Academics fight rise of creationism at universities

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by YeHUaH ELaHaYNU
 



The Sun and the Moon are the same size when viewed from the surface of the Earth.
That is written in Stone in the Negev Archaic Hebrew, as the Icons of the Solar Year (looking similar to a Star of David but 12 concentric lines around a inner time-circle) and Lunar Month (like the same size inner time-circle going around a dot -being you/on earth), these are always mediated by a 7-Menorah with a smaller time-circle the same size as the 'YaH' Ligature glyph (like a stick figure)'s head.


Of COURSE!!! because people in the olden days did not have access to EYES with which to base these observations from....

The knowledge the the sun and moon are the same size when viewed from earth MUST be of divine origin... because all primitive peoples were BLIND!




The Ligature glyph for EL (GOD) is a still larger time-circle interrupting a cane like curved top "axis" and it reveals the Earth to be a rotating sphere on a tilted axis as "meant to be"/Intended. The idea is that one stands on the circle of the Earth entire beneath his feet, and the Moon is the witness related to that being realized.



You mean THIS?
ל

Yeah... Planet... No Question...




The Earth sees the Zodiac Alphabet fixed stars and wandering Vowel aspiration Planets moving on an E-W plane and the Galactic plane (Milky way) to be more or less S-N. Every 12,500 years a Magnetic reversal occurs when the Earths' Solar system with 11 suns in our Galactic Arm transitions through it.

Two of these would be a complete cycle of about 25,000 years, and if considered a single revolution (like a day) in a Galaxy Year, we get a great comprehension of accurate Geological time as occurs in the Creation story Genesis 1:1-2:3.


No, im sorry... but you are completely wrong.

Current Radiological Dating puts the Earth's age at 4.5 BILLION years.

Your little "Story" there puts the earths age at around 200,000 years.


You are only off the mark by FOUR ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE!

However... if you mean that One revolution around the GALAXY is a "Day" then you are still off by around 3 billion years.



when we date the age of the Earth it is with Rocks, very special ones, the only Radioactive Gemstone the Zircon crystal. It is natures Atomic Clock and dates the Earths formation approximately 4.56 Billion Years B.P.


Monazite is a crystal of Siliocates that contains Samarium, which decays into neodymium, which has a half life of 106 billion years.

Mica is a silicate that also forms crystals, contains pottasium, which decays into argon, and has a half life of 1.3 billion years.

Leucite, Pollucite, Carnallite, and Zinnwaldite are all crystals that contain Rubidium, which decays into strontium, and has a half life of 50 billion years.

So, NO, Zircon is not the only radioactive Crystal.


That Crystal was called the L'Shem stone in Hebrew meaning "To/For Name" being the 7th in the Hoshen Birthstones, and it was the namestone of "Jesus" (YeShUaA Ha'NeTzeRI) the Ye'aH himself born in Tabernacles the 7th month. The EL and 'YaH' icons occur together in the occasional El-Yah glyph where EL points to YaH in condescending to lifting his head to resurrect Him from dead (as laying, having kept Sabbath).
It is also the material type of the "Great Black Stone" of the Ka'aba at Makkah, which is the biggest known Zircon Crystal (and the 100th name of Allah is?)!


Please cite where SPECIFICALLY in the bible, Torah, Qur'an, etc.... that it states that Zirconium contained radioactive decay can be used to precisely measure the age of the earth.


The book of Revelation (of the Lord to John) and the Revelation at Sinai have a common 12 stones specified, in two orders (the first a masculine cluster grid, the last a feminine surround grid).

These stones are ordered to reveal their identity and their physical properties which are measurable and applicable in that function. The outstanding ones are the aforementioned, the Garnet, the Tourmaline, the Beryl, the Peridot, the Quartz, power crystals like Hematite, Pyrite, or Calcite, and also the Chalcedony (being the sharpest stone).


Chalcedony rates as 6 - 7 on the Mohs scale.... Diamond is 10, You are wrong.


Still among these is the most geologically knurled and folded super-heated and compressed material of all- Jasper, which when fused reduces unto forming a material that is resistant to the highest temperatures Kelvin achievable.


The highest Kelvin temperatures available?

Really?

Are you sure about that?

Jasper is a form of Chalcedorny, which is a combination of Quarts and Moganite.

And has a melting temperature of 1,986.15 kelvin

To put that into perspective.... Diamond has a melting point of 3820 degrees Kelvin.

Temperature in a blast furnace are typically 2,173.15 Kelvin.

So, yeah... you are wrong.


The Pocketed Oracle ("breastplate") at Sinai had two accessory elements called Ur'im Ve'Tum'im and their identity is -the crystals of the heaviest elements -with the precious metals ores, these being Uranium (Uraninite and primitive Radium) with Gold and the great 'radio crystal' Silver bearing Lead (Galena).

Some of the Gemstones are UV rocks; the Aforementioned again (yellow), Chalcedony (green), Garnet (blue), the Calcite (yellow), and some Beryls and Tourmalines, as well as Quartzes!

The amazing thing is either the Biblical writers were super advanced scientifically (or thus informed) or they were truly getting a transmission from the super intelligence, because they were but part of what would prove True.


