The creationists ran away.
I was right.
They weren't here to talk about science, they were here to badmouth it.
When we showed them it was impossible, they ran away.
Here's the fundamental flaw in creationism as it exists today. Read:
The bolded is the logical flaw.
There's no such thing as "super" natural.
If you're looking at it, it's natural. By definition.
Creationists are better served with better logic.
We need to look for NATURAL means of creation. "Super" natural is hocus pocus. Mumbo jumbo. If creation happened, it happened naturally.
Could creation have happened naturally? Why yes, of course. To reconcile that with the evidence though, you have to change your understanding of concepts like "life".
Life is complexity. Information. Not a bag of water. The bag of water is the SUBSTRATE for life, but it's not life itself. Life is deeper, more subtle Life is everywhere, even in empty space. Amino acids are even in the interstellar dust.
Life is a basic physical property of the universe, just like gravity, and electricity. If you're interested in creation, look there. The idea that man was created as-is is a non starter.
If you're interested in creation, read Emmy Noether and try to understand why every symmetry has a conservation law attached to it. All of biochemistry is just favorable energy transfers, it's really pretty simple stuff. The mystery is in the symmetry. Why this symmetry and not that one? Carbon is easy, it's the only one that allows dynamic folding. So look beyond it. What symmetries does a photon have? What symmetries are involved in entanglement? That"s where creation lives, not in a bag of water.
If you want to study creation you better be a physicist. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke, and the best thing is to admit it's a matter of faith and leave it at that.
en.wikipedia.org
Conservation of energy is a time invariance symmetry..
Conservation of momentum is a translation invariance.
Emmy Noether didn't live long enough to get into stochastic invariance. That's why Wikipedia doesn't have an entry about it.
But you can study it, and learn it. Noether's theorem is algebraic, it uses group theory. So, begin with stochastic groups.
To address creation, you need to understand why things aren't "completely" random. This universe wouldn't exist at all if things were "completely" random. Instead, some symmetries exist and some don't. Why is that? What favors the ones that exist, and why are the others excluded?
This is the only way for creationists to get scientific credibility.
Badmouthing evolution isn't going to cut it. Abuse of probability isn't going to cut it. Words from a book aren't going to cut it.
This is the only way.
I was right.
They weren't here to talk about science, they were here to badmouth it.
When we showed them it was impossible, they ran away.
Here's the fundamental flaw in creationism as it exists today. Read:
The bolded is the logical flaw.
There's no such thing as "super" natural.
If you're looking at it, it's natural. By definition.
Creationists are better served with better logic.
We need to look for NATURAL means of creation. "Super" natural is hocus pocus. Mumbo jumbo. If creation happened, it happened naturally.
Could creation have happened naturally? Why yes, of course. To reconcile that with the evidence though, you have to change your understanding of concepts like "life".
Life is complexity. Information. Not a bag of water. The bag of water is the SUBSTRATE for life, but it's not life itself. Life is deeper, more subtle Life is everywhere, even in empty space. Amino acids are even in the interstellar dust.
Life is a basic physical property of the universe, just like gravity, and electricity. If you're interested in creation, look there. The idea that man was created as-is is a non starter.
If you're interested in creation, read Emmy Noether and try to understand why every symmetry has a conservation law attached to it. All of biochemistry is just favorable energy transfers, it's really pretty simple stuff. The mystery is in the symmetry. Why this symmetry and not that one? Carbon is easy, it's the only one that allows dynamic folding. So look beyond it. What symmetries does a photon have? What symmetries are involved in entanglement? That"s where creation lives, not in a bag of water.
If you want to study creation you better be a physicist. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke, and the best thing is to admit it's a matter of faith and leave it at that.
Noether's theorem - Wikipedia
Conservation of energy is a time invariance symmetry..
Conservation of momentum is a translation invariance.
Emmy Noether didn't live long enough to get into stochastic invariance. That's why Wikipedia doesn't have an entry about it.
But you can study it, and learn it. Noether's theorem is algebraic, it uses group theory. So, begin with stochastic groups.
To address creation, you need to understand why things aren't "completely" random. This universe wouldn't exist at all if things were "completely" random. Instead, some symmetries exist and some don't. Why is that? What favors the ones that exist, and why are the others excluded?
This is the only way for creationists to get scientific credibility.
Badmouthing evolution isn't going to cut it. Abuse of probability isn't going to cut it. Words from a book aren't going to cut it.
This is the only way.
