The competitive advantage of ideas that are easy to understand

[AnotherAtheist]

When discussing evolution versus creationism with a typical (non-scientific) audience, do discussions/explanations/claims that are easy for non-specialists to understand have a big advantage over discussions/explanations/claims that are harder to understand, e.g. where the logic is complex. And, importantly, can this simplicity and ease of understanding mean that discussions/explanations/claims that are actually wrong sometimes have an advantage over the correct discussions/explanations/claims?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When discussing evolution versus creationism with a typical (non-scientific) audience, do discussions/explanations/claims that are easy for non-specialists to understand have a big advantage over discussions/explanations/claims that are harder to understand, e.g. where the logic is complex. And, importantly, can this simplicity and ease of understanding mean that discussions/explanations/claims that are actually wrong sometimes have an advantage over the correct discussions/explanations/claims?

No part of either position is easy and simple to understand.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

No part of either position is easy and simple to understand.

Re-using some arguments from here quite recently:

[1] Bacteria come from bacteria, dogs from dogs. We don't see a lizard giving birth to a mouse. Therefore creatures can't evolve into vastly different organisms.

IMHO simple to understand, but incorrect.

[2] If we have two vastly different organisms which have a common ancestor, then it must be possible for an organism to evolve into a vastly different organism.

IMHO harder to understand, but correct.

(Both edited to be the same length.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

[1] Bacteria come from bacteria, dogs from dogs. We don't see a lizard giving birth to a mouse. Therefore creatures can't evolve into vastly different organisms.

IMHO simple to understand, but incorrect.

But that's what we observe; kind begetting kind.

[2] If we have two vastly different organisms which have a common ancestor, then it must be possible for an organism to evolve into a vastly different organism.

IMHO harder to understand, but correct.

That's a very big "if".

That aside it is the mechanism of evolution that is troubling, and questions about it are routinely waved away as unimportant. Talking to an evolutionist is like talking to a politician; ask him the time and he tells you the weather (or he builds you a clock).

 

[SkyWriting]

When discussing evolution versus creationism with a typical (non-scientific) audience, do discussions/explanations/claims that are easy for non-specialists to understand have a big advantage over discussions/explanations/claims that are harder to understand, e.g. where the logic is complex. And, importantly, can this simplicity and ease of understanding mean that discussions/explanations/claims that are actually wrong sometimes have an advantage over the correct discussions/explanations/claims?

Historians have always had the option of making balogna sandwiches for people to eat.
As long as nobody has a time machine, they can say anything that fits with whatever
they happen to have to show as evidence.

If you happen to know a liar, then anything they proclaim is "testimony".
If you have blood on something, it can be the murder weapon.
If you have blood on somebody's hand, it can be proof of hitting somebody,
or proof of being hit.

 

[SkyWriting]

If we have two vastly different organisms which have a common ancestor, then it must be possible for an organism to evolve into a vastly different organism.

Is there a family reunion coming up or something? This sounds important.

 

[crjmurray]

When discussing evolution versus creationism with a typical (non-scientific) audience, do discussions/explanations/claims that are easy for non-specialists to understand have a big advantage over discussions/explanations/claims that are harder to understand, e.g. where the logic is complex. And, importantly, can this simplicity and ease of understanding mean that discussions/explanations/claims that are actually wrong sometimes have an advantage over the correct discussions/explanations/claims?

Yes.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes. This is why a 160 character tweet, a five minute video, or even a 45 minute lecture are not good mediums for changing worldviews.

 

[AV1611VET]

When discussing evolution versus creationism with a typical (non-scientific) audience, do discussions/explanations/claims that are easy for non-specialists to understand have a big advantage over discussions/explanations/claims that are harder to understand,

Yes.

Which is easier to understand?

1. 5 + 4 + 2 = 11
   
2. 5 + (4 x 2) = 13

Applied to evolution, once one is taught that the Bible only accounts for the universe being in existence for 6000 years, the rest is easy to deny.

 

[whois]

When discussing evolution versus creationism with a typical (non-scientific) audience, do discussions/explanations/claims that are easy for non-specialists to understand have a big advantage over discussions/explanations/claims that are harder to understand, e.g. where the logic is complex. And, importantly, can this simplicity and ease of understanding mean that discussions/explanations/claims that are actually wrong sometimes have an advantage over the correct discussions/explanations/claims?

oh boy, here we go trying to define what "complex" is.
what exactly is "complex logic"?
the most advanced super computer on the planet can be reduced to 3 logical boolean operations. (AND, OR, NOT)

but to answer the question, yes, the simpler the explanation, the easier it is to understand.
barring that, the ability to break down the complex into bite sized chunks helps a lot too.

 

[whois]

Applied to evolution, once one is taught that the Bible only accounts for the universe being in existence for 6000 years, the rest is easy to deny.

actually, when you find out that the chemistry of carbon can become quite complex it's easy to accept evolution.

 

[ScottA]

When discussing evolution versus creationism with a typical (non-scientific) audience, do discussions/explanations/claims that are easy for non-specialists to understand have a big advantage over discussions/explanations/claims that are harder to understand, e.g. where the logic is complex. And, importantly, can this simplicity and ease of understanding mean that discussions/explanations/claims that are actually wrong sometimes have an advantage over the correct discussions/explanations/claims?

