Creator or Chance Accident - I will prove this to you!

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Give me those examples again and I'll make sure I am thorough for you.

Self-assembly of surfactant molecules into micelles above a critical concentration reduce the entropy of a system.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Open your mind. Most of the human experience permeates this message of creation and nature. Laws that govern our universe are very similar to laws that govern information management in a computer system. We are merely reflecting God in our own creations. Energy, formed into light and wave, both particle and wave, create a computer display. From the energy coming from the plug to the output on the virtual 3D environment projected from an illusion of 2D, we create the same way science theorizes about reality. This is no accident. The latest theory of reality is that we live in a holographic universe.

Aside from this, read the rest of the posts behind. Light and wave are the duality everything is made from. You call this an accident that the Bible had it right from the opening paragraph. Hardly.

Israel is surrounded by enemies, just as the Bible says. Israel is the center of the world's attention, just as the Bible states. The Bible draws the past into the future so we can witness it as it passes by. I hardly call this an accident. You scoff at miracles without realizing that anything is possible in an illusion of energy and information. It's a simple matter of changing the rules temporarily. I would assume God can bend his own rules that govern the universe with no problem. The same in a computer simulation. It's called will and choice from potentiality. Only consciousness can change entropy. Apart from consciousness, all of nature flows away from its source. We rise above the Earth and are the only exception. God is above all we know and is ultimately our source.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Nothing you posted could be considered scientific evidence of god's existence...you are SPECULATING! I mean, your argument is that just because humans developed the computer game "The Sims", we have to be created by a deity. That's lunatic...

Also, I hope you realize the bible isn't proof of god's existence. It's proof of what people believed 2000 odd years ago, nothing more. They also believed shrimp to be an abomination of dod, or that snakes can talk...go figure

edit on 26-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

With out God ? There would be no law.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


How is anything you post proof of god??? You aren't even discussing, you just keep on repeating the "acorn" example over and over again and completely ignore every point people make against your illogical arguments. You still go on about entropy, even though counter examples have been given...ignorance at its best. You don't want to discuss, you want to PREACH!!

reply to post by randyvs

With out God ? There would be no law.

And your objective for this claim is...wait for it.....waaaaaait for it....*drumroll*....there is none!!

If the assumption here is that it self-assembles to form a type of cell, then... If we can somehow make the membrane functional, trap some living chemical machinery inside (byproducts of other life), we can produce artificial life that continues with reproduction. This might be handy when washing clothing, but equilibrium is all we reach past the rinse cycle. In the realm of living biology, random initial conditions do not produce such singular events as to overcome the complexity of a real biological membrane with embedded instructions and purpose, capable of reproduction into a cycle of events to infinity. What you are mentioning is the flux between one end "liking" water and another end fluxing out of unison with the opposite end of the surfactant molecule.

With that said, let me mention that the temperature of the water is the key to self-assembly and this is energy lost in the chain. At low concentrations or high temperatures, no assembly. Chemiosmosis cancels the primordial soup idea in the grand scheme of things so there are no chemical preconditions capable of moving this any further than a reaction ending at equilibrium. Moot point if you are hoping to show how this leads toward energy production in a membrane. It is irreducible complexity no matter the volumes of theory in the text books that lead you to believe in singularities with nature.

So, no entropy reduction apart from the information needed, just a reaction from the energy in the water. Then again, I may be wrong. I need more input from you to know your intention with this idea.

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Give me those examples again and I'll make sure I am thorough for you.

Self-assembly of surfactant molecules into micelles above a critical concentration reduce the entropy of a system.

You must not be reading my posts. The proof is down to the root of the proposition. Physics at the quantum level of particle and associated wave is where you must dig your way out if you plan to take God on in his reality. Start digging. You need to give a logical answer to this first. Then, if you succeed, you need to make sure and give a logical answer to the first conditions that programmed chemiosmosis in the cells of ALL living bio-mechanical forms for the purpose of using the most efficient energy production engine on the planet. If you can somehow get this accomplished, then you can challenge me on the fact that an acorn produces millions more acorns over the growth cycle of a single tree. Then you need to engage some thought on the fractal nature of that tree and how this mirrors the fractal nature of the mountain ranges and on and on and on. If you can explain this with theory, then produce a simple answer for how all the myriad of life on this planet is in one single unison of purpose to benefit the whole, stamped with the ratio of 1:1.618 as a golden fingerprint. God says it simply with his golden ratio of words. LOVE, Hope, Faith, Benevolence, grace, kindness, mercy. I'll take God over theory any day. He keeps it simple so even a caveman can get it.

