Evolution and Creationism are the same thing

[zemelo.franky]

History teaches that most emotionally charged dichotomous debates wind up being resolved as a compromise between both positions. With that in mind, I'd say there's reasonable evidence to conclude that "existence" is the result of both Evolution and Creation. Bear with me:

1. Evolution - human beings definitely did not have anything to do with the hundred-million-year-old fossils we've found and dated (for example, and we only need one). Point: ****, I guess Evolution is real.

2. Creation - we witness it every day; pollution, deforestation, etc. and their counterparts, conservation, charity, etc. These trends are natural only by extension; they are the intelligent designs of a naturally evolved animal. They happen at relatively faster speeds, they exist for relatively shorter periods of time; they are analogous to the quanta of the universe that is our planet.

Evolution = Classical Mechanics (Newtonian/Hamiltonian/Lagrangian), macro-particles (very similar or greater order of magnitude relative to humans).

Creation = Quantum Mechanics, "subatomic" particles (much smaller order of magnitude relative to humans).

Note the implicit relativity.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't think that's creationism.

 

[Skwim]

I don't think that's creationism.

And it certainly doesn't go anywhere in establishing "Evolution and Creationism are the same thing."

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems you have a brand new definition of "creationism".
But your argument doesn't work with the commonly accepted definition.

 

[Copernicus]

History teaches that most emotionally charged dichotomous debates wind up being resolved as a compromise between both positions. With that in mind, I'd say there's reasonable evidence to conclude that "existence" is the result of both Evolution and Creation...

It is true that there was an emotionally-charged debate for and against Darwinian evolution in the 19th century, but history teaches that creationism lost that debate.

And the others are correct that you weren't talking about "creationism". You got confused by the fact that "creation" is the stem for the suffix "ism" in "creationism", and that led you to shift the meaning of the term as it is normally understood in the context of this forum.

 

[zemelo.franky]

I don't think that's creationism.

It seems you have a brand new definition of "creationism".

No, I think I just have a better understanding of what it really means as opposed to the millions of dullards whose paragon of achievement is four loosely-connected sentences that arguably outline a discernible thought.

...it certainly doesn't go anywhere in establishing "Evolution and Creationism are the same thing."

I don't think it's asking a lot of a reader to understand conceptually what I'm getting at. How about we re-focus on the idea at hand, and not waste any more time debating Creationism as we know it; it's pointless, we know that the "Earth is 2000 years old" crap is bogus, if a person is stupid enough to believe it, they'll probably die in a accident soon anyway.

 

[zemelo.franky]

It is true that there was an emotionally-charged debate for and against Darwinian evolution in the 19th century, but history teaches that creationism lost that debate.

I'm sorry, when did the debate end? I didn't realize that everything was unfurling according to your grand design, and that you were the arbiter of definitions and other things-super-sweet.

And the others are correct that you weren't talking about "creationism".

Jesus, I get it, you like to use the dumb version so it's easier to argue against.

You got confused by the fact that "creation" is the stem for the suffix "ism" in "creationism", and that led you to shift the meaning of the term as it is normally understood in the context of this forum.

Yes, I shifted the meaning, but no, there was no confusion involved, unless you're speaking of your own.

I don't get it; not one reply that addresses the central content of the post. Okay, "Creationism" officially means Christian dogma, you've hijacked the term, hooray... can we get back to the point of this thread?

...Evolution by Natural Selection fails to differentiate between two distinct subcategories that exhibit the same mathematical principles as Classical and Quantum Mechanics...

 

[Skwim]

Nice talking with you. :run:

 

[zemelo.franky]

It always tickles me to see an instantiation of the classic schoolyard walk-of-shame when one has nothing left to say, but can't resist the urge at a parting comment.

 

[freethinker44]

...Evolution by Natural Selection fails to differentiate between two distinct subcategories that exhibit the same mathematical principles as Classical and Quantum Mechanics...

Evolution never made the claim, how did it fail?

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with creation of any type. It only deals with things that already exist. The only time evolution will ever have anything to say about the creation of anything, is when creation states how something was formed or how it came to be in its present state. Other than that the two have nothing to do with each other.

 

[ReligionBro]

They're the same? Never heard that before.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Evolution by Natural Selection fails to differentiate between two distinct subcategories that exhibit the same mathematical principles as Classical and Quantum Mechanics...

