It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i

page: 23
26
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Evolution is all around you, just sit a while and watch.

Those that oppose it are either blind, or in denial.

I respect everyone has their own views. but refusing to see evolving adaptation in the world around you irrespective of religeon (which I don't think most insects sign up to) is the most serious form of blindness.




posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by edmc^2
Due to the DESIRE to believe something that is not, evolutionist will try give the most illogical explanation to something that is so simple, clear and logical. Case in point – this simple test.


And creationists do...
...

Edit to add- Your test proves absolutely nothing...its not the desire to believe, its observing and interpreting data and following patterns which lead to ones conclusion

Too many of these thread topics on ATS


[edit on 17/7/2010 by OzWeatherman]



Your test proves absolutely nothing...its not the desire to believe, its observing and interpreting data and following patterns which lead to ones conclusion


So what's your observation and interpretation then?

If a simple pencil requires a maker then the stars and galaxy does not require a maker. Is that your position?



My ears are open waiting for a logical reply.

ty,
edmc2


Perhaps, I know it seems very counter-intuitive but you should always remember that in science common sense is often of no use. Darwin himself warned against such reasoning in science: "When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people is the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. " While initially one would be justified in believing that the sun in fact orbits around the Earth, the hard science and evidence of the matter proves this concept false. In short, yes, it is fully conceivable that a pencil requires a creator, and a galaxy or nebula does not.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Tetrarch42
 


Interesting Tetrarch42 that you mentioned 'common sense'. I just posted this on another thread by MadnessInMySoul.


IMHO it's the other way around.

Common sense is useless in a discussion of scientific topics
if one is a full fledged believer of evolution.

Let me show you what I mean.

Take for example Mathematical laws that govern the universe, or more specifically Kepler's THIRD LAW: The CUBE of a planet's DISTANCE (a) is IDENTICAL to the SQUARE of the planet's orbital Period (P), that is:

If a = distance in a.u., P = orbital Period then a^3 = P^2.

Now let's apply this equation to the third Planet orbiting the sun, the planet EARTH.

The Earth is 92.95 million miles (mean) from the Sun. This distance is known as an 'astronomical unit' (a.u.). This is equivalent to 1 a.u.

The Earth orbits the Sun in 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds. This is equivalent to ONE year (P).

Thus for Earth a^3=P^2 → becomes → 1^3 = 1^2. This is the standard for measuring the rest.

From this standard we can accurately and confidently say then that any two planets follow the same ratio, and all the planets follow the same Mathematical Law.

Do you agree? If no then consider the following:

The planet Mercury

a = 0.3871 a.u. while P = 0.24 year (87.97 days)
a^3 = 0.3871^3 = 0.05.
P^2 = 0.24 ^2 = 0.05

Thus for Mercury: a^3 = P^2 = 0.05.

What does COMMON SENSE say? Accident, Fluke, Blind Chance or MATHEMATICAL Design by an Intelligent Designer (Creator)?

My scientific common sense tells me the later: MATHEMATICAL Design by an Intelligent Designer (Creator). Do you agree?

Of course if you are an avid evolutionist you will say ??????

Not yet convince? Okay, let's take another example:

The planet URANUS

a = 19.2258 a.u. while P = 84.30 years

a = 19.2258^3 = 7,106.4
P = 84.30^2 = 7,106.4

Thus for Uranus: a^3 = P^2 = 7,106.4

What does COMMON SENSE say? Accident, Fluke, Blind Chance or MATHEMATICAL Design by an Intelligent Designer (Creator)?

My scientific common sense tells me the later: MATHEMATICAL Design by an Intelligent Designer (Creator). Do you agree?

Of course if you are an avid evolutionist you will say ??????

Need more proof?

Here, you can do the rest.

