Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
No, you don't understand and I'm reading carefully. I'll demonstrate:
Yes you do. You do it again just a few words later:
If it would please you that I will use the word "function" in the future instead of "work", then so be it since they are synonyms in this context.
And you say it *again* right here, assuming substantive evolution is better than nothing in the context of common descent.
Because, as measured by Shannon, the information loss is not enough to cause catastrophic failure. Some noise will continue to the next generation... which will build more noise on top of that.
We need your evidence these mutated copies are creating novel function from the noise.
It's because I think we'll find in the end that any beneficial mutation is either a burned bridge that stops a rear guard attack on an organism, or a throwback to a function that had been lost but was regained by random mutation. That's what Shannon would predict, thus we'd need to see evidence to the contrary if you think common descent functions better with noise.
alwight
New member
What on earth does "the evidence of it being as written" mean? It's just a meaningless platitude.
Who wrote it? In what context? What evidence supports it?
Is simply having a belief, however unsupportable with facts and evidence, better than disbelief? What makes your specific belief any more true than any other person's bald assertion or ancient scriptural faith?
Of course they are often explained in terms of the evidence, if you think that an explanation is wrong based on the evidence then let's hear it, but what good is it to talk about "corporate welfare of the entirety" which is a pretty meaningless soundbite, can you not discuss facts and evidence or do such things just get in the way of what you want to believe?
How did plant pollinators get in here? :liberals:
In the real world some plants would perhaps go extinct if their pollen could not be passed on, but this is to do with real testable causes and effect, real evidence, does that actually interest you at all or is a proposed supernatural and having a spiritual belief more important to you?
That is for areas where there is little or no conjecture, where explanations are never shown to be false based on facts and evidence, which are generally accepted as being true. If they are not then they can be falsified at any time should that be the case and we will all have better knowledge because of it.
If something has no reasonable way to be falsified, if it is, then it has nothing of value to say and can be easily discarded as worthless assertion. You perhaps realise that bald belief has no way to be falsified which is probably why the concept of falsifiability is so uncomfortable for you.
Is that really your "reasoning"? That just because some answers are too difficult and complex for you to come to terms with that therefore there can be no natural explanation, the fallacy of appealing to incredulity? Come on, you get real!
Cross Reference
New member
Stop being such a clown. You have no facts to support your opinion. Theories are NOT facts. Even your pseudo science has to admit that.
Other than opinions in abundance, why not try to prove your theories, any one of them, as fact like what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Other than opinions in abundance, why not try to prove your theories, any one of them, as fact like what came first, the chicken or the egg?
gcthomas
New member
No, you have only a very cursory understanding of Shannon's theory and how is can be used, so you are stepping way beyond your cognitive limits here. You are looking silly to anyone but the ignorant faithful.
alwight
New member
You rather expose yourself as yet another anti-science creationist who doesn't understand what a scientific theory is.
Formal theories can be falsified but they are never proven since proof is perhaps only for mathematics and whiskey, not science.
Scientific theories that remain unfalsified represent the best explanations there are, the onus is on those who reject them to show by the evidence where they are wrong. However they are not shown to be false by making bald assertions and supernatural presuppositions.
Cross Reference
New member
Proof is by evidence. You have none. Is there move I need for understanding; I need to take into consideration?
alwight
New member
If you personally remain unconvinced by the presented science then that's your business, but I suggest that you don't really have too much interest in any scientific explanations of the evidence and would much sooner rush to assume that something miraculous was a satisfactory conclusion to hold.
lain:
Cross Reference
New member
If you personally remain unconvinced by the presented science then that's your business, but I suggest that you don't really have too much interest in any scientific explanations of the evidence and would much sooner rush to assume that something miraculous was a satisfactory conclusion to hold.
Well, what choice is there when you offer no scientific evidence; no scientific opinion based upon solid results of tests that have left you with but more theories?
Ever wonder why the difference in DNA in individuals; need for rejection drugs for organ transplant recipients
Science proves the Bible to be true.
You don't see anything miraculous about life, the world, the universe ?If you personally remain unconvinced by the presented science then that's your business, but I suggest that you don't really have too much interest in any scientific explanations of the evidence and would much sooner rush to assume that something miraculous was a satisfactory conclusion to hold.
alwight
New member
As a superlative I might perhaps use the word "miraculous" myself sometimes but I am not aware of anything that requires that an actual miracle needs to be used in place of a rational scientific answer.
lain:
alwight
New member
I've tried to explain to you how a scientific theory sets the highest standard of explanation for all the vast amounts of available natural facts and evidence available everywhere, indicating to more rational people than you perhaps that Darwinian evolution is a virtual fact of life which requires no presumption of a supernatural, but it has fallen on stony ground obviously.
lain:
So you think that Gabriel was an alien and not an angel, even though the Bible says he was an angel, and that Raphael was an angel, and Michael, and Uriel also? And this Divine Being, do you call Him the Divine Alien? Where is your head at man? Who taught you all of this poop? Did you figure it out all yourself? I know you are wrong. But I'll wait until I hear you out before I tell you.
Michael
Do you use this phrase often? Seems I've heard it from you before. My instincts tell me that there is a God. Not a divine alien. Never in a million years would I think that!!
Dear Caino,
They were still buying doves and other animals for sacrificial reasons when Jesus was on earth. That's when He overturned the tables of the money-changers.
Michael
Dear Caino,
Satan fell from Heaven before Adam and Eve were created on the earth. It was him, speaking telepathically through the serpent who fooled Eve. You'll also notice that Adam and Eve did die, just as the Lord God said they would. But they didn't do it until much later. Adam lived for 930 years before he died {see Gen. 5:5}. Living forever had to deal with having eternal life in Heaven. So Adam lived just as long as the rest of them did on earth. He didn't die fast from eating from the evil tree.
Michael
From what I understand in Genesis 5:2KJV}, "Male and female called He them; and blessed them; and called "THEIR} name 'Adam' in the day "THEY" were created. " I take it that God created other Adams all around the outskirts of the Garden of Eden, and they also helped populate the Earth.
Michael
Myself, I think Gabriel is a celestial being, it's you who used the term "alien" in order to be offensive. I'm simply pointing out that there was, is and will always be many celestial beings of many different orders serving at the pleasure of deity. They weren't just confined to 2,000 years ago. They are all around us. Jesus was a divine spirit being who became a human being.
They aren't aliens if we know who they are, you and other immature people on this forum took to using terms like cult and aliens and ufo's for no other childish reason than to be offensive. Now you are arguing against your own terms.
Genesis 18:1
"Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth"
alwight
New member
I wonder if you can see the problem here Michael in a debate about Creation v Evolution?
Mythical happenings from an ancient scripture or some imagined fantasy past actually has no bearing on what evidentially is the truth and what actually has happened. The natural material world just cannot be mixed and matched with someone's supernatural ideas.
- Status