lichess.org
Donate

evolution or creation

@clousems said in #24:
> #17: @polylogarithmique
> Supposing there is an omnipotent, all-seeing entity, who are we to evaluate his decision-making process? I'm a big fan of rational thought, but I don't know if it always holds up in these esoteric discussions.
Agreed, but this was merely an aside. My main point was evolution supposes randomness, which in turns is incompatible with the idea of a purpose. Of course that doesn't rule out the possibility of a creator, but not exactly the kind of creator of so-called intelligent design or of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
@Mantram_PateL said in #36:
> @ddfjdfjh
>
> Evolution.
> You'd say that we are almost perfect and hence the probability states that God created us. But think about the higher probability. 700 Quintillion Planets

Again. Evolution = change over time. Thats the plain definition of that word and its not specific. You can talk about the evolution of chess, how it has changed over time, you need to add another layer or word to define what are you talking about

But when you talk about evolution, you are most likely referring to evolutionary theory which as i said early, talks about biological evolution, about life. It is true that life happens on the planet, but the evolutionary theory does not explain the origin of space, the planets, the tectonic movements, nor volcanos, nor asteroids, nor stars. Nothing about that.

It explains how life changes over time. Thats it. Everything else is from another discipline of science.

So when you talk about evolution and refer to a cosmic event, you opinion is wrong because you have no idea what you are talking about. And the problem is that you dont know.

Just watch the videos and you will understand why evolutionary theory does explain the change of life over time.
@ddfjdfjh
Downvote everything you like, i dont care dude. But if you keep referring to cosmic events on an biological evolution discussion you will still be wrong.

Thats why theist are always wrong. If you are ignorant about the topic its fine. I offered help in the form of clarification and in form videos so you stop being ignorant about that topic.

If you dont watch them, its fine also, but you will remain ignorant in the subject and every time you bring the topic out, some one who knows more than you will point that out. Some people prefer believing in "intelligent" design and remain ignorant the entirety of their lives about the evolutionary theory. I dont know about you. Its your choice.

Dont be mad at me for explaining why you are wrong. Be mad at you for refusing to learn.

Evolution is not an opinion. Its an observable fact. Might as well learn it. Its actually useful.
Mahatma Gandhi was a fighter for freedom of England...he was probably in secret society which are probably satanists.
It is incredible for me that anyone believe in theories of evolution, because it is normal for scientists to create phylosophical theories. Theory about distinction of dinosaurs is impossible ! Asteroid crash on Earth killing almost everyone and dinosaurs but not some mammals and few millions of years later - monkeywoman gave birth to first human ?1
There is one book about incredibless in evolution called " When human intelligence become monkey's "
Every human should be able to use his own brain...Charles Darwin was born and died as Christian, and his theory was just that - theory...
@ddfjdfjh said in #44:
> Mahatma Gandhi was a fighter for freedom of England...he was probably in secret society which are probably satanists.

I dont believe in any dieties. So i could care less what he believed.

> It is incredible for me that anyone believe in theories of evolution, because it is normal for scientists to create phylosophical theories.

Nope. Philosophy is on the realm of philosophers. Science make models of understanding nature based on empirical evidence. Evolution is an observable phenomenon. So we created a visual model if you will, called evolutionary theory to visualize it better, and once put to the test, it is correct. We have more evidence for the evolution than from gravity. Its not a supposition.

>Theory about distinction of dinosaurs is impossible ! Asteroid crash on Earth killing almost ?everyone and dinosaurs

Its not a theory that an asteroid impacted earth. Geology can demonstrate that. Geology can also explain what happens in the environment when such an impact happens.

The only thing evolution can do is correlate the lack of dinosaur fossils after the given date of the meteor crash.

>but not some mammals and few millions of years later -

It didnt killed all dinosaurs, nor reptiles, nor insects. It killed most of them, just very few branches on all sides survived.
Birds ARE dinosaurs. All non avian dinosaurs died there, but not the avian ones.
Most reptiles also went extinct, just 2 branches survived.
Same with mammals, just 3 branches survived.

>monkeywoman gave birth to first human ?

There is no such thing as the "first human". Thats a concept coined by theist, not science. But again, you are not too versed on science, nor the theist that have given that info to you.
Humans ARE monkeys whether you accept it or not. You just dont know why if you dont know how taxonomy classifies life. Which again, its on the videos.

> There is one book about incredibless in evolution called " When human intelligence become monkey's "

And there is a book about how to make magic. But you know magic is not real right?

> Every human should be able to use his own brain...

Im trying to help you to use your brain, but in order to use it properly, you need to understand how logic work first. Then you have to fill that brain with FACTS, then, once you have FACTS and logic, you can properly use it.
If you have misinformation and lack of logic, you will demonstrate it, as you are doing it here. Seriously, im trying to help by providing facts, logic, well thats another discussion we can save for later.

>Charles Darwin was born and died as Christian,

But he surely didnt believed god created man at its own image and resemblance. Nor god creating life. He died knowing
evolution was correct. He predicted a transitional fossil, linking a "kind to another", and they found such fossil when he was still alive, linking dinosaurs with birds

>and his theory was just that - theory.

There is a common misconception from theist about the use of the word. They equate theory as a wild guess, but not science.
You see, there are observable phenomenons around us and there are explanation for such phenomenons.

So you have gravity, which is an observable phenomenon.
But you have gravity theory, which is the model, or the explanation of it, backed up with data to confirm, so by referring to the theory, you can build a spaceship "theorize" how much fuel you need and in which direction it should go. And it can actually land on the moon, which means the theory is correct.

You have nuclear explosions, we have seen plenty of that phenomenon.
But you you have nuclear theory, which is the model or the explanation of why or how that happens.To not type much, we can create nuclear bombs.

