What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[46AND2]

Well, again, as was my point with the soccer example (though never directly stated) and the point of my first post here (where it was directly stated), it all depends on the type of explanation you desire.

A differential equation is simply an equation relating derivatives, and through the use of LaPlace Transforms, can be solved in the same manner as algebraic equations.

I think that's less than 25 words. But I doubt that's what you really want. What you really want to know is how to pass a class - how to answer a specific set of problems set before you by an instructor. Or are you interested in the theory of general calculi, because that's a topic that fascinates me.

Another thing that has always fascinated me about diffeq is that you are taught to guess. Guess an answer and try it. If it works, you solved the problem. That such an approach would be part of an official mathematics curriculum fascinates me - especially given the public perception regarding the intellectual prowess supposedly required for science/math and the amazing insights it offers. It doesn't make for a good story if the scientist/mathematician, when asked about his great discovery, replies, "Uh, I guessed."

But the same thing occurs at lower math levels when students are taught to factor a number into primes. You do it by guessing (or memorizing).

The reason that occurs is due to a mind-blowing, fascinating, full-math-geek-out concept expressed by the simple equation P/=NP.

But anyway, I get your point. So what type of explanation do you seek from creationists?

You can certainly describe WHAT differential equations are in less than 25 words...but not HOW to do it. PARTICULARLY, when your audience is a layman who insists on layman terminology as GodsGrace101 requested.

 

[Resha Caner]

You can certainly describe WHAT differential equations are in less than 25 words...but not HOW to do it. PARTICULARLY, when your audience is a layman who insists on layman terminology as GodsGrace101 requested.

Your comment was directed to GodsGrace101, so if that's all you wanted to say on the matter, fair enough. I'm just trying to connect this back to the OP. In that spirit, are you looking for a layman's explanation from a creationist?

 

[GodsGrace101]

No person on earth could could explain how to do DiffEQ in 25 words or less.

In mathematics, a differential equation is an equation that relates one or more functions and their derivatives.[1] In applications, the functions generally represent physical quantities, the derivatives represent their rates of change, and the differential equation defines a relationship between the two.

 

[Tinker Grey]

In mathematics, a differential equation is an equation that relates one or more functions and their derivatives.[1] In applications, the functions generally represent physical quantities, the derivatives represent their rates of change, and the differential equation defines a relationship between the two.

More than 25. Try again. Also, this doesn't explain how "to do DiffEQ".

 

[46AND2]

Your comment was directed to GodsGrace101, so if that's all you wanted to say on the matter, fair enough. I'm just trying to connect this back to the OP. In that spirit, are you looking for a layman's explanation from a creationist?

This tangent was based on GodsGrace101's request for someone to explain how trees came to existence in 25 words or less. With a further later stipulation that it be done in only layman terms, in an overall theme of supporting evolution.

It was further stated that ANYTHING could be explained in such few words.

I think that most, if not all, things can be defined in so many words, but not explained to any useful degree.

 

[GodsGrace101]

More than 25. Try again. Also, this doesn't explain how "to do DiffEQ".

LOL
You're soooooo demanding!
You don't explain HOW TO DO THE THING
Just what it is.

Otherwise, it would be impossible to explain anything in 25 words or less.

I mean, what if I had to explain how to play football and all the rules instead of just saying what it is.

Good night Tinker Grey...nice to see you again.

 

[Resha Caner]

This tangent was based on GodsGrace101's request for someone to explain how trees came to existence in 25 words or less. With a further later stipulation that it be done in only layman terms, in an overall theme of supporting evolution.

It was further stated that ANYTHING could be explained in such few words.

I think that most, if not all, things can be defined in so many words, but not explained to any useful degree.

I understand. It's just that that doesn't answer my question ... but that's fine.

 

[Jay Sea]

God is the a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma wrapped in story the elemental passage of the unknowable who became known through the spirit within and without from the first and originating singularity til now and beyond. A gift, a hope, a home to go to, a presence to feel, the beating of our hearts, the sounds of our breaths, the love and compassion we share, the silence, the serenity of just siting with others. There are many mundane mysteries in this word and cosmos that we still cannot solve. This mystery is one hidden by God which we will receive on going before him. So why are we like silly children looking in the cupboard and corners of the house and not simply pursuing our work of life in the Kingdom.

in love
Jay

 

[46AND2]

I understand. It's just that that doesn't answer my question ... but that's fine.

I was interested in the tangent conversation, not the OP. I am not looking for any sort of explanation, 25 words or otherwise, concerning the main topic.

Nor was I particularly looking for an explanation of my own example, as it was intended to be rhetorical, and a bit tongue in cheek. Even if a very simple explanation could be given in the requested amount of words concerning where trees came from, any such explanation would not be particularly useful, and easily discarded by the skeptic who would still, naturally, have many objections...objections which could have been addressed in a more thorough explanation.

 

[MIDutch]

God is the a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma wrapped in story the elemental passage of the unknowable who became known through the spirit within and without from the first and originating singularity til now and beyond. A gift, a hope, a home to go to, a presence to feel, the beating of our hearts, the sounds of our breaths, the love and compassion we share, the silence, the serenity of just siting with others. There are many mundane mysteries in this word and cosmos that we still cannot solve. This mystery is one hidden by God which we will receive on going before him. So why are we like silly children looking in the cupboard and corners of the house and not simply pursuing our work of life in the Kingdom.

in love
Jay

Nice sermon.

But not very helpful in solving scientific, medical, technological or ecological problems the world is dealing with.

