Evolutionism vs creationism

[infernovia]

One could counter with 'what finite mind can comprehend the infite'.

One would ask if you cannot comprehend infinity, how can you pose such a question in the first place.

An easier question to answer is that WE are within the everything, meaning everything we can
comprehend. Whether god is within what I comprehend or not, I can't say.

Yes, but easier doesn't mean it is the right one does it?

It still amazes me that people put such faith in measures that reach into the hundreds of
milliards of years.

Guesstimations. You would need to have something that actually effects the radio-isotopes to disprove it. And I am not saying it is not possible, there can be such things, but it doesn't seem very likely.

Humans on every inhabited continents did form notions of god. One could say it is a
hardwired feature, not necesarily to believe, but to consider. Upon seeing miraculous
results, they have the choice, as I do, of believing said results are the product of random
crashings, or design

Aka, a platonic model or a universe filled with flux. The former is definitely the easier of the two, but it doesn't mean it is correct.

> Electrons, for examples, are fictional constructions

Drats, there goes years of electrical study...

Like I said, useful error. It doesn't matter if electrons are "ideal" (aka a pure signifier/abstraction) as long as it provides a useful model to work with (after all, one must account for quantum mechanics...). Again, you take the easy way out, which is also the reason you won't let go of god.

I'm not entirely sure that is what we are saying. That would encompass all abstract and
concrete things, all we do and don't comprehend. I think when most people say universe,
they are indicating concrete things of which they are aware. At least, that is rather
the context that I used the word in the post you quoted.

Yes, as things that exists. For all time. For example, you could not have "a thing that is outside of everything" which would contradict our definition of "thing" "outside" and "everything." If you define east in the direction that the sun rises, you cannot have the sun rise in a not east direction. And yes, I am differentiating between things that exists and things that are pure abstractions, I am not sure why you aren't?

Instead of passing along the trait of
being better suited to survive an appocalypse (which at least makes sense), you are saying
it is more a matter of passing along the trait of being best able to exploit post-appocalypse.
The flaw is that the beings most fit to exploit the post-appocalypse may well have died
within it.

No, the new theory is that not only did these animals survive the apocalyptic conditions, but they must dominate in the post apocalyptic world.

So lets say you have species A and species B and species C. Species A dominates before apocalypse and has dominated the food chain, B and C are fighting the tough life and are inconsequential at this time, they are relatively underdeveloped at the time lets say.

Apocalypse happens, thoroughly knocking down the ability of A from the environment. But lets say species B and species C both kept their species intact (warm blooded in a cold apocalypse lets say). What happens when the world reverts back to abundance (aka pre-apocalyptic climate)? Which wins out?

Species A? But now it doesn't have the numerical superiority (or food chain superiority) anymore that kept B and C underground, so this means its a race to see which species can take advantage of the new environment faster.

So its not JUST that the animal had to survive the apocalypse, but it has to survive the post apocalypse. In post-apocalyptic conditions new mutations which could not survive in apocalyptic conditions (lets say, bigger size) could dominate in the post-apocalyptic ones and it will be reliant on which species can showcase these mutations faster (this dramatically increases the usefulness of sexual creatures btw). But then the apocalypse happens again, and then the mutations that rapidly took hold in post-apocalypse might be inferior in the new conditions. And so a new species might dominate.

Yes, there might be an organism within Species A that could take advantage of post-apocalyptic conditions that were completely wiped out (in fact, there are a number of these). But thats the nature of the world.

In other news, I have personally deduced the first lifeform to have been colored green, and
sported 37 legs, according to the gut-method. Who knows if it is accurate or not?

Yeah, guesstimations sure are that, guestimates. But its founded on something here, not nothing. I am sure this number will be modified in a bit, but I would place the timeframe around right. I would say that if the sexual revolution happened way before, then there is definitely something wrong with the current understanding of evolution/mutation theory.

And I am not saying that there aren't some interesting gaps we need to fill with evolution, there certainly is. But the premise is good, the evidence we have is clearly favoring it vastly (I will be surprised if it really is modified by that much, like the first lifeform is only 100 million years away from the first sexual one would be a big change in evo-biology), and seems to correlate with the law of large numbers and selection. So it seems to be pure psychological at the moment.

But heck, at least you can say "I don't know," thats atleast credit-worthy.

[gut]

>> 'what finite mind can comprehend the infite'.

> if you cannot comprehend infinity, how can you pose such a question

Not being able to comprehend quantum physics doesn't prevent me from thinking such a
thing exists, or asking how anyone can comprehend it If quantum physicists exist,
it implies quantum physics exist, eh?
I'm having much fun with this.

> Yes, but easier doesn't mean it is the right one does it?

I answered your question by saying I don't know. I don't have a problem saying that if
it is true, and often wish other people didn't either.