I bet God buys his car insurance from Geico.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

How is anything you post proof of god??? You aren't even discussing, you just keep on repeating the "acorn" example over and over again and completely ignore every point people make against your illogical arguments. You still go on about entropy, even though counter examples have been given...ignorance at its best. You don't want to discuss, you want to PREACH!!

reply to post by SuperiorEd

It is irreducible complexity

YIKES! You soo did not just pull the god of the gaps argument!?!?! What an utter waste of time and intellect to pull such an ignorant argument! Because we don't know how x works or could have formed, then it MUST be proof of x deity? I feel sorry for people like you. Our universe is so much more amazing than you possibly could ever realize because sadly.... your narcissistic views of yourself have already deemed you as the greatest of all creation by your beloved man made deity.

YIKES! You didn't just pull one comment out of the context that surrounded it did you? That's called deflection. I rebutted with science. How about putting a complete sentence together in the form of science and observation relating to my statements on the topic of the post. Give it your best shot. Don't just take the easy way out and remove context.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

It is irreducible complexity

YIKES! You soo did not just pull the god of the gaps argument!?!?! What an utter waste of time and intellect to pull such an ignorant argument! Because we don't know how x works or could have formed, then it MUST be proof of x deity? I feel sorry for people like you. Our universe is so much more amazing than you possibly could ever realize because sadly.... your narcissistic views of yourself have already deemed you as the greatest of all creation by your beloved man made deity.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
If the assumption here is that it self-assembles to form a type of cell, then...

It's not an assumption. It's an observable phenomenon. And it's referred to as a micelle.

If we can somehow make the membrane functional, trap some living chemical machinery inside (byproducts of other life), we can produce artificial life that continues with reproduction.

Again, I'm talking about simple molecules self-aggregating. This has nothing to do with their final application. It's an inherent property of surface active molecules.

This might be handy when washing clothing, but equilibrium is all we reach past the rinse cycle. In the realm of living biology, random initial conditions do not produce such singular events as to overcome the complexity of a real biological membrane with embedded instructions and purpose, capable of reproduction into a cycle of events to infinity.

We're not talking about biology. You made the claim that a reduction in entropy could only occur as a result of intelligence. Surface active molecules are naturally occurring. A random system of those molecules, upon reaching the critical micelle concentration, self-aggregate with no energy input required.

What you are mentioning is the flux between one end "liking" water and another end fluxing out of unison with the opposite end of the surfactant molecule/

Fluxing out of unison? Feel free to define the concepts that you're making up on the spot at any time.

With that said, let me mention that the temperature of the water is the key to self-assembly and this is energy lost in the chain. At low concentrations or high temperatures, no assembly.

Thanks for proving my point - you actually have to add energy to that system to get its entropy back to what it was before the molecules self-aggregated.

Chemiosmosis cancels the primordial soup idea in the grand scheme of things so there are no chemical preconditions capable of moving this any further than a reaction ending at equilibrium.

The molecules required for chemiosmosis to take place came from the primordial soup. Without it, there would be no membrane for osmosis to occur with and no molecules to cross the membrane. Also, equilibrium is only an endpoint in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system. That equilibrium will constantly shift as mass and energy are introduced.

Moot point if you are hoping to show how this leads toward energy production in a membrane. It is irreducible complexity no matter the volumes of theory in the text books that lead you to believe in singularities with nature.

Honestly, I don't care about the membrane. You asked for an example, I provided it for the third time, you have no direct refutation for it.

So, no entropy reduction apart from the information needed, just a reaction from the energy in the water. Then again, I may be wrong. I need more input from you to know your intention with this idea.

It's not the "energy" in the water that causes micelles to form spontaneously and reduce the entropy of the system. I have no intention other than to show that a nonliving system can reduce entropy. Which I just did. Sorry if you can't accept it, but it's one of several examples provided that you have yet to provide a satisfactory answer for.

"...self-aggregate with no energy input required." To equilibrium and then it ends.

Primordial soup and Chemiosmosis. Read here from Scientific Daily. The chemicals you require are a byproduct of life and not present before life engaged by the instructions of information. Chemiosmosis is a mechanical process, equivalent to a fuel cell. It is a technology at the nano level. This is engineering, not self-assembly from non-biological chemicals. LINK

"Fluxing in unison?" One end of the molecule "likes" the water and one end does not. This is one way to think about how the molecule self-aggregates by the energy in the water. It reaches unison, one end to the other, in equilibrium. It stops and forms a pattern. End of process to decay.