Really? Did they know these things at the time?

Do you have documentation that they were AWARE of the elements that they had?

Do you have proof that they actually UNDERSTOOD what we have found out presently?



And, my most important question.


How does this prove the existence of God?

-Edrick

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Edrick]




posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 




Since we are being brief, this is just nonsense. Please point out the "survival component" which is "probably" the first thing built into " 'life' ".
...
Would you please be specific here? There are lots of chemical reactions in living things. Which are the ones specific to the "survival component".


You are being silly here, you know there is no 'specific' answer. The chemical reaction that embodies survival is the replication process of nucleic acids like RNA and DNA. Dakwins calls it 'The Selfish Gene', again not meaning one specific gene, but all genes in general. And it is simple chemistry.

As I said in an earlier post, Gould disagrees with Dawkins on this. Gould prefers to focus higher up the organism, to the cellular level or even the organism level. But whatever level you choose to focus on, the entire 'purpose', to use anthropormorphic shorthand again, is survival through reproduction. Period.

Pick a level, nucleac acid, cell, organ, organism, herd, ecosystem. The 'purpose' of every piece is to ensure the survival of the whole.




A finch doesn't lay eggs because it thinks "I gotta lay a whole lot of eggs or my species will die out". It lays eggs because that is how birds reproduce. Birds that reproduce better, survive better. That is all it is.


With all due respect, I don't think you can really say that.

Isn't that a lot like saying "Fred chose a red Ferrari because a chemical cue prompted him to do it?" Or, "Only a fool would think that mentation was involved in Fred choosing a red Ferrari, when obviously it was only a chemical cue." Or, "Everyone, chooses their car colour based on chemical cues, not thought processes."

The motivations of finches are, alas, a secret.


With all due respect, who is anthropormorphising the finches, here? What does a human being choosing a car have to do reproductive success? Is it because he thinks girls will find him more attractive? Maybe he does, peacocks certainly work on that principle. And guess what? If that is his only reason, and it doesn't work, he'll get rid of it, just like it was natural selection.

And notice I'm not saying that finches don't think. I doubt they debate the nature of the universe amongst themselves, but I'm sure they do think to some extent. An awful lot of birds seem to learn pretty useful behaviours by watching other animals do things. All parents teach offspring 'tricks of the trade'. At some level there has got to be complex mentation going on to do that.

But birds don't lay eggs because they 'thought' it would be a good idea. And chickens fresh out of the egg don't learn to recognise the shape of a chicken hawk from their mother. In both cases they do it because evolution took them there.

I imagine birds have quite complex thoughts and communications. "I hear a beetle undergound. Is it within reach or should I move to that other one I can hear over there?" "Danger! Hawk!".



We know that chemical cues are involved in the choices we make as human beings and we can test and find out that chemical cues are involved in choices that animals make, but just as our choices involve thought processes, i.e., mentation, is it not logical and rational (scientific?) to assume there must be mentation involved in the choices and activities of animals too?

The answer is yes, it is logical. It is rational. It is undoubtedly the case, but it is not admissable to science because unlike Fred, science can't ask a finch why it did this or that.


Of course it is, and it is most certainly admisible to science. Science is finding out more and more about how smart lots of creatures are all the time. Dolphins, chimps, and birds are all being found to be smarter than 'commonly' thought.

Never-the-less, evolving the ability to lay eggs because it is a successful way to reproduce has nothing to do with mentation. Birds didn't think about it. Lots of little mutations in individuals across many generations gradually resulted in egg laying. That opened up a whole lot of new ecological niches for a whole lot of new animal types. Some of those new animals continued to evolve even more effective strategies. Remember to continue to resist the tempation to anthropomorphism here, they didn't 'choose' to continue evolving, the environment, mutation, and natural selection 'caused' or 'allowed' them to evolve.

In other words evolution happened.



Suppose I then told you that I am a scientist, a materialist, a rational and logical thinker. I know why these things are behaving this way. They are responding to chemical cues. They are not thinking and are not capable of thought. Their behavior is simply the result of coordinated chemical cues that have been assembled by a process we smart people call evolution, which is made up of genetic mutation, natural selection and (just to please you) "the survival component".

If I didn't describe these living things in language that made it clear that I wasn't talking about human beings, how would you know that I wasn't talking about human (thinking) beings?

I think that rational, logical, people, whether scientists or fundamentalist Bible thumpers should conclude, simply by analogy with human behavior, that there is a virtual certainty that mentation goes on among living things that are not human.

As I said, I don't really have time for this discussion and this will probably be the last post I make on this topic, but I just wanted to say, and this is very important for people who take their religion seriously (listen up Christians), the notion that animals don't think or mentate in meaningful ways is one of the few points upon which The Christian Church is at one with The Church of Science. In my opinion, they are making a colossal mistake in this and undermining their own position with regard to creationism.


This is completely wrong on two different levels.

Firstly your assertion is wrong. Science DOES NOT agree that non-Human animals do not think, do not have emotions, do not communicate complex ideas. Whereever did you get that idea from? There are probably some who still do, maybe a small majority even, but I doubt it.

