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.

 

Contributions of Creationism/Intelligent Design to Science

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Even though my good comrade Astyanax already dealt with all of this (thanks for that Asty, this gets tiresome), I've got a few points to address.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





So technically for you a creationist means a general sense that 'a creator was in some way involved'? I'm sorry, but as a former Catholic myself (for oh so many good reasons) I know that Genesis is given little credence to the discussion of the creationist of the universe in theological discourse.


You "know", do you?


Well, last time I sat in on a natural theology lecture (which was less than a year ago, lectured by a Catholic theologian...compulsory metaphysics lectures for my philosophy subsidiary), Genesis was never mentioned.




Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).



...which has nothing to do with Genesis beyond verse 1.



This same Catholic website continues with:


It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the account—a chronological reading and a topical reading.



And either reading, as anyone who has a basic understanding of science could yell you, would be wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.



This site break the discussion of Genesis down to two interpretations; a Chronological Reading, and a Topical Reading, then addressed "Real History" where this is stated:






Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.


Except that we know stellar bodies form naturally, we know that life evolved, etc.



www.catholic.com...


Huh, a lay run website that dares to say that life may not have evolved. I'm sorry, but I'm just addressing source credibility.


What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.


Yeah, the question was finally settled decades ago.

Anyway, aside from the idiocy peppering that article which has a heavily American anti-science bent to it...the Church doesn't hold to the truth of the Bible, at least it hasn't for the last 6ish years.

Also, please learn to link in a tidy fashion.


THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.


Hence...the Genesis account may have a third form of reading, not mentioned in your odd link...the spiritual reading. A reading that deals with ascribing properties to the deity in Genesis 1, an Elohist account which speaks to the power of the deity, and Genesis 2, which deals more with the personal relationship with humanity that Judeo-Christians are supposed to hold their god as having.



I do not know why you thought just simply declaring yourself a former Catholic would somehow lend credence to your bogus claims,


Poisoning the well. I'm not declaring myself a former Catholic, I am a former Catholic. Actually, as far as the Church is concerned I'm still a Catholic as I have not formally resigned nor have I been excommunicated.

Hell, I'm currently in the most devoutly Catholic country in the world (outside of Vatican city, though I'd really call that an Italian tributary, it's interesting to discuss the status of the Vatican with International Relations folk), I have two priests in my family, I was baptized against my will (infants can't consent), went through the typical Catholic rituals of confession, communion, and eventually confirmation.

Hell, I only stopped being a Catholic when I started taking theology classes at a Jesuit high school.



and why you thought those bogus claims were not easily refuted, but then again, you have some strange ideas on what a logical argument is.


You obviously think that it relates to attacking the character of individuals profusely, which speaks quite a bit about you more than anything else.




If your claim of being a former Catholic is true it goes without saying that you've "met" Catholic Priests, and your ambiguity of 'meeting' priests who "don't even claim that God is necessarily a real thing or that Jesus was a historical figure" could easily mean that you've met Catholic priests who never had this discussion with you.


...no, I'm referring to a Catholic priest that I've had this discussion with and who is related to me. He's a Salesian, so is his brother. They argue on several points all the time, I tend to accidentally incite these arguments by asking questions at the wrong time.



It is not as if you clearly made the claim that you've "met" Catholic Priests who asserted that God is NOT necessarily a real thing or that Jesus was a historical figure, did you? This is what I am talking about with your equivocations. Your statement could be true, but it is demonstrably avoiding the truth.


How is it that I'm avoiding the truth? I'm saying something that is true and relates to your claim that Lemaitre (who I already pointed out is not the originator of an expanding universe with a beginning idea) must have necessarily been a creationist.



What does the "historical Jesus" have to do with this thread? More mystical nonsense from you?


...no, I'm saying that there are priests who have no problem with avoiding the outright dogma of the Catholic church.



Further, if you were genuinely a Catholic once, even a mediocre Catholic, then you would know that Catholics are far less concerned with the "historical Jesus" and more concerned with the living spirit of Jesus in their lives today. The "historical" Jesus is an obsession with non-believers, much more than believers, but again, Jesus is really off topic, isn't he?


The Catholic church has an obsession with the historical Jesus. They assert that he definitively existed. Or have you never attended a Sunday service in a Catholic church?

"For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end."

If you are a Catholic, I'm sure you've uttered these words hundreds if not thousands of times in your life.