My original claim is that the information in life reverses entropy and rises away from entropy back toward its source. This process does not end at equilibrium. Nothing in nature does this apart from the instructions of information contained within the seeds of life. An acorn produces an oak tree with millions of seeds produced. Repeat. This is rising against entropy in a sustained manner. Your example does not do this.

Life rises toward its source and equalizes. Example. Man is far more complex than the earth. The earth is below the complexity of the human. The Earth cannot be the source of the human since he has already risen above. I can easily assume from this that man was designed above the earth in complexity, design and function. The seed of this growth is information. A creator of this information can be the ONLY conclusion. Nothing rises above its source in nature, anywhere. All matter which is devoid of life will return with the flow, just like a river flowing from the lake. Life is the same in this respect, yet is already greater than the source at its inception. Information is the key difference. Man has surpassed the Earth in complexity. Consciousness will continue to rise until the Earth is used up and then life will move on beyond to repeat.

Please explain how this is possible apart from information and instruction entering the loop in the form of programming.

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
If the assumption here is that it self-assembles to form a type of cell, then...

It's not an assumption. It's an observable phenomenon. And it's referred to as a micelle.

If we can somehow make the membrane functional, trap some living chemical machinery inside (byproducts of other life), we can produce artificial life that continues with reproduction.

Again, I'm talking about simple molecules self-aggregating. This has nothing to do with their final application. It's an inherent property of surface active molecules.

This might be handy when washing clothing, but equilibrium is all we reach past the rinse cycle. In the realm of living biology, random initial conditions do not produce such singular events as to overcome the complexity of a real biological membrane with embedded instructions and purpose, capable of reproduction into a cycle of events to infinity.

We're not talking about biology. You made the claim that a reduction in entropy could only occur as a result of intelligence. Surface active molecules are naturally occurring. A random system of those molecules, upon reaching the critical micelle concentration, self-aggregate with no energy input required.

What you are mentioning is the flux between one end "liking" water and another end fluxing out of unison with the opposite end of the surfactant molecule/

Fluxing out of unison? Feel free to define the concepts that you're making up on the spot at any time.

With that said, let me mention that the temperature of the water is the key to self-assembly and this is energy lost in the chain. At low concentrations or high temperatures, no assembly.

Thanks for proving my point - you actually have to add energy to that system to get its entropy back to what it was before the molecules self-aggregated.

Chemiosmosis cancels the primordial soup idea in the grand scheme of things so there are no chemical preconditions capable of moving this any further than a reaction ending at equilibrium.

The molecules required for chemiosmosis to take place came from the primordial soup. Without it, there would be no membrane for osmosis to occur with and no molecules to cross the membrane. Also, equilibrium is only an endpoint in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system. That equilibrium will constantly shift as mass and energy are introduced.

Moot point if you are hoping to show how this leads toward energy production in a membrane. It is irreducible complexity no matter the volumes of theory in the text books that lead you to believe in singularities with nature.

Honestly, I don't care about the membrane. You asked for an example, I provided it for the third time, you have no direct refutation for it.

So, no entropy reduction apart from the information needed, just a reaction from the energy in the water. Then again, I may be wrong. I need more input from you to know your intention with this idea.

It's not the "energy" in the water that causes micelles to form spontaneously and reduce the entropy of the system. I have no intention other than to show that a nonliving system can reduce entropy. Which I just did. Sorry if you can't accept it, but it's one of several examples provided that you have yet to provide a satisfactory answer for.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
"...self-aggregate with no energy input required." To equilibrium and then it ends.

Again, wrong on a very basic level of science. You keep calling equilibrium an endpoint, as if it were a static state. A system in equilibrium is not static. For example, in chemistry, if you have an equilibrium reaction where components A and B are in equilibrium with components C and D, A and B don't stop reacting to form C and D (and the reverse) just because the system has reached equilibrium. Both reactions continue to happen, only the mathematical relationship that governs the relative concentrations of all of the components of the system remains static for a given set of conditions. Micelles are no different - surfactant molecules are constantly being exchanged between the micelles and the solvent.

Primordial soup and Chemiosmosis. Read here from Scientific Daily. The chemicals you require are a byproduct of life and not present before life engaged by the instructions of information. Chemiosmosis is a mechanical process, equivalent to a fuel cell. It is a technology at the nano level. This is engineering, not self-assembly from non-biological chemicals. LINK

You're not even accurately representing the article that you're citing. All this is paper says is that there's evidence that the reaction to form the first amino acids took place in the gas phase instead of the vapor phase. This does nothing to overturn the concept of abiogenesis, it only refutes one possible hypothesis for abiogenesis in favor of another hypothesis for abiogenesis. Further, you don't seem to understand the role of chemiosmosis in this research. From the article:

Early organisms likely exploited these gradients through a process called chemiosmosis, in which the proton gradient is used to drive synthesis of the universal energy currency, ATP, or simpler equivalents.