What are you trying to say?

 

[Leslie B]

When discussing evolution versus creationism with a typical (non-scientific) audience, do discussions/explanations/claims that are easy for non-specialists to understand have a big advantage over discussions/explanations/claims that are harder to understand, e.g. where the logic is complex. And, importantly, can this simplicity and ease of understanding mean that discussions/explanations/claims that are actually wrong sometimes have an advantage over the correct discussions/explanations/claims?

I think you are trying to make something (the gospel) that is spiritually discerned into something we comprehend with our carnal mind. But we know that God, in his wisdom, chose that through wisdom man would not know him so that it would depend on the foolishness of the preaching of the cross.

Brothers and sisters, God left one logical proof he exists and that is creation. The Holy Spirit also is on the earth convicting man of sin, jusgement, and righteousness.

Lets put away getting puffed up over intellectual debates about the existence of God.

In Proverbs it says that a scoffer seeks wisdom in vain. It isnt our job to convince anyone of anything. Instead its our duty to preach the gospel and be ready to give an answer to those who ask us about our faith. God is the one who works on mans heart and he alone opens their eyes. People are blinded to the truth because of sin. This is not a philisophical matter!

Keep sharing your faith and preach the gospel! Let your light so shine before men that they see your good works and glorify God on the day of the Lord.

 

[Leslie B]

Let scoffers scoff.

One day every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

God left us with creation as a testimony so that man is without excuse. This is the word of God, not my own. The grass whithers and the flower fades but the word of the Lord endures forever.

I want you to know that Christ is coming very soon. Be ready to meet the Lord. Turn away from sins and seek God because the things hat God has prepared for us arent worthy to be compared to temporary thing on this earth.

There is no greater calling in this life than to know Christ. He poured out his blood for us and didnt care about the shame and suffering because he loves us so much. God provided a way for us to be reconciled to him so that we dont have to experience true death which is eternal Hell.

Please turn to him and be humble. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.

Amen

 

[Leslie B]

I work in the science and technology industry, by the way.

The reason I mention this is because I want you all to understand that being scientifically minded has nothing to do with whether or not we humbly receive the Word of God by faith.

God puts to shame the so called wisdom of this age. Reading 1Corinthians has helped me gain a correct perspective on this matter.

God bless u all

 

[whois]

I think you are trying to make something (the gospel) that is spiritually discerned into something we comprehend with our carnal mind. But we know that God, in his wisdom, chose that through wisdom man would not know him so that it would depend on the foolishness of the preaching of the cross.

interesting speculation.
let's explore this.
i've often wondered about a god, how a god could work and what not.
personally i would find an all powerful and limitless life rather boring, everything would be "been there, done that".
so, what would a god actually do?
i think he would make himself mortal, with the capability to progress and learn, in effect the challenge of new things.
and i believe that is exactly what he has done, created humanity and instilled in that humanity all the concepts and mechanics needed to attain a godlike stature.
there are 2 primary reasons i believe this.
epigenetics and the placebo effect.
both of these, taken together, can easily lead one to believe humanity itself has the capability of altering the genetic makeup of its future generations.
IOW, humanity of today has what it takes to produce the improved humanity of tomorrow, not with technology, but with the mind itself.
true atheism will never win because this stuff is instilled in each of us.
the above synopsis, if true, has unimaginable consequences for the human race.

 

[AV1611VET]

actually, when you find out that the chemistry of carbon can become quite complex it's easy to accept evolution.

I'll bet.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Rudiments can mean the elements on the periodic table.

 

[Leslie B]

interesting speculation.
let's explore this.
i've often wondered about a god, how a god could work and what not.
personally i would find an all powerful and limitless life rather boring, everything would be "been there, done that".
so, what would a god actually do?
i think he would make himself mortal, with the capability to progress and learn, in effect the challenge of new things.
and i believe that is exactly what he has done, created humanity and instilled in that humanity all the concepts and mechanics needed to attain a godlike stature.
there are 2 primary reasons i believe this.
epigenetics and the placebo effect.
both of these, taken together, can easily lead one to believe humanity itself has the capability of altering the genetic makeup of its future generations.
IOW, humanity of today has what it takes to produce the improved humanity of tomorrow, not with technology, but with the mind itself.
true atheism will never win because this stuff is instilled in each of us.
the above synopsis, if true, has unimaginable consequences for the human race.

That is nice and all but you have to understand that Gods thoughts are not your thoughts. His thoughts are higher than ours.

Christ is the Wisdom of God.

Improving the mind, as you put it, isnt the solution for improving hunanity. As I said before, it is because of mans own puffed up knowledge that he rejects the knowledge of God. Thats why Christ brings the wisdom of this age to nothing.

You can gain the whole world but its worth nothing if you lose your soul. This life on earth is only for a moment. The work that Christ is doing in my soul is accomplishing far greater glory for me than I could ever have on this earth. My true life is with God in heaven and this is my hope and this is what I wait for.

 

[Leslie B]

@whois are you a Christian?

 

[crjmurray]

@whois are you a Christian?

No.