Venus:
a = 0.72 a.u.
P = 0.61 year

Mars:
a = 1.52 a.u.
P = 1.88 years

Jupiter:
a = 5.2 a.u.
P = 11.86 years

Saturn:
a = 9.5388 a.u.
P = 29.46

Neptune:
a = 30.05757 a.u.
P = 164.79 years

Pluto: (dwarf planet?)
a = 39.48265 a.u. (mean)
P = 248.09 years

QUESTION:

What does COMMON SENSE say? Accident, Fluke, Blind Chance or MATHEMATICAL Design by an Intelligent Designer (Creator)?

My scientific common sense tells me the later: MATHEMATICAL Design by an Intelligent Designer (Creator). Do you agree? I hope so.

Because if it requires very smart human mathematicians/scientist to work out some of the MOST ADVANCE mathematics of the universe, then how much more so IS the a GREATER MATHEMATICHIAN to put the mathematics in the first place!
Makes sense?

Of course if you are an avid evolutionist you will say ?????? nonsense?????

ciao,
edmc^2



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Farnet
Evolution is all around you, just sit a while and watch.

Those that oppose it are either blind, or in denial.

I respect everyone has their own views. but refusing to see evolving adaptation in the world around you irrespective of religeon (which I don't think most insects sign up to) is the most serious form of blindness.


So how do you proposed to watch this evolution of yours? And for how long will this sitting be? A year, two, million, billion years?

Just curious,
edmc^2



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Tetrarch42
 


I don't agree. I am student of math, and math is based on common sense. If a theory don't add up to what you observe, than your theory is wrong.

Its common sense and natural that people create theories based on what they observe. But it is less common that they check their theory.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Farnet
Evolution is all around you, just sit a while and watch.

Those that oppose it are either blind, or in denial.

I respect everyone has their own views. but refusing to see evolving adaptation in the world around you irrespective of religeon (which I don't think most insects sign up to) is the most serious form of blindness.


So how do you proposed to watch this evolution of yours? And for how long will this sitting be? A year, two, million, billion years?

Just curious,
edmc^2



Evolution is based on the expansion of energies and matter. As energies and matter expand things evolve and change.

But it is actually more complicated than that. Because as energies and matter radiate, expand, change. New possibilities are created. You have to add the changes to the environment.

Can the expansion of existence be calculated? Yes, but the odds are 1 to the infinite. That means that there is at least one that knows.

The creator of the system.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


according to the electric universe theory the distance of the planets might have something to do with the interaction of the planets magnetic fields and the suns.

so that would make your who example pointless.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by edmc^2
 


according to the electric universe theory the distance of the planets might have something to do with the interaction of the planets magnetic fields and the suns.

so that would make your who example pointless.



Not really. It makes it worth checking out. The volume of energy between two or more objects in a system all play a role that will determine the distance. It is never just one thing. Its a combination of all.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Math concepts will often fit with one's preconceptions, but sometimes they don't. Here's an example:


Most's common sense would dictate a 50%/50% after one door has been ruled out, but statistically this is not the case. Perhaps I was premature saying that common sense has no bearing in science, of course it does. But it is in no way a solution for really understanding the universe. For example, as in evolutionary theory.
edit on 13-11-2010 by Tetrarch42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-11-2010 by Tetrarch42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-11-2010 by Tetrarch42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Oh man, I jumped in my seat when I saw this thread only to find out you are a creatonist! Am I the only non-evolutionist that is non-creatonist? I don't believe us evolving has anything to do with a creator, some kind of will or any real purpose. On the other hand I don't believe our evolving is so utter random that darwinism propose. Survival of the fittest is true, but I find it weird if the mutation of our genes is nothing but random. Sure, it happens all the time, and it's actually very seldom it's for the good for the gene-bearer, but that's because there is no good will behind the mutation.