It's just providing an alternate energy source for driving the exact same set of reactions. It's not saying the chemical reactions didn't take place.

"Fluxing in unison?" One end of the molecule "likes" the water and one end does not. This is one way to think about how the molecule self-aggregates by the energy in the water. It reaches unison, one end to the other, in equilibrium. It stops and forms a pattern. End of process to decay.

See the description for a chemical equilibrium above for why your view of how surfactant micelle formation is simply wrong.

My original claim is that the information in life reverses entropy and rises away from entropy back toward its source. This process does not end at equilibrium. Nothing in nature does this apart from the instructions of information contained within the seeds of life. An acorn produces an oak tree with millions of seeds produced. Repeat. This is rising against entropy in a sustained manner. Your example does not do this.

An acorn produces an oak tree at the cost of energy and mass. And oak tree produces acorns at the cost of energy and mass. You keep acting as though acorns and oak trees form closed systems. They do no.

Life rises toward its source and equalizes. Example. Man is far more complex than the earth. The earth is below the complexity of the human. The Earth cannot be the source of the human since he has already risen above. I can easily assume from this that man was designed above the earth in complexity, design and function. The seed of this growth is information. A creator of this information can be the ONLY conclusion. Nothing rises above its source in nature, anywhere. All matter which is devoid of life will return with the flow, just like a river flowing from the lake. Life is the same in this respect, yet is already greater than the source at its inception. Information is the key difference. Man has surpassed the Earth in complexity. Consciousness will continue to rise until the Earth is used up and then life will move on beyond to repeat.

Please explain how this is possible apart from information and instruction entering the loop in the form of programming.

More of Dembski's complex specified information nonsense. You're trying to apply your fundamentally flawed understanding of thermodynamics (and based on this discussion and your thread on optics, science in general) to information theory, which was roundly refuted years ago. You can keep posting about a source and things rising and how things have 100% efficiency because they reproduce with no consideration of the cost of reproduction, but it's just pseudoscientific quasimetaphysical nonsense strung together.

reply to post by SuperiorEd

YIKES! You didn't just pull one comment out of the context that surrounded it did you? That's called deflection. I rebutted with science. How about putting a complete sentence together in the form of science and observation relating to my statements on the topic of the post. Give it your best shot. Don't just take the easy way out and remove context.

OK, here it is in full...

With that said, let me mention that the temperature of the water is the key to self-assembly and this is energy lost in the chain. At low concentrations or high temperatures, no assembly. Chemiosmosis cancels the primordial soup idea in the grand scheme of things so there are no chemical preconditions capable of moving this any further than a reaction ending at equilibrium. Moot point if you are hoping to show how this leads toward energy production in a membrane. It is irreducible complexity no matter the volumes of theory in the text books that lead you to believe in singularities with nature.

YIKES! Are you seriously claiming that lack of knowledge of how life forms it must eventually lead to it being irreducibly complex?! Sorry, that's not science. What you just did there is say because I don't understand how x leads to y, my deity of choice is real.

X is Y. There is no leading from one to the other. Life is fully formed from the first seeds of life. We have a description of how it was accomplished. We have mirrored this creativity in our own productions. What I can't provide is a description of the lab work that went into programming and developing biological machines at this level of sophistication. Adaptation is evident from within the programming. There is no mistaking this. What is not missed is the presence of universal forms. No matter the size, shape or color, a horse is still a horse by form. All life carries a universal archetype down to instinct and personality. This is design.

Everything is in relationship to everything else. This is the sound of one hand clapping.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

YIKES! You didn't just pull one comment out of the context that surrounded it did you? That's called deflection. I rebutted with science. How about putting a complete sentence together in the form of science and observation relating to my statements on the topic of the post. Give it your best shot. Don't just take the easy way out and remove context.

OK, here it is in full...

With that said, let me mention that the temperature of the water is the key to self-assembly and this is energy lost in the chain. At low concentrations or high temperatures, no assembly. Chemiosmosis cancels the primordial soup idea in the grand scheme of things so there are no chemical preconditions capable of moving this any further than a reaction ending at equilibrium. Moot point if you are hoping to show how this leads toward energy production in a membrane. It is irreducible complexity no matter the volumes of theory in the text books that lead you to believe in singularities with nature.