Of course, you'd rather just hurl more insults at me, so why am I bothering? Anyway, the point is that there are some priests who have a problem with certain aspects of Catholic doctrine and dogma, therefore Lemaitre wasn't necessarily a creationist.

Furthermore, you still haven't provided a conclusive piece of evidence that shows that Lemaitre only arrived at his conclusion based upon being a "creationist".



It is becoming more and more doubtful that you really were a Catholic. Were you a Confirmed Catholic?


Yep, confirmed at Our Lady of Victories in Valletta. Hell, I was quite devout until around the age of 16.



Is it stupid? Here you are making an argument that my dismissal of your anecdotal claims is a.) offensive behavior, and b.) an attempt to cover up for a lack of an argument, while you defend you "argument" that Catholics do not believe in Genesis because of what you've "heard".


Not because of what I've 'heard', and you're frankly focusing far too much on a scholastic interpretation of general language in which I'm just saying that I'm aware of something using the colloquial term 'heard' instead of couching it in some sort of logically formal stuff.

I said Catholics don't necessarily believe Genesis and are openly allowed to disagree with it.



The lying is evident at this point.


Lying would be me being definitively dishonest. Please, prove that I've been dishonest. I actually prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.



No one is trampling on your rights in this thread, so your claims of red herrings is just you accusing me of your crimes.


Deflection again. I'm asking you for evidence, you've not provided any evidence that Lemaitre was definitively a creationist beyond "Herrr... he was a Catholic priest" and you've not provided any evidence for your claim that his assumed creationist position was what led him to the Big Bang theory.




If you think that Lemaitre was not a "Creationist" than your "even if" is a moot point. In today's dumbed down world, the word "moot" is not so common English. Do you need that word defined?


Now you're just being a jerk. Honestly, I'm going to just dumb down my language for you now:

Give me something that shows that Lemaitre arrived at the Big Bang theory because he was a creationist (I'm not arguing the creationist point because you apparently see around 1 billion people as a doctrinally monolithic group regardless of the fact that Catholic doctrine has a gradient of interpretation)

That is the meat of your claim, you've merely assumed that it's true without providing evidence.

It would be as bad as me saying that Newton only arrived at F=ma because only a creationist could come up with the idea of uniform natural laws.



You are ignoring much evidence presented in order to keep screaming "prove it!" and this makes you look foolish.


You have not presented any evidence, 'he was a Catholic priest' is not evidence that he arrived at the proposition of a universe with a beginning due to being a creationist...it merely shows that he was possibly a creationist.



More equivocations. While Friedmann's findings were similar, he was virtually ignored by the scientific community but Lemaitre was not? Why is that do you think?


Bad publicity, worse resources, living in the Soviet Union etc. Your presumption was the Lemaitre could only have arrived at the idea because he was a creationist, I just provided evidence of someone who arrived at similar conclusions several years prior based on the same evidence who was not necessarily a creationist.

You're just pushing the goal posts back now.



Could it possibly be because Lemaitre was a Catholic Priest, and this fact generated enough controversy to garner attention to an idea being ignored as valid prior to this? No matter how you slice it, the "Creationism" angle remains deeply rooted in the Big Bang Theory, and your protestations play like a spoiled little child.


You're just stating it. Possibly? Sure. Evidence? Give me some to support your claims. You're saying that the faux-creationist (which is what I'm going to refer to the essentially deist bent of the 'creationism' you're positing) is ingrained, yet you've yet to show me how. You've stated it over and over but have not provided any external sources beyond lay apologetics.



Further, the similarities between Friedmann and Lemaitre lies in the expanding universe solution. The difference between the two is that Friedmann's model was used for both the steady state universe model, and the Big Bang Theory, where Lemaitre's Primeval Atom Hypothesis necessarily rejects a steady state model.


Actually, Friedmann's model fits into the expanding, contracting, and steady state model, but that's just because he was working off of the evidence. He didn't try to force anything, he was just being a good scientist





Why? The evidence was there, an atheist came up with the same basic idea earlier.


The atheist camp?


I'm saying an atheist because an atheist is definitively not a creationist.



First of all, I did not say that Lemaitre was the only one contributing to science, what I said was that prior to Lemaitre's contribution, the belief was in a steady state model, and Friedman's math applied to both the steady state model, and the Big Bang.


Yes, because he decided to work with the available evidence. The fact that it worked with the Big Bang at all allows for me to state that a non-creationist arrived at the same conclusion.