And you have biological evolution, which is an observable phenomenon.
And we have the evolutionary theory, which explains how life changes over time. Needless to say, again, we have more information about how life changes over time than how gravity works. And both are true, tested, confirmed.

A scientific theory is not a wild assertion. What you call -theory- is in fact what we all define as hypothesis.

A theory is the maximum grade you have for knowledge. Its as close to a fact as we can get. We have enough knowledge of the topic that we can create a model to understand how it happens. A theory its not a wild assertion. its the combination and culmination of all our knowledge in the subject at that time. Sometimes you get more information, which help refine the model, hence refining the theory, because now we know more. But we know enough about most things that we dont toss the model, because in essence, they are correct, just some details need to be corrected. So for instance, when we get new fossils, or new info in the genome of certain clades, sometimes we need to re arrange some of the branches because we have new details, but the model itself its correct.
You have it backwards.

Noticing a trend? All you are saying is wrong. Just watch the videos and learn.
@ddfjdfjh said in #5:
> @Alientcp did You read book by Robert Gentry "Little mistery of creation". There he explains how he found radium in the rock of granite, which decomposes into polonium, he found three rings of decay of radium to polonium, the process of decomposition was estimated at three minutes. Gentry's conclusion is that this granite rock was formed in three minutes, which is the time of the decay of radium to polonium. The conclusion is that God could have created the world in six days if granite was created in three minutes. Robert Gentry defended his position in court and against leading experts in evolution, who failed to explain his conclusion. He lost, without explanation, evolutionists said his discovery was a "little mystery of creation" and that it was only a matter of time before they could explain it scientifically. If he won, the theory of creating a world from an intelligent being would be introduced in schools, that is. God.
> By the way, I was brought up as a Christian, and I studied evolution at school and believed in it until I heard this story.
> And, simple question:
> iff evolution happened what was first - chicken or egg ?
@ddfjdfjh said in #5:
> @Alientcp did You read book by Robert Gentry "Little mistery of creation". There he explains how he found radium in the rock of granite, which decomposes into polonium, he found three rings of decay of radium to polonium, the process of decomposition was estimated at three minutes. Gentry's conclusion is that this granite rock was formed in three minutes, which is the time of the decay of radium to polonium. The conclusion is that God could have created the world in six days if granite was created in three minutes. Robert Gentry defended his position in court and against leading experts in evolution, who failed to explain his conclusion. He lost, without explanation, evolutionists said his discovery was a "little mystery of creation" and that it was only a matter of time before they could explain it scientifically. If he won, the theory of creating a world from an intelligent being would be introduced in schools, that is. God.
> By the way, I was brought up as a Christian, and I studied evolution at school and believed in it until I heard this story.
> And, simple question:
> iff evolution happened what was first - chicken or egg ?

The chicken, obviously.
Why? because, have you ever seen two eggs shagging?
@ddfjdfjh you seem pretty convinced of your assertions. I don't understand, then, why you don't watch the videos @Alientcp linked. I mean, that would make sense if you were afraid to be proven wrong, but since you are so sure of yourself, you don't risk anything giving it an eye, do you ?
@polylogarithmique said in #48:
@Alientcp linked. I mean, that would make sense if you were afraid to be proven wrong, but since you are so sure of yourself, you don't risk anything giving it an eye, do you ?

To what? The book? Its a self published book, 50 years old, with even creationist bashing it, with no peer review, and with no follow up.
If it was a peer review paper, i would read it. But as it is, its not scientific, its preaching in disguise. So, it is a waste of time.

I once heard about 2 cases of people doing radiometric dating wrong.
1 was trying to measure dinosaur fossils with c14 techniques. There is no carbon in dinosaur fossils, and the half life of c14 is not even 1 million years.

The other one, i dont remember the specifics, but i think it was indeed this guy. I could look up the methodology he used and how it actually should be used, but reading the book as a whole, i dont think so. Im not really interested in the authors opinions, im interested in the data itself, to know if its true or not, but when i took a glance about it, i quickly found objections, even from young earth creationists.

And again, the guy is a young earth creationist and all the body of evidence gather by legions of geologists suggest an old earth, backed up with data and peer review papers, and new evidence keep suggesting that. He is the lone guy suggesting the opposite with no peer review. If he had peer review data, or even a proper paper behind it, i wouldnt dismiss him..

Now, regardless if the earth is young or old. The radiometric measurement just gives a date for the when the earth was formed, so, even if he was correct with the measurement, it does not provide evidence for creation nor a creator, just a date. If you are appealing for creation, you need to demonstrate the creator or creation. There is a logical flaw in the argument itself, so yes, there are a few reasons i am dismissing this without too much consideration. It has no demonstrable facts nor logic. It needs more to be taken into consideration.

I mean, if the radiometric measurement is correct and proven, without a doubt i would abandon the old earth "belief", but he does not provide evidence. He is arguing personal experience, self published with no peer review. Thats an automatic dismiss in science.

The tuber i linked obviously has its own religious opinions, but the videos i linked, themselves, are not his opinion, perhaps a remark or 2, but not the point of the videos, its just the explanation of how the taxonomist have classified life and why. All of that is peer reviewed already, he just explains why the taxonomy works as a model for evolution. How they link "one kind" to "another kind".

Just watch the playlist yourself. He just explains. He is not asking you to believe a thing. Not sure about the first or second video, but after the third video and onwards, once he tells you why stuff is classified as it is, he actually ask you if you accept your classification in that group. So whenever you dont accept, you can quit. But once you start to understand the system, you will watch the whole thing, because the classification is correct. You can quit when you disagree with the data. Im just telling him to check the data. Or at least the conclusion of it.

It really helps.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.