YIKES! Are you seriously claiming that lack of knowledge of how life forms it must eventually lead to it being irreducibly complex?! Sorry, that's not science. What you just did there is say because I don't understand how x leads to y, my deity of choice is real.

edit on 9-4-2011 by sirnex because: (no reason given)

reply to post by SuperiorEd

X is Y. There is no leading from one to the other. Life is fully formed from the first seeds of life.

So your saying a horse was fully formed from a horse and the entire fossil record was completely fabricated showing a distinct evolution of the horse?

Where did the horse come from?

We have a description of how it was accomplished.

Yes, we have various theories for how life first formed. Those coming from science have evidences in favor, those coming from religion have none.

We have mirrored this creativity in our own productions. What I can't provide is a description of the lab work that went into programming and developing biological machines at this level of sophistication.

Hogwash. We have yet to create a complex living creature comparable to a horse. We are far from being able to produce something like that. We can create CGI movies of realistic looking horses, or animatronic robots, but I'd hardly call that evidence of a creator. Even IF we could create genetically from scratch a creature of our own creation, this still does not give evidence that we ourselves were created.

Adaptation is evident from within the programming. There is no mistaking this. What is not missed is the presence of universal forms. No matter the size, shape or color, a horse is still a horse by form. All life carries a universal archetype down to instinct and personality. This is design.

A horse was not always a horse and will not always be a horse millions of years from now if it's species makes it that far.

Again, you are attacking lack of current understanding in science and exclaiming that it's your deity of choice. That is not scientific, it's blind belief.

There is no way to go back and see the process form God. It would be a guess. What came before our age is up for debate. This may have been a lab for other planets before man was designed. That would be a more obvious conclusion. The fact that the fossil record shows universal forms in transition only verifies my understanding of this design process. Biological life would likely have taken many version upgrades over vast periods of time to get a human form with the ability to experience NOUS. We are bio-mechanical. Take a good look at yourself sometime. You are a robot with consciousness. The Hindus call it Avatar. The Bible says it is a spirit connect by a soul (modem of sorts) to a body in the material world. Quantum entanglement verifies this as very possible. The complexity and mechanics of the body verify what we already know from various texts which have existed for thousands of years. We also have verification that advanced beings (angels) have visited us from beyond our skies. Some benevolent, some malevolent. In chapter 6 of Genesis, they came and mixed their seed with the seed of our women.

Beyond this, I can't explain why God allowed it other than what I read in various books from antiquity. They all seem to know about this God of the universe you deny. He clearly has a plan that involves us according to Ephesians 1-3. We inherit what the fallen beings have lost due to their pride and sin. One of the beings tried to raise himself up as God and was cast out of heaven with many of the heavenly hosts. We read about this in Enoch 1 and also the Bible. Since then, they have tried to corrupt God's work here with Humans. No surprise since we will be sending them to the abyss when Christ returns. This is why they are our adversary. All good stories have an adversary. Reality is used to teach, so again, not surprise. When God executes judgment on them, we are there with Christ to make it happen. Our inheritance is the universe as stated in Deuteronomy 4:19 and Ephesians 1-3. It is the mystery purpose of God revealed through Christ.

Now, I realize this doesn't fit the simpleminded versions of atheists. It is much easier to dismiss this as fantasy and just pretend it all came about by accident. Men create fantasy from the fossil record to refute the story we have in the written record. This is utter lunacy. The best record we have are the ones men wrote as it happened. Better connections can be made from this starting point, unless you think it is a conspiracy. All the laws that govern the universe, bio-mechanical life and so on verify the written record and the fossil record. It's just too much removed from our everyday lives to seem real, so many choose not to believe the lie of the adversary. But this is not even the real reason.

The real reason is because believing in God requires sacrifice and suffering. It requires the perception that something of value must be given up to follow. It requires serving rather than leading. This is unthinkable if you are attached to this material world. If you are willing to give that up, you gain the whole of existence with Christ. Not only later, but now while you are living. The only way to live in peace in a troubled world, fully enjoy your family and live life with satisfaction is to give it all up first. From this starting point, you gain it all and more by walking with God instead of going it alone in toil. Genesis is verified by the fact that it describes human nature perfectly at its root problem--PRIDE!

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

X is Y. There is no leading from one to the other. Life is fully formed from the first seeds of life.

So your saying a horse was fully formed from a horse and the entire fossil record was completely fabricated showing a distinct evolution of the horse?

Where did the horse come from?

We have a description of how it was accomplished.

Yes, we have various theories for how life first formed. Those coming from science have evidences in favor, those coming from religion have none.

We have mirrored this creativity in our own productions. What I can't provide is a description of the lab work that went into programming and developing biological machines at this level of sophistication.