You can post all the links you want, if you do not understand what the research you are posting the reference becomes mysticism.


Man, you really like your buzz words. You know, at least I'm bothering to cite external sources instead of going "nuh-uh, he's a priest that means his creationism was why he arrived there!"

Where is the evidence that Lemaitre arrived at the Big Bang theory to reconcile science with creationism? "He was a priest" is not a valid answer.



Friedmann came from Jewish ancestry.


Most atheists come from religious ancestry.





Well, the idea of the 'end' is relative as well. And again, you're just hurling out derogatory language.


And again, you're just uttering nonsensical mystical incantations.


Now you're just being openly insulting to cover up that I have a point. Does a big crunch count as an end or merely the end of a lap? Does heat death really count as an end? Stuff is still there. Hell, there was even a scientist (I'll bother looking up the specific paper if you want) who is working on math that puts forth the idea that heat death leads to another big bang.



How many times will you deny equivocating and then turn around and equivocate?


How many times will you accuse me of equivocation and mysticism without actually proving it?



No one has argued that the steady state was a refutation of "Creationism", what I am saying is that it took a Catholic Priest to see the universe in different terms.


Emphasis added. You're saying it, you're not backing it up. I'm asking for evidence of this essential claim, evidence which you seem resistant to provide (most likely because it is nonexistent)




posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





Except that it's not clear. It's simply his assertion. Just because he shoehorned the Big Bang Theory into the bible's claims in Genesis doesn't mean that said theory validates creationism.


This statement is ironic on so many levels. Lemaitre did not "shoehorn" the "Big Bang Theory" into the Bible's claims in Genesis. However, that you insist on phrasing it as if he did, only supports my contention that Lemaitre's Primeval Atom Hypothesis, (The Big Bang Theory was coined by Fred Hoyle), was clearly influenced by Genesis.

As one of the other disingenuous posters keeps insisting, ad nauseum, is that Lemaitre relied solely upon physics to present his hypothesis, which is to say, he did not quote the Bible, he did not in anyway make a connection between the Bible and his mathematical findings, but relied solely on the tools of science to make a scientific hypothesis.

Even so, when he first advocated this hypothesis, most of the scientific community accused him of what you call "shoehorn"(ing), and even Einstein was among those skeptics. Later, Einstein recanted his skepticism and supported Lemaitre in his findings.

If you cannot be bothered to actually learn the facts, then why should anyone take you seriously?



If you're not taking me seriously why did you take the time to write three paragraphs and a sentence? I don't really care much to delve into all the facts since your statement: "who advocated this theory that it is clear that it is rooted in Creationism" is all I was interested in. There are no scientific theories that are "rooted in creationism", at least as far as the modern hypothesis of "creationism" is concerned. The fact that a given theory may deal with origins does not "root it in creationism".



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Tide goes in, tide goes out




posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
l will answer both questions. Evolution works off a single assumption: Man, the top form of life on the planet (and every other life form on the planet), defied entropy by the formation of the first simple cells, which somehow first formed the ability to engage Chemiosmosis. Don't worry, I know my evolution and biology. No theory can produce a valid reason that the first cells derive energy via Chemiosmosis instead of simple chemical reactions. You see, energy cell technology is not a chemical process, but instead is a mechanical process using a pump to move the ions across the membrane to derive energy. This just happens to be the BEST possible choice to utilize the least amount of work to get energy in the most efficient manner possible. As a matter of fact, we are copying this process to make fuel cells that are more efficient that anything we have created so far. You see, this is engineering at the nano level to a degree of perfection. This is the first, root, of evolution. From this point, evolution might as well hang it up. All parts of our body are designed with purpose and complexity using information management and encoding in a four bit cypher. DNA is vastly complicated. Sorry, another wall for evolution to crash and burn on. If this were Nascar, Evolution would not make it to the starting line.

Back to the point. All matter requires a vehicle with consciousness to avoid entropy. PROVABLE to even a child or scientist. Any other reasoning that does not include a designer is lunacy! I arranged this thought in a virtual, created reality called the internet. I could not have done this apart from consciousness on many levels of existence. This is a good example of reverse entropy. Why would you want to reverse entropy? Do you really need to ask?




Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 

Would you please answer my questions without dodging them? Last time of asking...


Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Nothing has ever gone against entropy apart from consciousness. Provide me with one example please.

