• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Real Evolution Vs Creationism Debate

Bedlam

Bedlam

Improperly Undefined
In what way is this hypocrisy? Am I contradicting myself here somewhere? I'm lost... you're going to have to explain why you have a problem with this before I can begin to refute it.



You seem to have misunderstood the second quote here. A common misconception among both theists and deists is that evolution serves the purpose of being a creation myth. Be it chemical or biological evolution (obviously you're pointing out chemical evolution - the diversification of elemental properties among planetoids and planet systems) does not try to prove an ultimate conception point for the universe on a macro or micro scale.

If you want to read a diatribe about the connection between chemical and biological evolution, I'll write you a 10-page paper. My extremely abridged explanation had to do with the concept of efficiency in nature, and how the scientific field is just beginning to grow into its birthright. Clearly you didn't understand what I was getting at. I'm not going to hold you at fault for that or try to argue with you, because I think we're on exactly the same page. I just didn't want to spend two pages worth of text explaining that creation myths are wrong and scientific study is right.

But, since I have your attention, and at the risk of derailing this thread, have you taken any college courses on macroeconomics or microeconomics? I've seen some fascinating similarities between Darwin's initial Evolutionary Theory and the development of business models in modern day economics. I'm curious about your background - how far does your understanding and education extend on the subject?
 
Troublemane

Troublemane

Well-Known Member
"I didnt come from no monkey!"

...even though my name is Mike Nesbit, and everyone, EVERYONE always makes the joke...aint you from the MONKEES?:banghead3
 
Guitar's Cry

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
I believe that both are useful models developed from different patterns. Arguing which one is truer is like arguing which is a truer concept: Love or Atomic Structure.

Which is a truer form of writing: poetry or a lab report?
 
T

themadhair

Well-Known Member
Bedlam said:
Be it chemical or biological evolution <1> (obviously you're pointing out chemical evolution - the diversification of elemental properties among planetoids and planet systems <2>) does not try to prove an ultimate conception point for the universe on a macro or micro scale.<3>
Click to expand...
<1> You are using the term ‘evolution’ in both its colloquial and scientific sense. It is a very common source of misunderstanding. To be frank here, if evolutionary theory were called by any other name you wouldn’t be mentioning two unrelated processes in the same breath as you did so here.
<2> Why are you using a term like ‘diversification’ in this context?? Also, since the nuclear fusion necessary for the formation of higher elements can only take place in stars and supernovae, it doesn’t really make much sense to talk about this in terms of planetoids and planet systems. I think you are taking concepts and terms relevant to biological evolution and applying them to chemical evolution solely because the term evolution appears in both – despite these being completely unrelated processes.
<3> Why are you even using the terms micro & macro here? Are you taking one of the creationist talking points, macro & micro evolution (which makes little sense), and applying it to chemical evolution because the term evolution appears??

If you want to read a diatribe about the connection between chemical and biological evolution, I'll write you a 10-page paper. My extremely abridged explanation had to do with the concept of efficiency in nature, and how the scientific field is just beginning to grow into its birthright. Clearly you didn't understand what I was getting at.
Click to expand...
You are damn right I don’t know what you are getting at. Putting it simply, the two most important fundamental concepts in the theory of biological evolution are natural selection, the effect of selective pressure upon competing organisms within which variation exists, and random mutation, the process by which variation is created across generations. Neither of these two fundamental concepts have an analogy with chemical evolution (or more accurately, nuclear fusion). There is no competition between atoms for resources, there is no heritable variation to talk of, there is no opportunity for optimisation and efficiency to provide selective advantage, etc. etc. etc.
You can write a 10-page paper combining the two very different and unrelated concepts if you want, but the fact that are drawing such a parallel (and apparently solely on the basis of the word evolution appearing in each) would seem to indicate a lack of understanding of both subjects. Yes, I really do not know what you are trying to get to here.

But, since I have your attention, and at the risk of derailing this thread, have you taken any college courses on macroeconomics or microeconomics?
Click to expand...
Nope.

I've seen some fascinating similarities between Darwin's initial Evolutionary Theory and the development of business models in modern day economics.
Click to expand...
I get that. The crucial element that causes overlap in the theory is the element of competition for finite resources, and the possibility of adaptation in order to more successfully compete for those resources. Ecologies and economies share many conceptual similarities which enable theories to apply to both (Nash equilibrium for example).
However, this has nothing to do with the equating of chemical evolution to biological evolution. Atoms do not experience competition for resources or possess heritable variation that would aid/hinder that struggle for resources.

I'm curious about your background - how far does your understanding and education extend on the subject?
Click to expand...
You shall remain curious.
 
Bedlam

Bedlam

Improperly Undefined
themadhair said:
Ecologies and economies share many conceptual similarities which enable theories to apply to both (Nash equilibrium for example).
Click to expand...

Nash Equilibrium hasn't even the slightest thing to do with ecologies or economies. It has to do with game theory.

themadhair said:
However, this has nothing to do with the equating of chemical evolution to biological evolution. Atoms do not experience competition for resources or possess heritable variation that would aid/hinder that struggle for resources.
Click to expand...

I agree. Chemical and biological evolution aren't equal. Why else would we use two different terms for them? But since you seem hellbent on proving my use of the word evolution in this context as wrong, allow me to cite sources to the contrary.

Evolution of Universe

The Universe

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muller: DARWIN AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE
Specifically: "We are living through a revolution in our understanding of the physical evolution of the universe. You may never have heard the question, "where were atoms made," and yet those questions are being answered."