Secondly, your approach is wrong. You are still doing what you accused me of doing, anthropormorphising (I do like that word
) evolution. Organisms (except humans of course) do not think about evolving, it is not a conscious activity in any way. Evolution just happens, it is just chemistry. Organisms don't think about choosing what mutation is good for their species, any more than a rock thinks about rolling down a hill. Natural selection just happens.




If a chicken is put in front of a pile of corn, how does it decide which kernel to peck at first without doing what we humans call thinking?


Wrong focus, because it is easy to imagine that the chicken does not need to think about which kernal, only whether or not its a pile of food. But I agree that there is thinking involved in that. Again it isn't debating the purpose of the universe, but it is thinking, in my view.

And thinking is a chemical process. Developed by evolution through natural selection because it increases reproductive survival. Except for some humans, of course.

Off topic: My default signature on forums used to be

"Don't anthropormorphise computers...they hate that."

I do like that word


[edit on 2/2/2010 by rnaa]

[edit on 2/2/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
To be fair it is not like the Moon is ever directly between Earth and the Sun showing they look about the same size by eclipsing the Sun... .. oh ya ... Never mind.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by nophun]



posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Thanks for the response. Overall, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

I don't believe in the "survival component" as you define it and won't until it is specifically spelled out in chemical terms. As far as I'm concerned it is one of The Church of Science's artificial creations.

However, in beings capable of mental activity and self awareness, there is undoubtely a "survival component" that expresses itself in anxieties and desires. The effects of this type of mentation are something that I predict will eventually be discovered to actually influence alterations in our genetic makeup and consequently our evolution. Only in that sense do I believe in "creationism".

I believe that we individuals, in every species capable of mentation, will eventually be found to create the future evolution of our species through our thoughts.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 



However, in beings capable of mental activity and self awareness, there is undoubtedly a "survival component" that expresses itself in anxieties and desires. The effects of this type of mentation are something that I predict will eventually be discovered to actually influence alterations in our genetic makeup and consequently our evolution.


Mental activity and awareness are dependent on biological markers, enzymes, synapses, heredity etc. They are sited in testable, organic structures within the brain...hypothalamus, cerebellum...even limbic system. Severing the corpus callosum (split-brain patients) affects 'awareness and mental activity.

Patients undergoing brain surgery have been subject to novel experiments for decades. Inserting a needle in a specific area of the brain can cause sadness or hysteria. Brain damage can affect memory, function, thinking...

That all these things are biological in origin *testable*, makes ideas of soul, spirit or separate consciousness unlikely.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 





I don't believe in the "survival component" as you define it and won't until it is specifically spelled out in chemical terms. As far as I'm concerned it is one of The Church of Science's artificial creations.


You are still thinking in terms of "survival of the individual". You need an epiphany here.

This is important, you need to understand this: individuals do not survive, ever. They have a lifetime and die. In biology terms, any one individual is not important to survival of the gene pool (until, of course, the tipping point toward extinction of the population is approached).

It is the gene pool that survives. It is the gene pool that evolves.

In evolutionary terms, survival is equal to reproduction. Period. Individuals have a biochemical imperative to reproduce, to pass their genes on to the next generation. That is the bottom line: survival of the gene pool. That is the meaning of life.

Survival of the individual to reproduce serves the survival of the gene pool. Those individuals that reproduce better, do a better job of furthering the survival of the gene pool. The ability to think is an asset that gives those individuals who possess it a reproductive advantage over those who don't.

That is 100% biochemical. It is part of the definition of life.



posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Basically, I stand by what I have written. I think the chemical "survival component" is a creation of the Church of Science just like the "guy in the sky" is a creation of other churches. I haven't read anything here to cause me to doubt that opinion.



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


No, they're not the same size. Our orbit is not perfect, and the moon's orbit is not perfect, so their sizes are different depending on when you look.

The moon at perigee and apogee:



The sun:




posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Edrick
 


No, they're not the same size. Our orbit is not perfect, and the moon's orbit is not perfect, so their sizes are different depending on when you look.

The moon at perigee and apogee:



The sun:






Yes, I realize this... Why are you even adding this to the discussion?

The argument was that "Religious texts describe the sun and moon as the same size, thus god exists" vs "People can see this with their own eyes, and don't need a religious book to see this"

You realize that you are just arguing semantics, right?

You ARE correct, but it has no bearing on the discussion.

-Edrick



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


No, them being the same size, and them being different sizes, are two different things. The people back in the day got it wrong.



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


This is why I brought up (total) solar eclipse, I am sure this is where "same size" comes from. ( just a guess really, but only thing that makes sense to me)

That said Edrick is right .. even if the religious texts are completely correct, they are just saying something that is seen with or without religion.



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Not really, a total eclipse just requires the moon to be larger than the sun, not necessarily the same size. But that's just being pedantic at this point



posted on Feb, 5 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I was just saying someone from these times would take viewing a solar eclipse could easily think the Sun and Moon are (close to the same size.

I know what a total eclipse is, and I also know what a total eclipse looks like.




new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join