Why should I? I agree that nothing escapes entropy – not even consciousess


Don't say evolution because this would be the single singularity of entropy that has ever been theorized. All matter flows away from the source. High order and low entropy is where the universe started and all inanimate substance moves in that flow one direction. Consciousness reverses entropy...

Go and learn thermodynamics, for Heaven’s sake.


edit on 26/3/11 by Astyanax because: of deadweight.

edit on 28-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
l will answer both questions. Evolution works off a single assumption: Man, the top form of life on the planet (and every other life form on the planet), defied entropy by the formation of the first simple cells, which somehow first formed the ability to engage Chemiosmosis.

Your understanding of thermodynamics is, at best, suspect. As I stated in response to one of your posts in another thread, entropy can easily be overcome in an open system. Earth is an open system. "Somehow" cells formed the ability to engage in chemiosmosis? Maybe you should look do a little reading in the area of transport across phase boundaries in micelles. This occurs regularly in nonliving systems. Cells are, essentially, phospholipid micelles. And thus it follows.


Don't worry, I know my evolution and biology.

If your understanding of evolution and biology are similar to your understanding of the thermodynamics you keep trying to invoke, I'd call this a serious case of self-delusion.


No theory can produce a valid reason that the first cells derive energy via Chemiosmosis instead of simple chemical reactions.

Again, do some reading on physical chemistry and understand how it works in surfactant micelles. It's the same phenomenon.


You see, energy cell technology is not a chemical process, but instead is a mechanical process using a pump to move the ions across the membrane to derive energy. This just happens to be the BEST possible choice to utilize the least amount of work to get energy in the most efficient manner possible. As a matter of fact, we are copying this process to make fuel cells that are more efficient that anything we have created so far. You see, this is engineering at the nano level to a degree of perfection.

Assuming that because we mimicked something found in nature there must be a designer is a logical fallacy.


This is the first, root, of evolution. From this point, evolution might as well hang it up. All parts of our body are designed with purpose and complexity using information management and encoding in a four bit cypher. DNA is vastly complicated. Sorry, another wall for evolution to crash and burn on. If this were Nascar, Evolution would not make it to the starting line.

So you have no actual evidence of why it couldn't have occurred, just personal incredulity based on a really poor understanding of the science involved.


Back to the point. All matter requires a vehicle with consciousness to avoid entropy. PROVABLE to even a child or scientist.

Might want to check with a scientist or two on that. Again, entropy tends to increase in closed systems. It doesn't even have to always increase - you can have localized pockets of lower entropy, as long as the cost is paid elsewhere in the system. But, as stated earlier, this is a moot point - the Earth is not a closed system.


Any other reasoning that does not include a designer is lunacy!

Given that you're about as far from proving a designer, or even the need for one, as you can possibly get, reasoning that there is one is lunacy.


I arranged this thought in a virtual, created reality called the internet. I could not have done this apart from consciousness on many levels of existence. This is a good example of reverse entropy. Why would you want to reverse entropy? Do you really need to ask?

Congratulations! You've show just as much ability to reverse entropy as a bunch of surfactant molecules in solution that are over their critical micelle concentration.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


I will answer both questions.

Oh, goody. Just to remind ourselves, the questions were

  1. When you say ‘nothing rises above its source’, what do you mean by ‘above’?

  2. Does consciousness flow towards its source? What does that even mean?

Now, where are your answers? I don’t see them in your post, in spite of your promise. Instead, all I see is you reiterating the same old drone: ‘consciousness defies entropy’ (it does not) before wandering off the point completely.

I am beginning seriously to doubt your sanity. Unless you engage with me logically in your next post, our conversation ends here. Judging by the responses to this thread you have convinced nobody of your thesis, so there is not much point in debating you anyway.


Why would you want to reverse entropy? Do you really need to ask?

I didn’t ask. You appear to be hallucinating.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
There is no free lunch.. All you state here assumes Chemiosmosis was there to begin with. This is a mechanical process by a choice. It's not the obvious choice. Chemical reactions is the obvious choice for nature. Read the paper from the guy who discovered this. No free lunches.

Nobel Lecture from Peter Mitchell

Article

Link "Censorship never leads to good science"



Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
l will answer both questions. Evolution works off a single assumption: Man, the top form of life on the planet (and every other life form on the planet), defied entropy by the formation of the first simple cells, which somehow first formed the ability to engage Chemiosmosis.