> You would need to have something that actually effects the radio-isotopes to disprove
it. And I am not saying it is not possible, there can be such things, but it doesn't
seem very likely.

I have heard of such things (in passing) long ago, but have little interest in searching
links. Considering the number of skeptics in the scientific world, I imagine googling
would almost certainly turn up some date-testing related questions/controversies. The
point I was making, is that there are places/communities where mentioning such questions
would be considered taboo.

>>> Electrons, for examples, are fictional constructions

>> Drats, there goes years of electrical study...

> Like I said, useful error. It doesn't matter if electrons are "ideal" (aka a pure
signifier/abstraction) as long as it provides a useful model to work with

So electrons=fake, and you wanna me to try to prove otherwise? No thanks.

> you take the easy way out, which is also the reason you won't let go of god.

Declining a quest to prove the existence of electrons is not a sign of laziness, it is a sign
of having other interests. Believing in god is not a sign of laziness, but rather it is
simply a case of disbelieving some of the theories you believe, and for good reason.

> you could not have "a thing that is outside of everything"
...
I am differentiating between things that exists and things that are pure abstractions, I am not sure
why you aren't?

To my mind:

everything = everything we know
thing != ONLY things we know

Did that clarify, or just mix more?

> not only did these animals survive the apocalyptic conditions, but they must dominate in
the post apocalyptic world.

Agreed. By default, the survivors of appocalypse would have signifigant advantage over the
ones that died.

> Species A? But now it doesn't have the numerical superiority (or food chain superiority)
anymore that kept B and C underground, so this means its a race to see which species can
take advantage of the new environment faster

You are going heavily into theory here. I don't agree with your assesment at all, and
consider such ramblings in the 'I KNOW' line of thought. You don't know that is the way
things would have worked. We know the results, as we see them with our eyes, but claiming
conjecture like ^that is the fact of how said results came to be is just wrong.

Trying to prove that catastrophy speeds evolution by creating race situation is just flawed.
Alternate THEORY could be that most cold blooded creatures died for no other reason than
because they were cold blooded, not because they lost post-appocalyptic race for resource
collection.

> interesting gaps we need to fill with evolution, there certainly is. But the premise is good

I have stated in the past that evolution is logical. I don't imagine you read that though.

> the evidence we have is clearly favoring it vastly (I will be surprised if it really is
modified by that much

The evidence that small dogs can change to big dogs is sound. The evidence that bacteria
can transform into an adom player is less sound. I will be surprised if evolutionary theory
and 20-zillion-years-precision date testing doesn't continue evolving with each generation.

> at least you can say "I don't know," thats atleast credit-worthy.

Actually pride myself on being able to admit that without shame. So few can.

[infernovia]

Gut, when I mean that evolution looks logical and sound, I mean that it looks about 90-96% complete. If you can honestly say that humans did not come from some bacteria without some undetectable but allpowerful god, then you are saying you have serious problems with evolution as we understand it. So you cannot obviously think it is as logical and sound as I do, you actually think there is a profound error within it.

So yes, I bothered to read that. It doesn't change the response anyway.

So electrons=fake, and you wanna me to try to prove otherwise? No thanks.

Meh, whatever.

You are going heavily into theory here. I don't agree with your assesment at all, and
consider such ramblings in the 'I KNOW' line of thought.

Yet, I am simply postulating an example. A model. I don't really care if that is exactly what happened, but I am trying to portray a very simplistic idea of how a species could survive the apocalypse, yet die in the repopulation race. What we are entertaining is a "could something have worked out this way?" The traits could have been named XYZ for all I care, but I didn't so that it would be easy to read.

You don't know that is the way
things would have worked. We know the results, as we see them with our eyes, but claiming
conjecture like ^that is the fact of how said results came to be is just wrong.

Trying to prove that catastrophy speeds evolution by creating race situation is just flawed.
Alternate THEORY could be that most cold blooded creatures died for no other reason than
because they were cold blooded, not because they lost post-appocalyptic race for resource
collection.

And how do you explain they died? Were they like "oh I am cold-blooded, where is the razor blade so I can slit my wrist open?" You aren't even disagreeing with me at all actually, you are saying that one defecit it had (being cold-blooded) could not keep up with the warm-blooded species in the repopulation race.

I am not trying to prove the apocalypse speeds up anything. What I am saying is that it shifts the environment dramatically that can emphasize completely different traits than before and how such things could pan in the world history.

Not being able to comprehend quantum physics doesn't prevent me from thinking such a
thing exists, or asking how anyone can comprehend it If quantum physicists exist,
it implies quantum physics exist, eh?

Quantum mechanics is at least something definable that can be accepted or rejected.

