Creationists' theory in detail

[alang1216]

That religion is not God. Religion is people’s perception of God. So there can be many perceptions without having any bearing on the existence of God.

If that were true it would mean God plays no part in our lives and cares nothing for us. He might as well not exist then.

 

[ding]

More like to validate your beliefs through confirmation bias.

Which is why you deny the science behind the creation of the universe but accept the science behind evolution.

I'm as biased as anyone I'm sure. I can see the science of evolution for myself. I don't see the science behind the creation of the universe.

So you can't understand for yourself that matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium? That seems like a really simple concept to understand.

What you say is true but only for a closed system. Do we live in a closed system? We don't know.

We live in an isolated system so it is the exact same answer unless you would like to add energy to the system which then requires an even more complex answer for where that energy came from.

are you sure you want to argue thermo with an engineer?

so getting back to my point, do you understand the concept that energy and matter will equilibrate?

or would you like to continue making distractions to prevent from being made the fool for denying the science that tells us the universe was created from nothing?

 

[ding]

That religion is not God. Religion is people’s perception of God. So there can be many perceptions without having any bearing on the existence of God.

If that were true it would mean God plays no part in our lives and cares nothing for us. He might as well not exist then.

Yes and no. There is a self compensating feature built into existence which progresses us. Let’s at least give God credit for that, shall we. But yes, if we are to have free will, his involvement is limited to his spirit inside us which has a very quiet voice.

 

[james bond]

I put everything in my own words.

Hard to believe with some of those long winded sermons of yours.

evolution is anything which moved from a less advanced state to a more advanced state. Such as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the evolution of consciousness.

Now, you're moving the goalposts from what was being discussed. I'll assume you gave up. Anyway, natural selection fits that criteria, but it isn't to a more advanced state. We have two explanations for it, 1) It is the variations of species due to genetic drift and 2) changes to a species due to their environment. It is the latter that you are addressing. Natural selection is more than that. The latter is a move to a state so one can survive. It isn't a move to a fittest state that you are proposing. It is a change due to mutation and it does not follow a creature is better for it. It can survive better in the environment that it is in.

They rest is just fallacious argument from assuming something is true, but you're wrong.

 

[ding]

That religion is not God. Religion is people’s perception of God. So there can be many perceptions without having any bearing on the existence of God.

If that were true it would mean God plays no part in our lives and cares nothing for us. He might as well not exist then.

I believe he cares greatly for us.

 

[ding]

I put everything in my own words.

Hard to believe with some of those long winded sermons of yours.

evolution is anything which moved from a less advanced state to a more advanced state. Such as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the evolution of consciousness.

Now, you're moving the goalposts from what was being discussed. I'll assume you gave up. Anyway, natural selection fits that criteria, but it isn't to a more advanced state. We have two explanations for it, 1) It is the variations of species due to genetic drift and 2) changes to a species due to their environment. It is the latter that you are addressing. Natural selection is more than that. The latter is a move to a state so one can survive. It isn't a move to a fittest state that you are proposing. It is a change due to mutation and it does not follow a creature is better for it. It can survive better in the environment that it is in.

They rest is just fallacious argument from assuming something is true, but you're wrong.

Think what you want of me. My posts stand alone.

 

[ding]

That religion is not God. Religion is people’s perception of God. So there can be many perceptions without having any bearing on the existence of God.

If that were true it would mean God plays no part in our lives and cares nothing for us. He might as well not exist then.

But just because there are different perceptions of God only proves that people are different. If you read anything more into it than that that’s your bias showing.

 

[zaangalewa]

That religion is not God. Religion is people’s perception of God. So there can be many perceptions without having any bearing on the existence of God.

If that were true it would mean God plays no part in our lives and cares nothing for us. He might as well not exist then.

God is rationality. God is love. So what about rationality and love? If all human beings without any exception would be reasonable and loveful entities, then no one would buy guns for to kill a virus and we would be able to solve the Corona crisis within two weeks.

 

[james bond]

I put everything in my own words.

Hard to believe with some of those long winded sermons of yours.

evolution is anything which moved from a less advanced state to a more advanced state. Such as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the evolution of consciousness.