Your understanding of thermodynamics is, at best, suspect. As I stated in response to one of your posts in another thread, entropy can easily be overcome in an open system. Earth is an open system. "Somehow" cells formed the ability to engage in chemiosmosis? Maybe you should look do a little reading in the area of transport across phase boundaries in micelles. This occurs regularly in nonliving systems. Cells are, essentially, phospholipid micelles. And thus it follows.


Don't worry, I know my evolution and biology.

If your understanding of evolution and biology are similar to your understanding of the thermodynamics you keep trying to invoke, I'd call this a serious case of self-delusion.


No theory can produce a valid reason that the first cells derive energy via Chemiosmosis instead of simple chemical reactions.

Again, do some reading on physical chemistry and understand how it works in surfactant micelles. It's the same phenomenon.


You see, energy cell technology is not a chemical process, but instead is a mechanical process using a pump to move the ions across the membrane to derive energy. This just happens to be the BEST possible choice to utilize the least amount of work to get energy in the most efficient manner possible. As a matter of fact, we are copying this process to make fuel cells that are more efficient that anything we have created so far. You see, this is engineering at the nano level to a degree of perfection.

Assuming that because we mimicked something found in nature there must be a designer is a logical fallacy.


This is the first, root, of evolution. From this point, evolution might as well hang it up. All parts of our body are designed with purpose and complexity using information management and encoding in a four bit cypher. DNA is vastly complicated. Sorry, another wall for evolution to crash and burn on. If this were Nascar, Evolution would not make it to the starting line.

So you have no actual evidence of why it couldn't have occurred, just personal incredulity based on a really poor understanding of the science involved.


Back to the point. All matter requires a vehicle with consciousness to avoid entropy. PROVABLE to even a child or scientist.

Might want to check with a scientist or two on that. Again, entropy tends to increase in closed systems. It doesn't even have to always increase - you can have localized pockets of lower entropy, as long as the cost is paid elsewhere in the system. But, as stated earlier, this is a moot point - the Earth is not a closed system.


Any other reasoning that does not include a designer is lunacy!

Given that you're about as far from proving a designer, or even the need for one, as you can possibly get, reasoning that there is one is lunacy.


I arranged this thought in a virtual, created reality called the internet. I could not have done this apart from consciousness on many levels of existence. This is a good example of reverse entropy. Why would you want to reverse entropy? Do you really need to ask?

Congratulations! You've show just as much ability to reverse entropy as a bunch of surfactant molecules in solution that are over their critical micelle concentration.

edit on 28-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Breeding is a good example. The offspring is dependent on the source for its traits. Evolution gets this part right, but consciousness is involved. Still, the cow does not rise above its origin species. It can't.

Take teaching as an example. If you raise a child in an impoverished school district, he will rise to the standard set by his source. Exceptions. Sure. But these exceptions are induced by a conscious influence outside the source of origin.

These examples are simple and involve consciousness. Now, give me an example of matter rising to life apart from effort and choice and desire from consciousness. Not a chance. A rock turns into sand. Water cycles. The Earth cycles. The human body cycles. Consciousness represents a factor that works against the cycle to make a choice between possibility. There are no free lunches. We cannot observe our source so we cannot speculate as to its nature or where it comes from. If we could observe, the answer would be obvious. The excluded middle argument would be revealed. If it were not for knowledge of the Doppler Effect, we would be arguing with train engineers about their whistles changing pitch. Odds are we're both right.


Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


I will answer both questions.

Oh, goody. Just to remind ourselves, the questions were

  1. When you say ‘nothing rises above its source’, what do you mean by ‘above’?

  2. Does consciousness flow towards its source? What does that even mean?

Now, where are your answers? I don’t see them in your post, in spite of your promise. Instead, all I see is you reiterating the same old drone: ‘consciousness defies entropy’ (it does not) before wandering off the point completely.

I am beginning seriously to doubt your sanity. Unless you engage with me logically in your next post, our conversation ends here. Judging by the responses to this thread you have convinced nobody of your thesis, so there is not much point in debating you anyway.


Why would you want to reverse entropy? Do you really need to ask?

I didn’t ask. You appear to be hallucinating.


edit on 28-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


Actually, the cow genome further supports the theory of evolution


LINK

It seems you're hellbent at insisting humans are "the best", when in reality we're just really well adapted to our surroundings. Some animals are better adapted at their environment than we are, even with the help of technology.