The way I see it, there must be some kind of communication between all kind of particles in the universe. Let's say there is some kind of electro-magnetic pulse or frequency that allows particles to recognize each other, and then be able to take advantage. The way I see how life evolve is something like this ; First we have the big-bang, which of course is NOT the first. The universe expands and contracts like a heart, and there is no way we are the first universe. Then we get all kind of gases which collides and start weighting, which also is the case for our solar system to be. When there is enough gravity, the gas will implode and create a star. In the chaos that follows, all kind of chemical elements mixing. Now, THIS is it; these elements create life, because in a certain mixture, that's what they do. Some elements can create fire together, others can create water. That's some of their properties, and the right kind of mixture will go on as some kind of important "self sustaining" energy that keeps on going be reproducing and metabolize.

Now we got a little dude that communicates with the particles around, and the first thing that happens is that it uses oxygen for energy. Now, I'm no expert, so I don't know what happens next. The thing I do know is that the life keeps on going trough generations and generations, using all kind properties around us. You are looking at this, and you are most certainly projecting the light waves around you into electro-chemical impulses in neurons, in a manner that is so complex I in no way could explain (nor understand). The point is, you evolve after what kind of properties that is around you. The way I see it, that is the reason why all the animals are so alike, not because we had the same forefathers millions of years ago.

Please, understand; Life is not perfect, and that's why we are not either. We are constantly evolving to handle our environment around us, down to the smallest particle.

I started to think about this one time I had jazzed the place up, and just lying around watching a movie. Then I feel this impulse in my leg. I know this from before that this happens because the leg is about the fall asleep, and the brain sends the impulse to make the leg kick to protect the muscles. Now, I didn't do this. My brain did it and then i understood that it didn't do that do protect this unimportant bag of carbons and oxygen that is my body; it does so to protect what I contain, and what I later will pass on; LIFE!

So behold, here we are. We ARE our universe looking up at itself



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by OleMB
Oh man, I jumped in my seat when I saw this thread only to find out you are a creatonist! Am I the only non-evolutionist that is non-creatonist?


So you don't believe in evolution?
But you don't believe in creationism?
So what do you think happens?



I don't believe us evolving has anything to do with a creator, some kind of will or any real purpose.


Oh wait, you are an 'evolutionist', you believe things evolve.



On the other hand I don't believe our evolving is so utter random that darwinism propose.


Evolution is non-random.



Survival of the fittest is true, but I find it weird if the mutation of our genes is nothing but random.


Why? Random changes happen and the better ones get passed on while the bad ones get selected out.



Sure, it happens all the time, and it's actually very seldom it's for the good for the gene-bearer, but that's because there is no good will behind the mutation.


Well, every human has about 180 mutations, that is genetic information different from either parent. Some of them might be helpful, some of them might not.

Now, if we take this to animals in the natural world, some of these mutations can be good. If a mutation increases the amount of muscle mass and that helps the creature survive, it gets selected for.
If a mutation creates a beak that is more easily able to crack open nuts for a species that eats nuts, that trait will be selected for.

The mutations themselves have no intention, as intention isn't what's being tested. Effect is the test. The effects of the mutation are either beneficial, harmful, or neutral.



The way I see it, there must be some kind of communication between all kind of particles in the universe.


...aside from the fact that I know you're simply participating in conjecture, I'm going to have to ask this:
Where's the evidence for it?



Let's say there is some kind of electro-magnetic pulse or frequency that allows particles to recognize each other, and then be able to take advantage.


Except that there would be evidence of such a 'pulse or frequency' as we have quite a good method of observing transmissions along the whole of the EM spectrum.
Then there's the problem of how the hell of proton is going to create an EM pulse/frequency, how it's going to recognize an EM pulse/frequency, how it's going to process this new information, how it's going to apply the information, and what it's going to do...



The way I see how life evolve is something like this ; First we have the big-bang, which of course is NOT the first.


No, it's not of course.



The universe expands and contracts like a heart, and there is no way we are the first universe.


That's one of the ideas out there about it, but there's no definitive proof of contraction following expansion. It is likely that the end of the universe will be utter heat death.



Then we get all kind of gases which collides and start weighting, which also is the case for our solar system to be.


Well, you just skipped quite a huge time period, and mass is involved rather than weight as weight is a measure of mass in gravity. And the process isn't 'all kind of gases', it's hydrogen and helium.
And it's not just collision, it's gravity.