Hogwash. We have yet to create a complex living creature comparable to a horse. We are far from being able to produce something like that. We can create CGI movies of realistic looking horses, or animatronic robots, but I'd hardly call that evidence of a creator. Even IF we could create genetically from scratch a creature of our own creation, this still does not give evidence that we ourselves were created.

Adaptation is evident from within the programming. There is no mistaking this. What is not missed is the presence of universal forms. No matter the size, shape or color, a horse is still a horse by form. All life carries a universal archetype down to instinct and personality. This is design.

A horse was not always a horse and will not always be a horse millions of years from now if it's species makes it that far.

Again, you are attacking lack of current understanding in science and exclaiming that it's your deity of choice. That is not scientific, it's blind belief.

reply to post by SuperiorEd

There is no way to go back and see the process form God. It would be a guess. What came before our age is up for debate.

In retrospect, your deity is up for debate as well. What you worship is a mere two thousand year old deity born from a monotheistic cult that rewrote Sumerian mythology deeming El as the only deity in existence. An Egyptian pharaoh tried this once before and failed at it. The methodology employed to become the so called "one true god" was through violent battles and murderous deaths in the name of your newly created lord. Biblical mythology is not even remotely monotheistic, it's polytheistic or some variant of. A few of it's holidays are even ripped directly from polytheistic practices, Easter and Christmas come readily to mind.

Point is, you worship a Sumerian God reinvented 2000 years ago.

This may have been a lab for other planets before man was designed. That would be a more obvious conclusion.

That's far from an obvious conclusion. It's a conclusion born from ignorance; Because you don't understand the natural world and how it works you find your lack of understanding as evidence of your Sumerian God.

The fact that the fossil record shows universal forms in transition only verifies my understanding of this design process.

Does not verify at all, you just chalk it up to your Sumerian God rather than looking at what the evidence shows us. Even today we observe species in transition and new species forming all the time. You refuse to look at that evidence objectively because of some ill thought out belief in an all loving deity invented by man and arose to power through violence.

Biological life would likely have taken many version upgrades over vast periods of time to get a human form with the ability to experience NOUS. We are bio-mechanical. Take a good look at yourself sometime. You are a robot with consciousness. The Hindus call it Avatar. The Bible says it is a spirit connect by a soul (modem of sorts) to a body in the material world.

There is no evidence of a soul and an all powerful deity capable of creation would not need to make many different versions before he finally got it right.

Quantum entanglement verifies this as very possible.

Quantum mechanics says nothing about this and certainly not quantum entanglement. Your just twisting modern terminology to fit archaic beliefs.

The complexity and mechanics of the body verify what we already know from various texts which have existed for thousands of years. We also have verification that advanced beings (angels) have visited us from beyond our skies. Some benevolent, some malevolent. In chapter 6 of Genesis, they came and mixed their seed with the seed of our women.

There is no evidence of beings visiting this planet thousands of years ago and raping our women. This is utter nonsense and not even biologically possible. If we argue angels as aliens from another planet, they would have no more chance in breeding with us than you would have breeding with an ant. The biology would be vastly different and wouldn't even produce an offspring at all.

One of the beings tried to raise himself up as God and was cast out of heaven with many of the heavenly hosts.

No, in the mythology he did not rise up to be God himself. He wanted to be EQUAL to God. To be treated with respect. God called this a sin and that's why he was cast out of heaven. The bad guy in the bible has never done anything wrong in the bible. How many references can you list showing him killing others compared to God? None. He's not a murderer or sinner at all. His only sin was that of helping mankind to know God's evils.

The biblical God created this being and being an all knowing God he knew this being would want respect and equality. Not just for himself alone, but for all other created beings. He was the biblical Martin Luther King. But your God is a racist God and considered him a lesser being, so he cast him down out of heaven, you know... cause he just so damn full of love and all.

Now, I realize this doesn't fit the simpleminded versions of atheists. It is much easier to dismiss this as fantasy and just pretend it all came about by accident. Men create fantasy from the fossil record to refute the story we have in the written record. This is utter lunacy. The best record we have are the ones men wrote as it happened. Better connections can be made from this starting point, unless you think it is a conspiracy. All the laws that govern the universe, bio-mechanical life and so on verify the written record and the fossil record. It's just too much removed from our everyday lives to seem real, so many choose not to believe the lie of the adversary. But this is not even the real reason.

Why are you claiming that the best record of truth you have is a man made mythology that is historically proven to be a retelling of the much older Sumerian mythology? If your going to claim something as the best record, wouldn't you go back towards the very very very first mythology written down? Why would you claim a 2000 year old politically born mythology to be the best?