Instead what you are doing is something different. You are saying "I don't think this thing here is comprehensible by anything, but yeah, it created everything." To me, then the question would be "how would it have created everything?" "What did it actually do?" etc. Everything else I would consider laziness. But of course you have a way out for this "It is impossible to understand what he actually did."

I can do this to justify sooo many fields its not even funny. Like, I can create a hidden variable "xyz" that takes care of the local-reality problem (which is undetectable by any man-made machine of course). I can make a hidden mechanic called "hidden demon" that can distort anything we have gotten sensually. So for me, I just can't hope to rely on a justification like that.

But to each his own. Edit: To clarify, if I did have to rely on a mechanic like that, I would rather say "I don't know" rather than pretend to know.

[gut]

> you are saying you have serious problems with evolution as we understand it

I'll agree with that, mainly relating to time frames.

> I am trying to portray a very simplistic idea of how a species could survive the apocalypse,
yet die in the repopulation race
...
> I am not trying to prove the apocalypse speeds up anything.

I somehow messed grobblewobble's post #511 as being yours:

Natural disasters do not slow evolution down, but speed it up. For example, after the
extinction of the dinosaurs there was an explosion of diversity of mammals.

I am arguing with too many people to keep up with who is who
I will agree that a species could easily survive a catastrophy, only to die to something else.

> You are saying "I don't think this thing here is comprehensible by anything, but yeah,
it created everything."

Had to read this a few times before realizing that this is actually a pretty accurate
summary of how I think. I would say it is do to logic and process of elimination that I
arrive where I do. If everything we know doesn't fully account for the order that I see
with my eyes, then the remainder must fall to that which we don't. I think order doesn't
come from chaos (a big exploding nothing), so I think the 'remainder' isn't explosions
or collisions.

> To me, then the question would be "how would it have created
everything?" "What did it actually do?" etc. Everything else I would consider laziness.

That is rather the sticking point in the purely scientific theory as well, if I understand
it correctly. The 'first there was nothing, then it exploded' theory has begged the question
'where did the nothing come from'. The answer for both is "I dunno", and furthermore, I'm
not particularly interested. I have questioned many times if this ambivelance is
abnormal/reprehensible, and most people tell me it isn't. I just have other interests.

> But of course you have a way out for this "It is impossible to understand what he actually did.

That isn't the way I would answer the question above. I would say I don't know how, as I
just did. There is no problem in my mind of god using/creating physics, matter, energy,
whatever to accomplish things. That is why I am much more accepting of the idea of evolution
than the majority of people I live near. It is entirely desirable, in my eyes, for people to
investigate physics or religion if they have an inclination, to try to find the remaining
answers. I won't be joining them though, as I feel no need to.

> I would rather say "I don't know" rather than pretend to know.

Then at least we are in agreement on one thing
I would also prefer you say you don't know than pretend to ; )

[infernovia]

That is rather the sticking point in the purely scientific theory as well, if I understand
it correctly.

Science hasn't explained it completely for my satisfaction, and that's fine. I am ok with a "I don't know" if I don't understand. So that is my solution, I would rather not create a validation that is really based on nothing.

But yeah, I guess thats the difference between you and me.

Edit: This came off as a really snarky comment, I definitely didn't mean it like that.

[gut]

> I would rather not create a validation that is really based on nothing.

I have issue with the words 'create' and 'nothing'. I prefer 'strongly suspect' and
'hints/imprints/suggestions'. Of course I didn't invent the notion of god, there are
milliard of humanoids who swear they can commune with it.

EDIT: we are the only 2 people logged in to the forums

[xan]

Gut, would you go about your life any differently if you didn't believe in god?

[gut]

I can't predict alternate realities.

[xan]

I can't predict alternate realities.

I was hoping it would be an exercise in reason rather than prediction.

[gut]

OK, I'll try.

I had notions of right and wrong drilled into me by a religious parent. If I did not have said
parent, and said drilling, I would have turned out much differently indeed. There were many
right decisions I made earlier in life, in part, do to a belief in god and the logic that it would
be wrong to harm his creations (including me).

Considering the environment I was born into, without a belief and respect for god I would
have prolly fallen into the following habits/pitfalls in my earlier years, and they may very
well have continued into later years: tobbaco, alcohol, marijuana (and/or other illegal drugs),
racism, vandalism, tatoos, thievery, foul language, jail, promiscuity (STD's), mistreating
females, violence, etc...

The reason I speculate this, is because those are the problems I see in nearby communities
that aren't as religious as the one I live in. No, it is not a money thing, as the average incomes
are similar. Seems having two churches and zero liquor stores within walking distance of one's
house is a rather good idea.

On a sad note, my county was just voted 'wet' in the last election
I invite you all to come, get drunk, and vandalize your hearts out. Maybe then they'll change it back.