When there is enough gravity, the gas will implode and create a star. In the chaos that follows, all kind of chemical elements mixing.


...no, chemical elements formed from nuclear fusion, with stars producing a wide array of elements.



Now, THIS is it; these elements create life, because in a certain mixture, that's what they do.


Again, it's not the elements, it's certain organic chemicals.

You seem to have a vague notion of some of it, so that's a start.



Some elements can create fire together, others can create water.


...you mean combustion...
And only 2 elements can create water: H and O



That's some of their properties, and the right kind of mixture will go on as some kind of important "self sustaining" energy that keeps on going be reproducing and metabolize.


It's not 'the right kind of mixture', it's a series of several chemical reactions...



Now we got a little dude that communicates with the particles around, and the first thing that happens is that it uses oxygen for energy.


Yes, but how does it communicate with the particles around...and why is it using oxygen for energy? Do you mean photosynthesis?



Now, I'm no expert, so I don't know what happens next.


Well, you've got quite a few things wrong, but it's ok to admit that you're fallible.



The thing I do know is that the life keeps on going trough generations and generations, using all kind properties around us. You are looking at this, and you are most certainly projecting the light waves around you into electro-chemical impulses in neurons, in a manner that is so complex I in no way could explain (nor understand).


It's more of a translation rather than a 'projection'

And it's not as complex as you think.



The point is, you evolve after what kind of properties that is around you. The way I see it, that is the reason why all the animals are so alike, not because we had the same forefathers millions of years ago.


By that logic we'd have quite a bit greater level of homogeneity in life, at least in the same environments.

But the problem is that we can actually trace the genetics of all life and it's quite clear that we have a common ancestor from the genetic evidence.
And that ancestor lived billions of years ago.



Please, understand; Life is not perfect, and that's why we are not either. We are constantly evolving to handle our environment around us, down to the smallest particle.


No, particles don't 'evolve'.



I started to think about this one time I had jazzed the place up, and just lying around watching a movie. Then I feel this impulse in my leg. I know this from before that this happens because the leg is about the fall asleep, and the brain sends the impulse to make the leg kick to protect the muscles. Now, I didn't do this. My brain did it and then i understood that it didn't do that do protect this unimportant bag of carbons and oxygen that is my body; it does so to protect what I contain, and what I later will pass on; LIFE!


No, not at all. Your automatic reflexes evolved because they sustain the system they're in. It's a survival thing.
And of course bodily functions protect life. Functions that don't increase survivability don't get passed on unless they're neutral to survivability.



So behold, here we are. We ARE our universe looking up at itself



Except that we aren't...

As for the mistakes you made regarding the origin of lots of things, here's a YouTube channel, the user has a great series of videos on the formations of the universe, the solar system, life, etc.



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I find it interesting that in the Intelligent Design vs Evolution debate, the conversation quickly and seemlessly transitions to a much broader debate than it started out as. The IDers seem to find intelligent design everywhere; in the orbit of the planets, in the fundamental forces, in the subatomic interactions, in the distribution and quanitity of the elements of the universe, in mathematics. . . everywhere. The IDers seem to consider life to be a particular instance of the same intelligent design that designed literally everything. ID sounds to me more like a fundamental metaphysical theory than a theory about life in particular.

What predictions does the theory of ID make? Of what use is it to us? Does it predict that every system we find in the universe will appear to be intelligently designed? What does that even mean?

Is the process of evolution incompatable with ID? I don't accept ID one bit, but isn't it at least possible from the perspective of ID that evolution is a product of design, rather than each organism or species individually being designed? If you were to set out to design a system of life on a planet, wouldn't it make sense to set up a process that created life, rather than to set up each instance of life individually? Perhaps your grand designer built a factory, rather than building each product one at a time?



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

What predictions does the theory of ID make? Of what use is it to us? Does it predict that every system we find in the universe will appear to be intelligently designed? What does that even mean?


