Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

Oh and while we are at it, where is the credible scientific evidence to show that creation passes scientific method? No seriously? You invalidated the statement you made even before we consider that with the phrase "with absolute precision". I do not believe you understand scientific method, let alone the use of the word precision in a scientific setting.

Post the evidence neighbour. OR be branded a fraud.

Baby steps for you. If you can refute this accurate statements (axioms) then you got me beaten.

Life can only come from pre-existing life.

Only something can produce something but never something from nothing.

Good luck.

a reply to: Akragon

If I feel I am impelled by the teachings of my spiritual path, to fight the untruths, that is my "fun". I'm an educator as well as a industrial scientist. If I am to cause one bit of doubt in someone, not so indoctrinated in creationism, then I've done my job. I do not get angry, or overly invested in these debates, but I do become stubborn.


Its not a dead horse, as evidenced by the level of pseudo scientific belief in the western world.

I don't come on here preaching how my own faith is "the answer to everything". I don't expect people to follow their dlúth to achieve their dan so they can walk their sli and acheive great bua. Mind you explaining these non English ideas to them, will just take too much time for there short attention spans

So instead, I'm here, to be seen standing against ignorance.

a reply to: edmc^2

First state the axioms in the appropriate manner. You are mistaken in the fact that I need to disprove you. Science expects that the person who makes a statement, show proof to support that. You've not shown proof. You've made statements.

You are also scientifically illiterate, and I believe willfully so. Further you are not using scientific method, or even the philosophy of science in this little game of yours.

Viz

Axioms play a key role not only in mathematics, but also in other sciences, notably in theoretical physics. .... Regardless, the role of axioms in mathematics and in the above-mentioned sciences is different. In mathematics one neither "proves" nor "disproves" an axiom for a set of theorems; the point is simply that in the conceptual realm identified by the axioms, the theorems logically follow. In contrast, in physics a comparison with experiments always makes sense, since a falsified physical theory needs modification. (1)

We are talking biological sciences, at least bio-organic chemistry, and Biochemistry here. Not theoretical physics, and certainly not abstract mathematics.

Thus your axioms are meaningless.


You mistake hypotheses for theories. You demand that for a theory to be so, it must be part of one of a number of hypotheses.

So if you want to play the game of "disprove axioms".

Lets pick nuber two.

Only something can produce something but never something from nothing.

Therefore something produced Jehovah/Allah, your creator god. He can not have existed for ever, he can not always have been, and always will be. That violates axiom number two. His creator was then created etc etc etc.

Your axiom is thus nonsensical, and may be ignored.

a reply to: Noinden

All these threads are amusing at least

I can't help but admire you few that keep up this fight... or whatever you want to call it

a reply to: edmc^2

Neighbour I don't care about you pity. Your feelings on anything are meaningless to me. I can quote you a religious text too, I hope you speak Irish That has meaning to me, it proves nothing, just like your sipposed quote of what Jesus said. You have no proof that is a thing he said either.

Fáistine leis an Morrígan Sídh go neimh neimh go domhan domhan fo neimh neart i gcách án forlán lán do mil míd go sáith sam i ngram gae for sciath sciath for dúnadh dúnadh lonngharg fód di uí ros forbiur beanna abú airbí imeachta meas for chrannaibh craobh do scís scís do ás saith do mhac mac formhúin muinréal tairbh tarbh di arcain odhbh do crann crann do thine tine a n-áil ail a n-úir uích a mbuaibh Boinn a mbrú brú le feabh faid ásghlas iar earccah foghamar forasit eacha iall do tír tír go trácht le feabh ráidh bíodh rúad rossaibh síoraibh ríochmhór sídh go neimh bíodh síornoí.


As you can not post any peer reviewed papers, and rather resort to non cut and pastes from the web. (1) www.livescience.com... Then I am not required to reply to it.

But I will toss you a bone. I used to teach a paper on Proteogenesis at University when I was a teaching assistant at the end of my PhD, and before I went into Industry.

I don't know, but I certainly am not going to discount any of them, as there is scientific evidence for aspects of each of them. I am still waiting your evidence of creation.

I will remind you you can't just say "can't you see the evidence" then sit back smuggly.