 

[Resha Caner]

I was interested in the tangent conversation, not the OP. I am not looking for any sort of explanation, 25 words or otherwise, concerning the main topic.

Nor was I particularly looking for an explanation of my own example, as it was intended to be rhetorical, and a bit tongue in cheek. Even if a very simple explanation could be given in the requested amount of words concerning where trees came from, any such explanation would not be particularly useful, and easily discarded by the skeptic who would still, naturally, have many objections...objections which could have been addressed in a more thorough explanation.

Like I said, that's fine. I believe you that such was your intent, and it wouldn't be fair of me to badger you to divert to other things.

So, the question is open to others. I would assume at least some who've read this thread, especially the OP ( @pitabread ) would be interested.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So grass became a tree?

Nope, but they share a common ancestor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because IF someone understands how something works, they should be able to explain it in 25 words or less.

You have been given the short explanation. All you did was to deny it. That means you need to try to understand the more in depth explanation. How many times have I had to remind you that it is natural selection and variation together that are two of the main driving forces of evolution, but every time that you refer to them you only refer to one at a time?

You can't blame those that give you the 25 word version if you refuse to understand it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Math was here long before man was.
Someone/thing had to INVENT it,,,and it wasn't us.

I'm leaving this site now.

Why? That makes no sense. That is almost the same as claiming that someone had to "invent" gravity. Math just is. It is a concept. Man developed it but it is not unique to man. There is no sign that anyone needed to invent it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Come up with a scientific theory that has equivalent or better explanatory* power for the origin and diversity of species on Earth, and equivalent or better application in fields of applied biology.
Until creationists can do that, everything else is irrelevant.
*(And for the record, "God made stuff" isn't an explanation.)

There are no scientific theories that explain what life is, why it exists, or why it developed.
Until biologists can do that, their careers are irrelevant.

 

[Ophiolite]

There are no scientific theories that explain what life is, why it exists, or why it developed.
Until biologists can do that, their careers are irrelevant.

We know what life is. The "why" questions are irrelevant to science. They are matters of philosophy.

 

[pitabread]

How much interest would you have in such a venture? IOW, is the issue whether people think evolution is True (with a capital T) or just a useful model? Would you consider the case proven if new mechanisms were found for changes in allele frequency (e.g. not a descent of species), or would it have to be shown that allele frequency has changed differently than claimed, or that it hasn't changed at all? Just wonder what you're really looking for. "Explanatory power" is a vague term with no real scientific usage beyond the colloquial - at least as far as I'm aware.

To clarify explanatory power, I'm talking about a scientific framework / model that not only fits with with existing observations in nature, but can also be used as a predictive framework for future discoveries.

I'm also looking at something that would be able to derive useful applications based on said framework.

In order to formulate the above, said framework would need to be testable, and that involves identifying constraints with which to test ideas. This is one of the biggest flaws in creationism is that because it relies on unbounded supernaturalism, there are no constraints to allow testing and determination of correct or incorrect hypotheses. Hence, why there are so many variations and contradictory versions of creationism in existence.

To be perfectly honest, I think this is an insurmountable hurdle for creationists. In that sense, the OP is entirely rhetorical; if creationists could actually have come up with something to replace the theory of evolution, it likely would have already happened.

 

[46AND2]

To clarify explanatory power, I'm talking about a scientific framework / model that not only fits with with existing observations in nature, but can also be used as a predictive framework for future discoveries.

I'm also looking at something that would be able to derive useful applications based on said framework.

In order to formulate the above, said framework would need to be testable, and that involves identifying constraints with which to test ideas. This is one of the biggest flaws in creationism is that because it relies on unbounded supernaturalism, there are no constraints to allow testing and determination of correct or incorrect hypotheses. Hence, why there are so many variations and contradictory versions of creationism in existence.

In 25 words or less, of course.

 

[Resha Caner]

To be perfectly honest, I think this is an insurmountable hurdle for creationists. In that sense, the OP is entirely rhetorical; if creationists could actually have come up with something to replace the theory of evolution, it likely would have already happened.

Maybe, but not necessarily. And posting a question that is merely rhetorical doesn't invite a lot of confidence that a serious answer will be received seriously.

To clarify explanatory power, I'm talking about a scientific framework / model that not only fits with with existing observations in nature, but can also be used as a predictive framework for future discoveries.

I'm also looking at something that would be able to derive useful applications based on said framework.

In order to formulate the above, said framework would need to be testable, and that involves identifying constraints with which to test ideas.

Thanks. I appreciate your answer. And none of it is necessarily unreasonable, but I still think there are some underlying issues to address. So, do you want to address those issues or do you just want me to cut to the chase and summarizes my thoughts on alternatives to evolution knowing such thoughts are DOA?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe, but not necessarily. And posting a question that is merely rhetorical doesn't invite a lot of confidence that a serious answer will be received seriously.

The first and most important step is the one that creationists seem to be incapable of. One needs a testable hypothesis. It is a must if one wants to claim to have evidence. Do you think that you can come up with a model that can be tested on its own merits? In other words what reasonable test (and please do not refer to evolution here) that could possibly refute creationism would you make?

Thanks. I appreciate your answer. And none of it is necessarily unreasonable, but I still think there are some underlying issues to address. So, do you want to address those issues or do you just want me to cut to the chase and summarizes my thoughts on alternatives to evolution knowing such thoughts are DOA?

I am not the OP, but have at it. It would be nice if you could find alternatives that have evidence that support them (that means they should be falsifiable).