To me it means that where there's intelligence in design there must be a purpose behind it. If we know the purpose then we will understand the design and the designer itself. As a believer of creation (not ID) I see intelligence in all that is created. Thus I undersatnd the meaning and purpose of the design. Knowing that purpose then I can align my life towards that purpose. Thus it gives true meaning to my existence. That life has a purpose.

BTW, the ID I'm referring to commonly accepted belief that there's no Designer behind the Intelligent Design..


ty,
edmc2



posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The reason we see and understand evolution differently is because we each view it from many different perspectives. People jump in at different time lines within evolution. We also have different opinions on what evolution really is as well.

I see your point. And i have the same theory as you have. But i have used a different approach. I started out by reading about the Big Bang. About the singularity. To understand evolution you have to at least have some knowledge about the beginning. About how finite was formed/created.

The Big Bang theory never made much sense to me. And it seams like the Big Bang theory don't make much sense within science either. But still people within science use it as a theoretical explanation even now.

The Big Bang theory don't make much sense if you know the difference between infinite and finite. Because science wont explain what the singularity really is. Is it a finite source or is it a infinite source?

What source made the singularity change/compress and than explode/expand?

The infinite is 1 dimension. Only one dimension can be infinite. That means finite must be a totally different dimension altogether.
There is a way to view this, and that is by understanding the "distance" from 0 to 1. Where 0 represents the infinite dimension and 1 represents the finite dimension.

We have to understand that there is a distance between the infinite and the finite dimensions. Because the finite is formed/created by the infinite dimension, and must exist within the infinite dimension.

The distance between 0 and 1 is created by a compression. It must have been formed/created by a compression, because we know that the finite existence is expanding at present time. And finite will expand until the end of time. And that is when finite as become what it used to be.

The question you want support for is: Is the infinite dimension intelligent! That is hard to tell because we dont know what intentions the infinite dimension have with its creation. Apart from what religion is saying. We might not be the true intention in this creation. We might be a energy source for whats to come. Who knows.









edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
To me it means that where there's intelligence in design there must be a purpose behind it.


Ok, but that's not a scientific prediction.

An example of a prediction of evolutionary theory would be the difference of chimp and human DNA
Watch as Roman Catholic Ken Miller explains something about evolution.





If we know the purpose then we will understand the design and the designer itself. As a believer of creation (not ID) I see intelligence in all that is created. Thus I undersatnd the meaning and purpose of the design. Knowing that purpose then I can align my life towards that purpose. Thus it gives true meaning to my existence. That life has a purpose.


But that doesn't provide anything of scientific value. Science produces things of scientific value, not philosophical value.

I'm sorry, but science isn't designed to cater to the weak psychology of the human race.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by edmc^2
To me it means that where there's intelligence in design there must be a purpose behind it.


Ok, but that's not a scientific prediction.

An example of a prediction of evolutionary theory would be the difference of chimp and human DNA
Watch as Roman Catholic Ken Miller explains something about evolution.


If we know the purpose then we will understand the design and the designer itself. As a believer of creation (not ID) I see intelligence in all that is created. Thus I undersatnd the meaning and purpose of the design. Knowing that purpose then I can align my life towards that purpose. Thus it gives true meaning to my existence. That life has a purpose.

But that doesn't provide anything of scientific value. Science produces things of scientific value, not philosophical value.


I'm sorry, but science isn't designed to cater to the weak psychology of the human race.


That the limit of science. It can't go beyond the why. It's able to explane the how, the mechanicans of "things" but not the why. Case in point - Ken Millers findings: we know the science of cell division / combination to form an organism (life) but why did it happen in the first place. What prompted the cells to devide and again - WHY?

Science at this point has no answer for it can only deal with the physical.

What's the point of understanding how something was put together but not knowing it's purpose? That my friend is vanity according to a very wise king.

So IMHO evolutionist can never advance to higher level, that is the physical level for they operate only in that dimesion. As a believer of creation (not ID) - I can operate beyond that level for I know the answer to the WHY.