My spiritual (and my ancestors) belief that the universe arose from the Chaos could be seen as being supported by the evidences for the Big bang. My paths belief in an evolution of not just life, but of spiritual beings, could be seen as being supported by the fact we've seen proof towards evolution. I'm not going to claim that, as well my Deities are supernatural and as such are outside sciences preview.

So neighbour, you are indeed intellectually dishonest. If you can't do better than that, you are also incompetent.

a reply to: Akragon

IF this was a fight, I'dve pulled a knife, and finished it by now I train in Fairbairn-Sykes lineaged combatives, we don't dick around.

This is just in close milling (sparing), though I seem to be fighting incompetents rather than fellow proponents

a reply to: Noinden

You're sparring with those who don't even know how to throw a punch

Though they may toss a book at you

a reply to: Akragon

I've got heavier books than they do Though some of theirs have nice art work in them.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Barcs
Don't humans create humans, like every day?

Is that not X creating X?

Not sure why you missed this, but when it comes to humans or animals, they PRO-CREATE, not create. In other words, they reproduce their own kind. To create is totally different.

Oh, so you offer a word based explanation for a mathematical equation that is supposed to be always true. I guess math doesn't work here. Thanks for proving that.

too funny.

I'm only showing your misapplication of the word CREATE. It has nothing to do with math.

But if it's the math you're after then way off base too.

X creates Y simply means that X already existed to create the universe.

And that X can't create X for the simple reason that X already existed.

Now prove that X exists and can create Y and you will have an argument. You are using math like a metaphor for a concept that can't be quantified. Math doesn't work like that.

Happiness = Love + Longevity

A = B + C

A will never = C

A will never = B

So it must be B + C, and thus I have made the mathematical argument, that happiness is a combo of love and living a long life. EdMC style. Undeniable mathematical logical PROOF!!!

originally posted by: Barcs
Happiness = Love + Longevity

A = B + C

A will never = C

A will never = B

So it must be B + C, and thus I have made the mathematical argument, that happiness is a combo of love and living a long life. EdMC style. Undeniable mathematical logical PROOF!!!

Hehehe...trying to be funny eh?

Except - it's a major fail. Just to let you know, in your argument the correct word to use is EVIDENCE.

There's no such thing as proof of love. There's EVIDENCE of love by way of actions.

But to my point:

The evidence is all around us of a Creator.

There's evidence of it by observing his creations.

try again

a reply to: edmc^2

Show us some actual evidence that will have all of us "non believers" (and noinden) going "wow! Proof! God actually exists!"

And try doing it without going off on some stupid rant.

a reply to: Barcs

Hang on there; are A, B and C numbers? If so, then A could equal B or C if the other is zero. If Love is zero it could equal B and C at the same time!

Seriously though, math is great. Just remember you're only dealing with a model. For your math to make a compelling argument about our world, you have to first show how you constructed your model, and how accurately it represents the real thing.

a reply to: Noinden

What language is that? And where can I find the relevant materials to study it? I have a friend who is passionate about such things.

a reply to: TzarChasm

It's Irish.

(He did say so in the reply)



ETA: To be more specific, I believe it's Goídelc or Gaelic.

How can an intelligent being claim there is no intelligence involved? It's an oxymoron.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I said it was Irish That is the Morrigan's Prophesy after the After the Second Battle of Mag Tuired, when she spoke a prophecy of peace and prosperity.

originally posted by: cooperton
How can an intelligent being claim there is no intelligence involved? It's an oxymoron.

But that isn't what people are saying. What's really being said is there is no evidence of an intelligent designer.

Notice the word you purposely left off? Makes a big difference.

a reply to: cooperton

Prove it. Its that simple. You can't say "it is obvious" with out evidence. After all you need to demonstrate your own intelligence first

a reply to: Barcs

I do love people who assume that because something is mathmatically correct in the abstract, that it must apply to Science. Especially the wetter sciences The further one gets from mathmatics, the less easy it is to apply mathmatics in a meaningful way to the science.

Thus Physics, does pretty well.
Physical Chemistry? Yeah slightly less but not bad.
Organic Chemistry, its getting harder.
Bioorganic Chemistry, getting Shakey.
Biochemistry. Not looking good.
Genetics. Even worse.
Microbiology. Ummm
Zoology. We're gettinmg 60% correlations ...wohoo...what why are the statisticians face palming?

etc