-
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!
Can a creationist define...
- Thread starter tas8831
- Start date
Audie
Veteran Member
Why do people aways try to shoehorn their own concepts into the paradigms of others? *sigh*
Audie
Veteran Member
Well, that is part of any attempt to understand (I think): it is natural to attempt to relate a new idea to those already encountered and accepted. No idea is understood just in itself. Instead, understanding has to do with how that idea interacts with other ideas into a web of understanding.
That means that if a new idea is too far away from ones already encountered, it gets 'shoehorned' into previously established paradigms. It is quite difficult to create a new, independent, web of understanding.
Evolution and creationism are diametrically opposing paradigms. I don't understand how bringing a concept in one of those paradigms to be defined by the other is useful.
It's kinda like asking me how I define "the consequences of sin" in my worldview.
I didn't claim i was *useful*. I was more describing the process of how it happens.
I am reminded of a quote by the biologist P. B. Medawar:
"The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange protein: it rejects it."
Audie
Veteran Member
PureX
Veteran Member
Off the top of my head, I would say this phrase is a tautology. Sort of like saying "the winners always win".
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
Not quite. What if this time, a gunman (an evolutionary stressor) is waiting at the finish line, and will kill the first 3 people that cross?
PureX
Veteran Member
Then he's the winner, and he wins.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
So you cannot define it in a biologically relevant way. Got it.
PureX
Veteran Member
"Fittest" = more able to survive. Winner = the one who wins. It's a tautology. Biology has nothing to do with it being a tautology. Darwin's observations were correct, but stated as "survival of the fittest" it's still a tautology. And a little bit silly. So it's not unreasonable that someone who does not accept the theory of evolution as a fact might find it a questionable turn of phrase.
Last edited:
tas8831
Well-Known Member
And thanks again that you cannot define it in a biologically-relevant way - by the way, writing essentially the same thing over and over will not make it true, sorry.
*Edited by staff*
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting take on the OP.
I took it along the lines of "can you show that you even understand the core ideas of the thing you've rejected?" It didn't even occur to me that someone might take it as asking creationists to incorporate outside ideas into their own creationist worldview.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Fitness is connected to the ability to adapt to the potentials within the environment. In nature, all the critters in that environment will see and will need to deal with the same potential. The fittest, in terms of all the animals living within those same potentials, will have an advantage which allows them to prosper; better at getting food.
A modern analogy is sports. In sports, the teams and players all play by the same set of rules. These rules set potentials and constraints which are shared by all. These rules are enforced by referees. Nature enforces its local rules with the huge scale of natural potential; weather referee. Through a mixture of brain and brawn, they all compete, with the fittest being the one, who, by some objective criteria, like scoring, leads all the rest.
If you look at a herd of deer, they will assemble for the Deer Mating Olympics in the spring. These are like rough deer sports, driven by the referee of common deer instinct, with the dominate male getting the trophy wife. This fitness selection assures that that future of deer DNA, will be optimized.
Since fitness is connected to the potentials of the environment, the fruit of selection has a connection to the rules and referees that underly these potentials. In culture, the smartest people in culture are not usually selected as the leaders; as a rule. This is not a natural environment. The best feature of humans is they're smarts. So natural selection would key in on this. The rules for selection of our leaders appear to be optimize for the selection of salesmen, lawyers and politicians. Humans can control the environment, leading to fitness selection, being manipulated, for reasons that are not natural. We do not end up selected the smartest people.
A good case study of unnatural selection was the 2016 election of Trump. Trump won by the rules and potentials set by the presidential election laws of that time. He was voted the most fit based on those rules. However, the Swamp, had set the rules to rig the deck; Coronate Hillary, so one of their own could always win; incestuous. The election of an outsider was stressful for the powers to be, since Trump vowed to drain the swamp, thereby promising to alter the selection potentials of the swamp, away from their rigged incestuous system. Trump wanted more outsiders.
This led to the swamp, cheating and lying so they could change the result of the national election selection, by changing the appearance of potentials. Everything good that Trump did, which showed objective fitness in office; low inflation, was labeled as subjectively bad and should not be a criteria of future president selection. High inflation is now the rule which is good.
Humans can select that which would not be selected by nature. Control over the environment, by those in power loops back for their own perpetuation. A shady set of potentials will create selective advantages for shady leaders, instead of honorable leaders. We can tell a tree by the fruit it bears. We do not see the fittest, who can work as a team, to solve all the problems. Instead we get compounding problems; debt and waste of time via trivial and conflict; dumb leaders selected by controlled potentials that favor dumb leaders.
It would be nice if science would tell the leaders how natural selection works, rather than go along and create misunderstanding by not challenging unnatural selection potentials.
Last edited:
tas8831
Well-Known Member
What do you mean by "potentials"?
And why can you people never actually look something up and instead churn out this irrelevant idiosyncratic bilge?
And there it is - sorry, you lose. Thanks for trying.
Trump got the votes he did because a shockingly large number of people in this country are hate-filled, racist degenerates who have been brainwashed by right-wing propaganda.
He won the first time because of an outdated system rigged to give slave-states more representation than they deserved.
And he LOST his re-election despite the antics of red state voter fraud and vote suppression.
Get over it.
If you cultists had any legitimate evidence, it would have come out by now.
All Rudy the fart boy had were the 'affa-davids' of drunks, morons, and scoundrels whose claims fell apart after cursory investigation - heck, even the fake lawyer Powell's group had to throw much of the 'affa-davids' they received as being not credible.
Give it up.