Drivel ...

 

[zemelo.franky]

Evolution never made the claim, how did it fail?

...it failed?

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with creation of any type.

Really? Where did all the stuff that "evolves" come from? You have a provable scientific theory with the math to back it up? (rhetorical, please treat as so).

It only deals with things that already exist.

My point exactly; it is incomplete. Perhaps biological creation is a major component of the cyclical (nested) process. Inflation, anyone?

The only time evolution will ever have anything to say about the creation of anything, is when creation states how something was formed or how it came to be in its present state. Other than that the two have nothing to do with each other.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

So when a humans as a species intelligently build myriad devices, social structures, infrastructures etc. that directly affect the ecosystem, you don't see a scientific value in considering it as a related but discrete component of the Theory?

 

[zemelo.franky]

Drivel ...

Aw, loneliness alert!

 

[Copernicus]

I'm sorry, when did the debate end? I didn't realize that everything was unfurling according to your grand design, and that you were the arbiter of definitions and other things-super-sweet.

The debate ended quite some time ago in the scientific community. It still rages on in internet forums, churches, and political campaigns. I didn't realize those things, either, but it is nice of you to think so.

Jesus, I get it, you like to use the dumb version so it's easier to argue against.

No, I like to use the version of "creationism" that conforms to normal usage.

Yes, I shifted the meaning, but no, there was no confusion involved, unless you're speaking of your own.

Well, at least you admit to having equivocated. That is a step towards recovery.

I don't get it; not one reply that addresses the central content of the post. Okay, "Creationism" officially means Christian dogma, you've hijacked the term, hooray... can we get back to the point of this thread?

Creationism is not exclusive to Christianity. People here have been responding appropriately to the OP. Your thread title is misleading, and you admit that you shifted the meaning of "creationism" in order to create your straw man.

...Evolution by Natural Selection fails to differentiate between two distinct subcategories that exhibit the same mathematical principles as Classical and Quantum Mechanics...

I have no idea what you are talking about, but, if you are as brilliant as you seem to think, you should waste no further time here. You should apply your talents finding a cure for cancer or solving the world's financial crises.

 

[zemelo.franky]

Watch the ape ape; I'm glad you find my analytic style so infectious. Might you one day come up with your own.

The debate ended quite some time ago in the scientific community. It still rages on in internet forums, churches, and political campaigns. I didn't realize those things, either, but it is nice of you to think so.

Funny that the irony of this statement and your username escape you.

No, I like to use the version of "creationism" that conforms to normal usage.

Uh, yeah, I noticed. We call such people "conformists." They tend to do things like, I don't know, copy other people's ideas because they can't come up with their own.

Well, at least you admit to having equivocated. That is a step towards recovery.

You're like a platitude factory.

Creationism is not exclusive to Christianity. People here have been responding appropriately to the OP. Your thread title is misleading, and you admit that you shifted the meaning of "creationism" in order to create your straw man.

My head just exploded. No guy, you are setting up the straw man. If you want to go downward-compare yourself to a transient state of happiness, be my guest. I'm the one trying to move on with the debate.

I have no idea what you are talking about

Obviously. And yet, you just keep trying to say stuff...

but, if you are as brilliant as you seem to think

The only one who thinks I'm brilliant is you, given the whole kinda mawkish copycat gig you're running.

you should waste no further time here. You should apply your talents finding a cure for cancer or solving the world's financial crises.

What a typical dumb response to a show of original thought. Because I dare exercise my own system of thought, I must obviously a. be full of myself, b. know lots of "smart" ****, like diseases that have stumped the finest medical minds yet to have existed, or the most complex economic crisis ever, and c. be utilizing all sorts of fantastical debate techniques to manipulate my own ******* thread.

Care to resituate ourselves to a more magnanimous dynamic?

 

[Copernicus]

...I'm the one trying to move on with the debate...

No you aren't. You are just trolling. Oh well. I'll engage with you further when you appear interested in honest discussion.

 

[zemelo.franky]

Ugh, why even bother.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ugh, why even bother.

Indeed, I have no idea why anybody bothers attempting to address these threads in a serious manner. Waste of time.

 

[Skwim]

​