The dinosaurs were "the best" species during their time, and they've lived 160 million years...look where they are today. In comparison, we've only existed a tiny amount of time.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


Breeding is a good example. The offspring is dependent on the source for its traits. Evolution gets this part right, but consciousness is involved. Still, the cow does not rise above its origin species.

I still don’t get it. Please explain what you mean by ‘above’. I will not ask again.


If you raise a child in an impoverished school district, he will rise to the standard set by his source.

‘Rise’ in what sense? Educational achievement? What does educational achievement have to do with evolution?


Now, give me an example of matter rising to life apart from effort and choice and desire from consciousness.

In what sense is life ‘above’ inanimate matter?

And can you give me an example of life originating from inanimate matter through the agency of effort, choice, and conscious desire? Just one absolutely clear, inarguable example will do. Just one.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I keep seeing people espousing the creationist/intelligent design point of view and I'd simply like to ask: What the hell has it ever contributed to science?
What valuable, applicable knowledge has been gained from it?
What are the applications of this knowledge?
Where has it been applied?
Who applied it?

I know attacking creationism/ID is like beating a dead horse, but there are still creationists on here so I'd like to see how they justify their position.


me thinks thou doest protest to much.

The enemy of your soul is the first one to teach that God did not create man
However God teaches, that he in fact did create man.

Therefore regarding your question about contribution
God's teachings will not contribute to the teachings of satan

science teaches only what is physical,denying the spiritual

but the physical dies, and the spirit lives forever

so which is greater the physical or the spiritual ?



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by infojunkie2
 


God's teachings will not contribute to the teachings of satan

science teaches only what is physical,denying the spiritual

Intelligent design claims to be science.

So you don’t have any answer to the questions, then? Just came on board to preach us a little sermon?

Do you have anything material to contribute to the thread?


edit on 29/3/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by infojunkie2
 


God's teachings will not contribute to the teachings of satan

science teaches only what is physical,denying the spiritual

Intelligent design claims to be science.

So you don’t have any answer to the questions, then? Just came on board to preach us a little sermon?

Do you have anything material to contribute to the thread?


edit on 29/3/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)


I see in your signature that you quote Newton, so since all that you seem to be able to except comes from science and those who believe in it, maybe you should research Newton a little more, maybe you can believe him. let him preach to you little too.


Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."


edit on 29-3-2011 by infojunkie2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2011 by infojunkie2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by infojunkie2
 


And that was Newton's personal belief, not backed up by objective evidence like his scientific contributions...and they were beliefs held in the 17th century!! I hope you realize how many more things science figured out since then, and how many things Newton attributed to god (because his knowledge was that of a 17th century person) are now fully explained through science.

Also, the argument from authority you're using is laughable. It doesn't matter who says something, but wether or not they can back up their claims with objective evidence. Newton could NOT back up these statements of personal belief with objective evidence or facts.

Fallacy of defective induction

Also, next time if you quote something (copy/paste), at least bother listing the source...even if it's such a pseudo-scientific source like godlikeproductions




The enemy of your soul is the first one to teach that God did not create man
However God teaches, that he in fact did create man.


For it to be a fact, it would have to be backed up by OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE...which it isn't.



Therefore regarding your question about contribution
God's teachings will not contribute to the teachings of satan


What are teachings of satan? I hope you're not talking about science




but the physical dies, and the spirit lives forever


Personal belief, not backed up by any objective evidence...



so which is greater the physical or the spiritual ?


Well, your spirituality is illogical, and not based on objective evidence...so I'd side with the physical, aka science.
edit on 29-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
There is no free lunch..

Again, you're just showing your lack of understanding of thermodynamics. Yes, the Universe is a closed system. This doesn't mean that localized systems of reduced entropy don't form. The Earth, for example, is not a closed system - it continually receives energy from the Sun.


All you state here assumes Chemiosmosis was there to begin with. This is a mechanical process by a choice. It's not the obvious choice. Chemical reactions is the obvious choice for nature. Read the paper from the guy who discovered this. No free lunches.

No, you assert that it's by choice without providing any evidence. Whereas the cases of spontaneous micelle formation by nonliving molecules and migration across a surfactant micelle are numerous, common, and well-documented.


Nobel Lecture from Peter Mitchell

This is just a different mechanism for achieving the same overall end result. No invalidation of evolution here.