You don't even know the history of your own religion. That is sad.

The real reason is because believing in God requires sacrifice and suffering. It requires the perception that something of value must be given up to follow. It requires serving rather than leading. This is unthinkable if you are attached to this material world. If you are willing to give that up, you gain the whole of existence with Christ. Not only later, but now while you are living. The only way to live in peace in a troubled world, fully enjoy your family and live life with satisfaction is to give it all up first. From this starting point, you gain it all and more by walking with God instead of going it alone in toil. Genesis is verified by the fact that it describes human nature perfectly at its root problem--PRIDE!

That's utter garbage as well. No where in the bible does it say anything about one having to sacrifice or suffer. There is nothing in the bible that says you can't enjoy this world and all that it offers. There are a few things that your deity considers wrong, like same sex love, but that's due to political beliefs at the time and the original deity El had no issues with it. Pride is not the issue, economic greed is the issue. It's perfectly healthy to have pride in things you own or do. Economic greed is what's ruining this world and your monotheistic churches are a part of that problem.

Very well thought out, but this is not played out as accurate in our current day and age. LINK Your answer is based on worldly wisdom, placing this wisdom above God. This is the fall in the garden all over again and clearly shows which spirit you follow. God already answered this in His own version of this thread. None of us can measure up to what God demands. Thus the need for salvation.

1 Corinthians 1-

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”[d

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

There is no way to go back and see the process form God. It would be a guess. What came before our age is up for debate.

In retrospect, your deity is up for debate as well. What you worship is a mere two thousand year old deity born from a monotheistic cult that rewrote Sumerian mythology deeming El as the only deity in existence. An Egyptian pharaoh tried this once before and failed at it. The methodology employed to become the so called "one true god" was through violent battles and murderous deaths in the name of your newly created lord. Biblical mythology is not even remotely monotheistic, it's polytheistic or some variant of. A few of it's holidays are even ripped directly from polytheistic practices, Easter and Christmas come readily to mind.

Point is, you worship a Sumerian God reinvented 2000 years ago.

This may have been a lab for other planets before man was designed. That would be a more obvious conclusion.

That's far from an obvious conclusion. It's a conclusion born from ignorance; Because you don't understand the natural world and how it works you find your lack of understanding as evidence of your Sumerian God.

The fact that the fossil record shows universal forms in transition only verifies my understanding of this design process.

Does not verify at all, you just chalk it up to your Sumerian God rather than looking at what the evidence shows us. Even today we observe species in transition and new species forming all the time. You refuse to look at that evidence objectively because of some ill thought out belief in an all loving deity invented by man and arose to power through violence.

Biological life would likely have taken many version upgrades over vast periods of time to get a human form with the ability to experience NOUS. We are bio-mechanical. Take a good look at yourself sometime. You are a robot with consciousness. The Hindus call it Avatar. The Bible says it is a spirit connect by a soul (modem of sorts) to a body in the material world.

There is no evidence of a soul and an all powerful deity capable of creation would not need to make many different versions before he finally got it right.

Quantum entanglement verifies this as very possible.

Quantum mechanics says nothing about this and certainly not quantum entanglement. Your just twisting modern terminology to fit archaic beliefs.

The complexity and mechanics of the body verify what we already know from various texts which have existed for thousands of years. We also have verification that advanced beings (angels) have visited us from beyond our skies. Some benevolent, some malevolent. In chapter 6 of Genesis, they came and mixed their seed with the seed of our women.

There is no evidence of beings visiting this planet thousands of years ago and raping our women. This is utter nonsense and not even biologically possible. If we argue angels as aliens from another planet, they would have no more chance in breeding with us than you would have breeding with an ant. The biology would be vastly different and wouldn't even produce an offspring at all.

One of the beings tried to raise himself up as God and was cast out of heaven with many of the heavenly hosts.

No, in the mythology he did not rise up to be God himself. He wanted to be EQUAL to God. To be treated with respect. God called this a sin and that's why he was cast out of heaven. The bad guy in the bible has never done anything wrong in the bible. How many references can you list showing him killing others compared to God? None. He's not a murderer or sinner at all. His only sin was that of helping mankind to know God's evils.

The biblical God created this being and being an all knowing God he knew this being would want respect and equality. Not just for himself alone, but for all other created beings. He was the biblical Martin Luther King. But your God is a racist God and considered him a lesser being, so he cast him down out of heaven, you know... cause he just so damn full of love and all.