You seem insistent in quibbling over semantics. The title of this thread is, "The Real Evolution Vs Creationism Debate". If you're not going to take an opposing viewpoint, there is no reason for you to disagree with me. The thread has already been thrown completely off track by your unnecessary argument, and it's getting tiresome. If you have more to add to the debate between evolution and creationism, feel free to post something relevant. Otherwise stop trying to draw me into an argument that I refuse to participate in.

themadhair said:
You shall remain curious.
Click to expand...

*shrug* Have fun arguing with yourself then. I've no need to waste time on someone that's apparently only here to troll.

Good day.
 
T

themadhair

Well-Known Member
Bedlam said:
Nash Equilibrium hasn't even the slightest thing to do with ecologies or economies. It has to do with game theory.
Click to expand...
And game theory doesn’t apply to ecology and economics??? Also – are you aware of the contribution of Nash equilibrium in evolutionary theory? And surely you are not denying the contribution of Nash equilibrium to economics?

I agree. Chemical and biological evolution aren't equal. Why else would we use two different terms for them? But since you seem hellbent on proving my use of the word evolution in this context as wrong, allow me to cite sources to the contrary.
Click to expand...
Interesting that your sources use the word ‘evolution’ in its colloquial sense of ‘progression over time’ as distinct from the biological theory. The Muller source (incidentally I think he has lectures related to his latest book ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ available on YouTube somewhere) even draws this distinction:

These were physics events that were responsible for our physical evolution, and some of our biological evolution too.
Click to expand...
You seem insistent in quibbling over semantics. The title of this thread is, "The Real Evolution Vs Creationism Debate".
Click to expand...
I think most people would interpret evolution in terms of the biological theory. While creationism pretty much disagrees with all of modern science, it is only those not familiar with biological evolution who confuse evolutionary theory with topics in chemistry and cosmology. It really looks like the presence of the word evolution, when used in its colloquial sense, is really confusing you.

If you're not going to take an opposing viewpoint, there is no reason for you to disagree with me. The thread has already been thrown completely off track by your unnecessary argument, and it's getting tiresome.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I call out scientific debauchery regardless of who wrote it and regardless of what their beliefs are. The following is adirect quote from one of your previous posts, and is total and utter bs that deserved to be called out:
If you want to read a diatribe about the connection between chemical and biological evolution, I'll write you a 10-page paper. My extremely abridged explanation had to do with the concept of efficiency in nature, and how the scientific field is just beginning to grow into its birthright. Clearly you didn't understand what I was getting at.
Click to expand...
To spell it out for you – what in the blue haven of marigolds has the “concept of efficiency in nature” got to do with nuclear fusion (which is what chemical evolution entails)?

If you have more to add to the debate between evolution and creationism, feel free to post something relevant.
Click to expand...
To even begin such a debate it would be necessary to correct any misunderstandings. One of the most prevalent in this debate is the mistaken idea that evolutionary theory has anything to do with cosmology.

Otherwise stop trying to draw me into an argument that I refuse to participate in.
Click to expand...
You made some incredibly ignorant/misinformed comments. I’d even go as far to say they were borderline idiotic. You got called for it, time to man up and accept it.


I've no need to waste time on someone that's apparently only here to troll.
Click to expand...
Because we all know that taking the time to write relevant material is such an act of trolling. Go play the martyr somewhere else.
 
S

S-word

Well-Known Member
Troublemane said:
"I didnt come from no monkey!"
Click to expand...
Troublemane said:
...even though my name is Mike Nesbit, and everyone, EVERYONE always makes the joke...aint you from the MONKEES?:banghead3
Click to expand...

No, but you and the apes have a common ancestor, and if you wish to trace your origin back to the very begining, before this universe even began; you will find that you have a common ancesor with every living creature who has developed in this living universal body, who is God our father.
 
Last edited:
S

S-word

Well-Known Member
atotalstranger said:
Oh yeah - I thought that was you chewing your cud.
Click to expand...
Ah, would that you had been a talent scout, I might then get another part in another movie even in another country. How many hours I praticed chewing that cud you will never know, but even though you don't have the qualifcations or insight to know truth and talent even when you see it, it's nice to be finally recognised.
 
R

Render Watson

New Member
Life is a mystery ,you can tear it apart till theres nothing left.!!.Better to live in awe and to dance carefree in the arms of existance.

Of course the baboon is a state that man degenerates into,just go take a peak at your parents and see for yourself,look at their consciousness.Now you know why someone wants us to think we evolved from them,makes a couple of billions human animals feel at home.
 
Last edited:
T

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
Render Watson said:
Life is a mystery ,you can tear it apart till theres nothing left.!!.Better to live in awe and to dance carefree in the arms of exitance.

Of course the baboon is a state that man degenerates into,just go take a peak at your parents and see for yourself,look at their consciousness.Now you know why someone wants us to think we evolved from them,so that when we all end up like that or atleast the majority ,someone will come save us because we need them we willl call out for them.
Click to expand...

Im sorry, but what are you talking about? I read your post like 3 times, and it doesn't make any sense.
 
T

themadhair

Well-Known Member
Render Watson said:
Life is a mystery ,you can tear it apart till theres nothing left.!!.Better to live in awe and to dance carefree in the arms of exitance.
Click to expand...
Good job people don’t hold to that, otherwise we wouldn’t have computers, medicine, etc etc.

Why do people have such a problem with the idea they evolved from another species? Why are people so ego-centric that they dismiss this idea out of hand despite the wealth of fossil and genetic evidence to the contrary?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top