After all - isn't far more important to know why life came to be than how life came to be?

P.S.
People like Prof. Ken Miller and those who claim to believe in God but makes a mockery of him by thier actions and words are responsible also for alienating people from the truth.

ty,
edmc2


edit on 14-11-2010 by edmc^2 because: quote location/ added ps



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The reason we see and understand evolution differently is because we each view it from many different perspectives. People jump in at different time lines within evolution. We also have different opinions on what evolution really is as well.

I see your point. And i have the same theory as you have. But i have used a different approach. I started out by reading about the Big Bang. About the singularity. To understand evolution you have to at least have some knowledge about the beginning. About how finite was formed/created.

The Big Bang theory never made much sense to me. And it seams like the Big Bang theory don't make much sense within science either. But still people within science use it as a theoretical explanation even now.

The Big Bang theory don't make much sense if you know the difference between infinite and finite. Because science wont explain what the singularity really is. Is it a finite source or is it a infinite source?

What source made the singularity change/compress and than explode/expand?

The infinite is 1 dimension. Only one dimension can be infinite. That means finite must be a totally different dimension altogether.
There is a way to view this, and that is by understanding the "distance" from 0 to 1. Where 0 represents the infinite dimension and 1 represents the finite dimension.

We have to understand that there is a distance between the infinite and the finite dimensions. Because the finite is formed/created by the infinite dimension, and must exist within the infinite dimension.

The distance between 0 and 1 is created by a compression. It must have been formed/created by a compression, because we know that the finite existence is expanding at present time. And finite will expand until the end of time. And that is when finite as become what it used to be.

The question you want support for is: Is the infinite dimension intelligent! That is hard to tell because we dont know what intentions the infinite dimension have with its creation. Apart from what religion is saying. We might not be the true intention in this creation. We might be a energy source for whats to come. Who knows.



spy66 - you're a great thinker and your post are thought provoking. I have to read it several times to really understand what you're sayin'.

Evolution:
- in a nutshell, simply put, to me is the emergence / existence of life without a Creator.

Thus no Creator - no ultimate purpose. No ultimate purpose - no meaning. UNACCEPTABLE!

And this is where I scratch my head. Evolutionist claim that they are scientific when in comes to explaining life and that things can be explained through sicence but as soon at it goes against the pre-concieved belief (evolution) their logic becomes illogical.

Case in point:

Infinity - it's scientifically and mathematically proven that it exist. You've touched on it already in your post. We can't fully explain it nor understand it yet we have a concept of it. We are comfortable conceptualizing it. But when it comes to the existence of an Intelligent Infinite Entity (die hard) evolutionist will dismiss it as hooey, a joke. They will say it's impossible for that to occur because there's no way to measure or porve it's (His) existence.

Understable - because the tools they are using to measure or prove his existence are limited to the pure physical dimension. Thus it can only deal with the seen not the unseen.

Now please allow me to quote someone who made this exact proving. He said the following:

"For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, [even] his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:"

I did the same thing and has proven his existence by percieving "through the things that are made". They all have the hallmark of an Intelligent Maker.

Case in point - Keplers Third Law.

But as you've seen, this too was rejected as the work of an advanced mathematician - a very powerfull Entity but just a result of gravitational forces between the sun and the planets, nothing more nothing less (electric universe). As if blind chance was resposible for the unimaginable force governing the laws of the universe.

Anyway - I need to reread you posts again to get a much clearer understanding.

ciao,
edmc2



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
That the limit of science. It can't go beyond the why.


Yes, that's the realm of other things. You're saying evolution is illogical. Why is it illogical if it doesn't derive meaning when it's function is to describe phenomenon?

You're simply refusing to take part in science.



It's able to explane the how, the mechanicans of "things" but not the why.


It never claims to do otherwise. There's also know reason for there to necessarily be an answer to 'why' beyond the physical realm.



