it's sure not the
right framework for interpretation.

* not religion per se, but self styled inerrant
knowledge of what the purported omni intended.

** frozen mammoths are the result of the flood.
Etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

Understanding facts is a result of the scientific method,

You can't understand what you can't see.

(Cue: paragraph on gravity.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Looks like you missed this Wikipedia article:
Emergent evolution - Wikipedia

The hypothesis has been widely criticized for providing no mechanism to how entirely new properties emerge, and for its historical roots in teleology.​

Yeah, it wasn't a very popular or useful idea as originally formulated. But we now have a more detailed understanding of emergence; as that article says: "However, emergent properties in living systems are recognized by contemporary science, in particular by the science of complex systems."

 

[AV1611VET]

Or vise versa.

Who (or what) determines which "or" ... that's the sixty-four dollar question.

 

[AV1611VET]

Going by the kind of insane religion * based "explanations" **one sees,

You have to see it first.

 

[Yttrium]

A good criterion is to list the reasonable questions each one claims to answer:

God Created Man (GCM)​

How did man become alive?

GCM: “God created his soul.”
EVO: “Dunno, go ask somebody else.”​

What is the source of natural laws that give order to the universe?

GCM: “God gave us the natural laws directing all nature to support His creation of man.”
EVO: “Gotta give you brute fact on that one (evo code word for ‘Dunno’).​

How is it that mankind is self-aware?

GCM: “God created man in His own image with a rational soul.”
EVO: “Dunno.”​

How do you explain the complexity of living creatures up to man?

GCM: “God created different kinds of living creatures; some simple, some complex.”
EVO: “Gotta give you emergence on that one (evo code word for ‘Dunno’).”​

Concise definition? No, not even close.

Looks like you missed this Wikipedia article:
Emergent evolution - Wikipedia

The hypothesis has been widely criticized for providing no mechanism to how entirely new properties emerge, and for its historical roots in teleology.​

You're leaving out GCM+EVO again. Motive for that seems shady.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A good criterion is to list the reasonable questions each one claims to answer:

God Created Man (GCM)
How did man become alive?
GCM: “God created his soul.”
EVO: “Dunno, go ask somebody else.”
What is the source of natural laws that give order to the universe?
GCM: “God gave us the natural laws directing all nature to support His creation of man.”
EVO: “Gotta give you brute fact on that one (evo code word for ‘Dunno’).
How is it that mankind is self-aware?
GCM: “God created man in His own image with a rational soul.”
EVO: “Dunno.”
How do you explain the complexity of living creatures up to man?
GCM: “God created different kinds of living creatures; some simple, some complex.”
EVO: “Gotta give you emergence on that one (evo code word for ‘Dunno’).”

All you have is arguments from a strawman that you constructed. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[o_mlly]

C'mon, before you reach your maximum post number.

How about explaining the maximum number of possibilities that your evo theory is nonsense:
Giving Up Darwin - Claremont Review of Books

Now at last we are ready to take Darwin out for a test drive. Starting with 150 links of gibberish, what are the chances that we can mutate our way to a useful new shape of protein? We can ask basically the same question in a more manageable way: what are the chances that a random 150-link sequence will create such a protein? Nonsense sequences are essentially random. Mutations are random. Make random changes to a random sequence and you get another random sequence. So, close your eyes, make 150 random choices from your 20 bead boxes and string up your beads in the order in which you chose them. What are the odds that you will come up with a useful new protein?

It’s easy to see that the total number of possible sequences is immense. It’s easy to believe (although non-chemists must take their colleagues’ word for it) that the subset of useful sequences—sequences that create real, usable proteins—is, in comparison, tiny. But we must know how immense and how tiny.

The total count of possible 150-link chains, where each link is chosen separately from 20 amino acids, is 20^150. In other words, many. 20^150 roughly equals 10^195, and there are only 10^80 atoms in the universe.​

 

[HitchSlap]

You can't understand what you can't see.

(Cue: paragraph on gravity.)

Can you see the emperor's new clothes?

 

[Astrid]

Yeah, it wasn't a very popular or useful idea as originally formulated. But we now have a more detailed understanding of emergence; as that article says: "However, emergent properties in living systems are recognized by contemporary science, in particular by the science of complex systems."

The emergence of speech really be cannot
be explained by evolution per se.

Nobody has a inified explanation of everything,
though the goddidits manage to explain nothing.