Now, you're moving the goalposts from what was being discussed. I'll assume you gave up. Anyway, natural selection fits that criteria, but it isn't to a more advanced state. We have two explanations for it, 1) It is the variations of species due to genetic drift and 2) changes to a species due to their environment. It is the latter that you are addressing. Natural selection is more than that. The latter is a move to a state so one can survive. It isn't a move to a fittest state that you are proposing. It is a change due to mutation and it does not follow a creature is better for it. It can survive better in the environment that it is in.

They rest is just fallacious argument from assuming something is true, but you're wrong.

Think what you want of me. My posts stand alone.

Look at the coronavirus. The flu virus has mutated in the environment that it is in so that it is more of a predator and killer. It wants to reach our lungs in order to flourish and survive. I think one China doctor trying to do an autopsy of a dead patient said it was the most dangerous environment in the world he was in. He said that he had to risk the autopsy because that was the only way to learn how to defeat the virus. The virus hasn't mutated to a better organism. Just one that could better survive. If it could mutate to a superior state, then it would be all over for us. Moreover, the survival of the fittest that you believe is racism. It led to social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler and the rise of Nazism, and the Holocaust. Today, the survival of the fittest mechanism has led to secular humanism. It's just another progression towards socialism and communism. That's a fact.

 

[alang1216]

Apparently you don’t understand the role that the SLoT plays.

I find it odd that a guy who purportedly claims to be seeking the truth does nothing but argue against why he shouldn’t be examining the evidence.

Help me out. What is the role of the SLoT in an open system?

 

[zaangalewa]

... evolution is anything which moved from a less advanced state to a more advanced state. Such as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the evolution of consciousness. ...

You mix here different things under the expression "evolution". The cosmic evolution means different cosmic structures freeze out. A stellar evolution means stars explode and had produced in this way elements. What you understand under chemical evolution I don't know. Then comes this what's indeed evolution: the biological evolution. And what you understand under "evolution of consciousness" is again not very clear for me.

You subsumize under this what you say here evolution has intentions (or plans) - but evolution has not intentions or plans. Evolution is not teleological (intentional or planful). There's no need for evolution to create an intelligent species or to create stars or a higher complexity of matter. A special situation of the universe here on our planet is "only" our sun, because the warmth of the sun means we live in a situation where the growth of entropy is not very important here. That's a local exception. We - all life on planet earth - are somehow the dust of the stars, living from sunlight. But most matter here on planet earth is just simple dust - pressed down from gravity. Life is not the normal situation of matter. Nowhere in the universe.

And you subsumize also a higher or lower "grade" of evolution. Consciuos animals seem to be more or better evolved than biological entities without conscious for you. But evolution is only a natural law. Evolution knows not what evolution is doing in a similar way how gravity knows not what gravity is doing. Descendants of our species for example could be something like worms in some million years. No one knows. Oh by the way: A virus is for example a lifeform, which lost the own "body" ... or better to say "sphere of the own life". It needs other biological entities for a reproduction - what's in case of the Corona virus now a problem for us, because it causes the disease covid-19.

 

[alang1216]

So you can't understand for yourself that matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium? That seems like a really simple concept to understand.

You look at the universe and say this is it. I look at the universe and say, what else is there. We can only talk about equilibrium if we know the size of the system.

 

[ding]

Apparently you don’t understand the role that the SLoT plays.

I find it odd that a guy who purportedly claims to be seeking the truth does nothing but argue against why he shouldn’t be examining the evidence.

Help me out. What is the role of the SLoT in an open system?

Why do you want to talk about an open system? Are there any open system cosmological models that explain CMB and red shift?

I don’t know of any. I just know about the one that explains what we see.

Like I said, you aren’t interested in challenging your beliefs. You are only interested in confirming your bias.

 

[ding]

So you can't understand for yourself that matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium? That seems like a really simple concept to understand.

You look at the universe and say this is it. I look at the universe and say, what else is there. We can only talk about equilibrium if we know the size of the system.