Case in point - Ken Millers findings: we know the science of cell division / combination to form an organism (life) but why did it happen in the first place. What prompted the cells to devide and again - WHY?


What? Where does Ken Miller say this?



Science at this point has no answer for it can only deal with the physical.


Um...no, it can. It could figure out the point at which proteins started to self-replicate.



What's the point of understanding how something was put together but not knowing it's purpose?


Um...because then you can find your own purpose for it. Things don't have an inherent purpose only the purpose we apply to it.



That my friend is vanity according to a very wise king.


Well, he wasn't so wise then.



So IMHO evolutionist can never advance to higher level, that is the physical level for they operate only in that dimesion.


There is never any proof of anything beyond the physical level, so I'm happy actually knowing and accepting science instead of rejecting what is plainly true of the world so that I can pretend to be above others.



As a believer of creation (not ID) - I can operate beyond that level for I know the answer to the WHY.


I'd ask you what that answer is, but I know you don't have one. You believe you have an answer, but you have no way of substantiating that answer.

There's the fundamental logical flaw that you're rejecting the actual answer to the physical questions as the basis for your answer to 'why' on a so-called 'higher level'



After all - isn't far more important to know why life came to be than how life came to be?


Well, knowing how it came to be is fundamental in our understanding of genetics and immunology...so yes, how is more important than why.
edit on 14/11/10 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I am going to give you some more insight of how i perceive this theory about existence. This will help you understand my other post. And why i believe you are on to something with your OP.

I talked about the distance between 0 and 1 in my other post.

In this reasoning you are going to see two clues to why we never can perceive the infinite and why science will always be arguing against it.

- We can not measure the distance from 1 to 0. But the observer 0 can measure the distance from 0 to 1. Because 0 can observe 1.

We can not measure the distance from 1 to 0 because we can't observe the infinite. We can't observe or measure nothingness. We can only observe and measure whats between 1 and 0, but never 0 "nothingness".

The reason i agree with your OP is because of what the infinite is. The infinite is a constant. And a constant wont change randomly. Because it has no reason, room to change. It is infinitely large and infinitely small at the same time. So there is no room for random changes like many scientists and people would like to argue. So there must be a reason why the infinite changed and formed finite. And if there is a creation of finite there must be a reason. If there is a reason there must be some form of intelligence or force behind it.

After reading what i just said, people get confused. They get confused because they don't see the infinite as a pure single infinite dimension, but as a dimension with finite energies moving around within its infinite space. But if i ask them about the source to these energies they have no answer. And if i tell them that they just said energies moving within the infinite. Are they not describing two different dimensions? Finite within the infinite.

Many people also believe that the infinite can be used to describe the speed of something. But the infinite doesn't move its stationary. So how science can describe light as a constant is beyond me. Light cannot be a constant if the infinite already is. Light can only become infinite when it has expanded the distance from its source to the infinite dimension. This should be as clear as day.


The infinite is 1 single dimension. That means finite matter and energies must be a totally different dimension. Because finite cant be infinite. That is also why we can use 0 and 1 to describe it.

How can the infinite form a totally different dimension "finite" ?

The infinite must have formed finite by compression. But since the infinite is a constant, it cant have done it randomly. The infinite must have wanted to do it. Science actually proves this as well. A constant will never change unless a different force intervenes. So a force must have caused the infinite to change. And that force must be reason. There is a reason to why the infinite formed finite. There is no other way. Science knows that a constant will always remain a constant if there is no external forces to interact.

Finite will also never have something that the creator " the infinite" cant provide. Like awareness and intelligence.

Our intelligence and awareness is supplied by the infinite.

When the infinite created the finite dimension. It did so by compression. Everything needed to form intelligent life is being compressed. And when the compressed finite dimension started to expand, space for finite life is created. And intelligent life evolves in proper stages suited for its time.






















edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


The infinite is not a real thing. You're basically building upon Xeno's paradox. The problem being that there is actually a point where you get to an indivisible increment.

There is no infinity in this universe, we live in a finite universe, nothing more.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join