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

[Bungle_Bear]

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.​

If we substitute Magic for God, what's the difference? Serious question.

 

[o_mlly]

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."

What betrays your hopeful outlook for redeeming "emergence" as something useful is the first word in your quote: "However ..."; in the sense of "in spite of these criticisms".

 

[AV1611VET]

though the goddidits manage to explain nothing.

That is correct.

The God-did-it explanation explains how God took nothing and, from it, created a whole physical universe in six literal days.

The technical term, just so you further won't understand, is called creatio ex nihilo.

A term you'll never hear inside of a worldly college setting.

The closest they MIGHT come to is that "virtual particles" bologna, but even virtual particles come from a field that is teaming with energy.

So it's not nothing, per se; it's a field of energy.

God, on the other hand, took nothing ... no-thing ... energy or otherwise ... and spoke this universe into existence.

 

[o_mlly]

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

Apparently, you do not understand the "strawman" fallacy. Try again.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Apparently, you do not understand the "strawman" fallacy. Try again.

I clearly do because I see it being used right in front of me in the post I quoted. That and a serious amount of incredulity from you.

 

[AV1611VET]

If we substitute Magic for God, what's the difference? Serious question.

1. dean's list
2. A+
3. attaboy
4. congratulations
5. cap & gown
6. college degree
7. diploma

To name a few.

 

[o_mlly]

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

Shady? What do you think I'm keeping in the shade?

 

[o_mlly]

I clearly do because I see it being used right in front of me in the post I quoted. That and a serious amount of incredulity from you.

That would the fallacious circular or self-referent reasoning. Add "incredulity" to your list of lookup items. That one seems to have also been misunderstood.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That would the fallacious circular or self-referent reasoning. Add "incredulity" to your list of lookup items. That one seems to have also been misunderstood.

I'm calling it as I see it. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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’).”

Good grief!

The complexity and diversity of life *IS* the thing that evolution explains.

You spend all of this time going on about how evolution doesn't explain this or that (fundamental physics, cosmology, abiogenesis), and then you get to the thing that evolution is about and then try to claims evolution assigns that to something else.

[You've also demonstrated that you don't understand what is meant by an emergent property.]

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

Oh great, a (non-expert) book reviewer regurgitating bad ID numerology.

 

[HitchSlap]

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.​

Oh noooooooooooo..... more non-biologists telling us how biology isn't supposed to work.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

1. dean's list
2. A+
3. attaboy
4. congratulations
5. cap & gown
6. college degree
7. diploma

To name a few.

A joke answer to a serious question. Go Creationists!

 

[HitchSlap]

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.

FOXP2 gene.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What betrays your hopeful outlook for redeeming "emergence" as something useful is the first word in your quote: "However ..."; in the sense of "in spite of these criticisms".

Let's add English to the list of subjects you struggle with.

However does not mean "inspite of".

 

[Hans Blaster]

What betrays your hopeful outlook for redeeming "emergence" as something useful is the first word in your quote: "However ..."; in the sense of "in spite of these criticisms".

Again, emergent properties are all over the place. One need not use a biological system to study them.

Consider fluids for a moment. At the microscopic level it is just a bunch of identical (perhaps with a few contaminants or solutes) molecules colliding with each other by the basic properties of QM and electrostatics. But, at the larger scale the fluid has viscosity, surface tension, pressure, etc. Properties that aren't found in an specific term in the microscopic interactions, but that emerge from the collective interactions of many.

There is not special "essence" added to make the fluid have fluid properties.

Why should a collection of cells be any different? Working to have new properties as tissues, organs, and organisms.

 

[AV1611VET]

A joke answer to a serious question. Go Creationists!

What's ironic is that, in Bible typology, Egypt is a type of the world.

And even Pharaoh's magicians knew the difference between "God" and "magic."

Exodus 8:19a Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God:

I called it "ironic," but what you're really demonstrating is the You-Werent-There truism; since, had you been there, you would not be asking the difference today.

You would know the difference.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What's ironic is that, in Bible typology, Egypt is a type of the world.

And even Pharaoh's magicians knew the difference between "God" and "magic."

Exodus 8:19a Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God:

I called it "ironic," but what you're really demonstrating is the You-Werent-There truism; since, had you been there, you would not be asking the difference today.

Actually not. I'm demonstrating that you don't know the difference between God and Magic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually not. I'm demonstrating that you don't know the difference between God and Magic.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[HitchSlap]

What's ironic is that, in Bible typology, Egypt is a type of the world.

And even Pharaoh's magicians knew the difference between "God" and "magic."

Exodus 8:19a Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God:

I called it "ironic," but what you're really demonstrating is the You-Werent-There truism; since, had you been there, you would not be asking the difference today.

You would know the difference.

So, using AVLogic, none of us "were there," so magic.


ETA; the Egyptian account of this story is radically different, and their magicians were better than the Hebrews.

 

[pitabread]

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’).”​

Nice strawman.