Article

Interesting article, but it's not that different from the "primordial soup" model. Same compounds, same required activation energy, just a different phase and a different source of that energy. This hardly disproves evolutions, it actually just provides a new model for abiogenesis. Actually, the more parallel processes for abiogenesis that people can find, the more likely it becomes. But this article has little if anything to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't discuss the origin of life, just what it does since it got here.


Link "Censorship never leads to good science"

An op-ed piece is hardly scientific research. This article is suspect from the start because it uses the phrase "creation research" - sorry, but there's no such thing. The closest the creationist movement has come to being science is Intelligent Design, which is inherently unscientific and just creationism repackaged for a new generation.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by infojunkie2
 

Imagine where we'd be if scentists just accepted Newton's notion of an Intelligent Creator governing the laws of the 6, yes he thought there were only 6, planets that orbit the sun.

LaPlace's scientific expositions removed the need to place a god--like creator at the center of the fundamental laws of planetary motion, and Einstein ripped apart Newton''s concept of gravity over 100 years ago.

People have a tendency to invoke Intelligent Design to resolve all the variance in the lmits of their understanding. Today those limits have been reduced to the microscopic flaggelum that allows microorganisms to be motive. And to the well learned, the flagellum can be explained rather precisely.

A little side dirge on LaPlace that I heard Tyson mention during one of his lectures. After LaPlace had published a 5 Volume series on Celestial Mechanics, Napolean sat down with him to discuss his research. I extracted the following from LaPlace's wiki page:


Laplace went in state to Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses. ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by infojunkie2
 

So, nothing meaningful to contribute to the thread, then. Just as I thought.

If you want to see how much I know about Newton, see this post.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


excuse me, but I don't find you contributing to any thread or agreeing with anybody here that believes in God.
What I consider to be contributing, you never will, so get over yourself.
I will say that it is ironic how those that bash christians love to say that we are untolerant and narrow minded, and all the while you are doing the same.



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by infojunkie2
 





untolerant and narrow minded


The word you're looking for is ignorant of objective evidence if it goes against your belief. And we don't accuse all Christians of that, just the fundamentalists who believe in nonsense like global floods, talking snakes, and other hogwash



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
An acorn will grow to a mighty oak tree. That is rising above the seed. A dead seed will not rise at all. It will rot in the soil. What's the difference here? Information is the difference. Consciousness is information and the result of information. Information cannot happen randomly or by accident. It is design and requires life. Life is the animating force that moves the particle in duality.

By above, I mean higher in rank, authority, or power with a definable purpose or utility revealing a striving desire. In any system it is simply becoming with purpose. Nothing to something is becoming through potential. When purpose is thrown in the mix you cannot run from the obvious design with purpose conclusion. Dance around this all you like, it is not possible to show otherwise by theory. Entropy has no exception. Only through conscious effort.

All your textbooks amount to theory stacked on theory making a house of cards. The simplest answer is the correct answer and reveals the mystery of all the questions. We are engineered at the highest and most efficient degree possible. A human uses less power to run functions in a day than a light bulb. The human brain stores more information and holds more processing power than anything we have created to date. We have just now reached the processing power as a planet of machines that one human brain has possessed since the first model was booted up. DNA is a programming language, which is far superior to any we could conceive, yet is the simplest way to hold information that we can imagine. We are biodegradable and we do not harm the environment when we are discarded. We have a nearly perfect camera in 3D built in, better than what we can create on our own. We hear at far distances. Our voice fills every inch of a room, even at low volume. Our ears hear because they have a multitude of parts that work in harmony to detect a wide range of frequency. You cannot reduce the complexity of the ear by even one part, or the entire thing stops working. There are no previous uses for any of these parts except as a created device for hearing sound. We cannot engineer a microphone that can satisfy the requirements of the ear's discriminating sensitivities. Mankind's technology is poorly designed to suite the perfect technology of the human senses. We are just now able to give some realism to our senses in a basic way. Our senses have always been here with us, yet we use our own senses to create copies made from silicone and artificial materials. This makes the argument for me. We are our own proof.