Wrong. We are discussing thermal equilibrium. You do understand that concept right? Is it your belief that objects don’t equilibrate in an open system if no new energy is added? Heck even if energy is added objects will continue to equilibrate. That’s the nature of energy. Energy flows from higher energy to lower energy. Do you understand this concept?

there is a reason you are avoiding this conversation. You are afraid

 

[alang1216]

More like to validate your beliefs through confirmation bias.

Which is why you deny the science behind the creation of the universe but accept the science behind evolution.

I'm as biased as anyone I'm sure. I can see the science of evolution for myself. I don't see the science behind the creation of the universe.

So you can't understand for yourself that matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium? That seems like a really simple concept to understand.

What you say is true but only for a closed system. Do we live in a closed system? We don't know.

We live in an isolated system so it is the exact same answer unless you would like to add energy to the system which then requires an even more complex answer for where that energy came from.

are you sure you want to argue thermo with an engineer?

so getting back to my point, do you understand the concept that energy and matter will equilibrate?

or would you like to continue making distractions to prevent from being made the fool for denying the science that tells us the universe was created from nothing?

I have no doubt you know more of the engineering than I do. What I doubt is your assertion the universe was created from nothing. It seem more of a leap to say something came from nothing than it does to say the something we see from something in a different form. The later we see all the time, the former we have never seen. Occam's Razor again.

 

[ding]

More like to validate your beliefs through confirmation bias.

Which is why you deny the science behind the creation of the universe but accept the science behind evolution.

I'm as biased as anyone I'm sure. I can see the science of evolution for myself. I don't see the science behind the creation of the universe.

So you can't understand for yourself that matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium? That seems like a really simple concept to understand.

What you say is true but only for a closed system. Do we live in a closed system? We don't know.

We live in an isolated system so it is the exact same answer unless you would like to add energy to the system which then requires an even more complex answer for where that energy came from.

are you sure you want to argue thermo with an engineer?

so getting back to my point, do you understand the concept that energy and matter will equilibrate?

or would you like to continue making distractions to prevent from being made the fool for denying the science that tells us the universe was created from nothing?

I have no doubt you know more of the engineering than I do. What I doubt is your assertion the universe was created from nothing. It seem more of a leap to say something came from nothing than it does to say the something we see from something in a different form. The later we see all the time, the former we have never seen. Occam's Razor again.

It is not that hard of a concept to grasp unless you are being intentionally obtuse.

do you understand that energy flows from higher energy to lower energy?

and that this happens regardless of if a system is open or closed or isolated?

 

[alang1216]

That religion is not God. Religion is people’s perception of God. So there can be many perceptions without having any bearing on the existence of God.

If that were true it would mean God plays no part in our lives and cares nothing for us. He might as well not exist then.

Yes and no. There is a self compensating feature built into existence which progresses us. Let’s at least give God credit for that, shall we. But yes, if we are to have free will, his involvement is limited to his spirit inside us which has a very quiet voice.

So you're saying there is a subtle force that changes us in a particular direction? You say God, I say evolution. Maybe they are the same thing?

 

[ding]

What I doubt is your assertion the universe was created from nothing.

It’s not my assertion. It is the conclusion of the generally accepted cosmological model which explains what we see. Specifically, red shift, CMB, monopole, horizon, flatness and accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe.

 

[alang1216]

Why do you want to talk about an open system?

Because no one knows what came before the Big Bang. You say nothing, I say I don't know. You don't know how the universe could come from nothing and neither do I. You say there is a gap in our knowledge and want to fill it with God. I can live with a gap.

 

[james bond]

That religion is not God. Religion is people’s perception of God. So there can be many perceptions without having any bearing on the existence of God.

If that were true it would mean God plays no part in our lives and cares nothing for us. He might as well not exist then.

I believe he cares greatly for us.

Here's where we agree. Yes, God loves us. alang1216 is wrong. Notices he conveniently shifts the blame to God instead of sin and the fallen world. He would do the same with coronavirus. God created it. No. Sin and the fallen world created our negative bacteria and negative viruses. Natural selection taught it to survive. And natural selection will teach us how to survive and get back to normal again.