Have you ever noticed that light is not visible? If it were, you would not be able to see form one object to another. How convenient. Have you ever noticed that sound cannot travel without air? How convenient that we have air so sound works properly. Have you ever noticed that air is invisible to our eyes? How convenient that air carries sound, yet does not interfere with our sight, or smell, or touch. Have you ever noticed that water is unlike any other substance on Earth. It exists in three states. It carries information. It is the ultimate solvent. It can push a plant through asphalt with its surface tension. How ironic that it is on our planet in such vast quantities. I can just keep going and going and going. Have you ever notice that water makes up most of you, yet the other 15% makes the whole thing function? Have you ever noticed that the sun and Earth come together to make all life on earth possible? Have you ever noticed that two feet come together to allow travel? Two hands? Sperm and egg? two ears? Two eyes? Two hemispheres? Father Son? Particle Wave? Light Word? Should I keep going?

Have you ever noticed that we only see a slice of time called now? Does that mean the future or past are not there just because we do not sense them? Have you even imagined a 2 dimensional creature trying to see in the third dimension (see flatland)? It would be just like us trying to see past our slice of the 4th dimension of time. Just because we cannot see it clearly does not mean it is not there in a comprehensible form. The human senses are only tuned to a limited frequency of what is actually there. Dancing all around you are likely spirits as described in the Bible. No physical or scientific reason they cannot be there. We cannot make a good case against the Bible or faith in God with such a limited sensation of what is actually there. Science is childish to rely on theory. Very presumptuous.

Miracles violate our perception of physics. Bid deal. Talking mules in the Bible are possible. Matter is merely energy and can be manipulated with the proper programming. No reason God cannot achieve this. A world-wide flood is possible. If we apply the same effort in coming up with a theory for the flood as we do with evolution, it is possible. Stop the earth for just a second, dead in it's movement and water keeps traveling. Walk across a room with a filled bowl sometime and see what happens when you stop suddenly. Now, imagine this with the oceans. Don't be a fool to doubt. Did you see the little tsunami in Japan. Imagine this on a global scale. As a matter of fact, any miracle we read about in the Bible can now be understood just by seeing the awesome power contained in one atom. It is merely a matter of manipulating the physics and encoding. By our science, we are becoming aware that our universe is likely a result of streaming information from another dimension. The work at CERN is trying to prove this in its description of the HIggs Boson particle and associated wave.

As long as I am mentioning the particle and wave, I might as well talk about the duality of light. God said, FIAT LUX. That means let there be light to create the world and enlighten man in the image of God. In other words, light will give you knowledge of God in reflection, which is what light does. It reflects on everything and gives your consciousness, on loan from God, the opportunity to see through the darkness at the matter that is there. God also said in John 1 that the word (wave) created everything. The WORD in the bible is LOGOS. That's Christ. We find that out in Ephesians. Christ is the wave, or the other half of the duality of God (light). Funny how the Bible is always correct. Since light is not visible, the Bible is once again correct in its claims.

Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by(A) the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of(B) things that are visible.

But why go to all the trouble?

Well, God has had a mystery purpose for Earth that was revealed in Ephesians chapters 1-3. He hid this mystery and kept it to Himself from the beginning until it was revealed. As stated in Genesis, Heaven is the place above Earth where the stars are. That's the universe. Man's destiny is to inherit the universe, but not until he has been given a chance to show faith, hope and love. That time is ending. Only those who show faith, hope and love, all three of these, will shake off the mortal avatar and gain a new body capable of traveling in the universe. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the universe. Why? When we travel to space we need to take a little bit of Earth with us so we can survive. Our new body will accommodate this. Spirit is not limited by the material world. What is spirit? Not material. Pure consciousness and information in a perfected state that lives forever. No entropy.

All things under Heaven and on Earth are given to Christ by his father, GOD. The center of this entire universe is Earth. It is where God has decided a new order to the universe begins. Just read Ephesians with this eye and you will see, the BIBLE is the Hitchhikers Guide to faith, hope and love for the universe. We inherit it all in harmony with the rest of the life beyond Earth. Why is this so hard to believe. Don't you watch Star Trek?


Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


Breeding is a good example. The offspring is dependent on the source for its traits. Evolution gets this part right, but consciousness is involved. Still, the cow does not rise above its origin species.

I still don’t get it. Please explain what you mean by ‘above’. I will not ask again.


If you raise a child in an impoverished school district, he will rise to the standard set by his source.

‘Rise’ in what sense? Educational achievement? What does educational achievement have to do with evolution?


Now, give me an example of matter rising to life apart from effort and choice and desire from consciousness.

In what sense is life ‘above’ inanimate matter?

And can you give me an example of life originating from inanimate matter through the agency of effort, choice, and conscious desire? Just one absolutely clear, inarguable example will do. Just one.

edit on 30-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join