Now, I realize this doesn't fit the simpleminded versions of atheists. It is much easier to dismiss this as fantasy and just pretend it all came about by accident. Men create fantasy from the fossil record to refute the story we have in the written record. This is utter lunacy. The best record we have are the ones men wrote as it happened. Better connections can be made from this starting point, unless you think it is a conspiracy. All the laws that govern the universe, bio-mechanical life and so on verify the written record and the fossil record. It's just too much removed from our everyday lives to seem real, so many choose not to believe the lie of the adversary. But this is not even the real reason.

Why are you claiming that the best record of truth you have is a man made mythology that is historically proven to be a retelling of the much older Sumerian mythology? If your going to claim something as the best record, wouldn't you go back towards the very very very first mythology written down? Why would you claim a 2000 year old politically born mythology to be the best?

You don't even know the history of your own religion. That is sad.

The real reason is because believing in God requires sacrifice and suffering. It requires the perception that something of value must be given up to follow. It requires serving rather than leading. This is unthinkable if you are attached to this material world. If you are willing to give that up, you gain the whole of existence with Christ. Not only later, but now while you are living. The only way to live in peace in a troubled world, fully enjoy your family and live life with satisfaction is to give it all up first. From this starting point, you gain it all and more by walking with God instead of going it alone in toil. Genesis is verified by the fact that it describes human nature perfectly at its root problem--PRIDE!

That's utter garbage as well. No where in the bible does it say anything about one having to sacrifice or suffer. There is nothing in the bible that says you can't enjoy this world and all that it offers. There are a few things that your deity considers wrong, like same sex love, but that's due to political beliefs at the time and the original deity El had no issues with it. Pride is not the issue, economic greed is the issue. It's perfectly healthy to have pride in things you own or do. Economic greed is what's ruining this world and your monotheistic churches are a part of that problem.

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Now, I realize this doesn't fit the simpleminded versions of atheists. It is much easier to dismiss this as fantasy and just pretend it all came about by accident. Men create fantasy from the fossil record to refute the story we have in the written record. This is utter lunacy.

Again, no one said it was an accident...what scientists say in terms of how life started or the universe came to be is "we don't know"...which is the only honest answer. All we know is that once life came to be, evolution took over and humans are the product of billions of years of evolution.

What is lunacy is to believe a book written by MEN 2000 years ago has answers scientists can't answer today. Even worse, there's many parts in the bible that are just plane wrong. The creation of the sun after the earth for example. Or global floods...or other stuff that's been mentioned dozens of times. So no, the bible doesn't describe reality, it describes what people BELIEVED to be true 2000 years ago. Those beliefs were part of life back then, but times change, people start to think more rationally...which is why today people know comets aren't signs of gods, and neither are plagues a punishment of god.

What's so hard in admitting you don't know? THAT's what you should ask yourself, because you are filling a gap in knowledge when you pretend you or the bible have the answer to how life started.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


I'm really disappointed in your reply to this poster. You stated "I will prove" but you failed to deliver. I'm looking at this objectively, from a removed viewpoint. To see others blindly post you praise and agreement over sharing a personal religious view also does not lend support to your writing. There is difference between adding to the content of a thread, and being a cheering gallery of yes men.

This is not an attack, and I'm not stating beliefs for or against. I just feel you failed to prove.

NOTE: this is for the OP. I meant to reply 'on' another persons post, wherein you had replied tothem, but I see I hit the wrong button. I apologize.

I can't speak for anyone else who replies. Some of them obviously agree and so do billions of other believers out there. My aim was to provide proof we are created, not of God. The God part comes out in my own viewpoint. The Creator part is down to the paradox of information within an obvious design. Here is the proof. Information is the only thing that remains of the argument. Either information can form itself, or information must originate form somewhere else. Nothing in nature ever surpasses its source apart from instructions from information. The Earth cannot be our source since we have surpassed the Earth in complexity. If you can demonstrate that the earth has consciousness then you can say I have no proof. Our origin must be beyond what science says our source is. The Earth cannot be our source. This is proof positive. If you don't agree, then you have that right. I am satisfied of my proof. This does not prove God, but it does demonstrate that the information contained within our DNA is otherworldly. If you find that the Earth has DNA, then we will need to reevaluate this proof. So far, it stands.

So far, no person here on this board has given the sequence of events that leads to information and instruction telling a cell to divide or produce energy or make a choice that it desires as good as opposed to bad. Do cells feel? Do they have staff meetings to decide how to move to the development and design of a human? Where did this desire come from? We are vastly complex creatures with obvious design and thoughtfulness put into the creation. It really should be obvious.

Originally posted by LargeFries
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

I'm really disappointed in your reply to this poster. You stated "I will prove" but you failed to deliver. I'm looking at this objectively, from a removed viewpoint. To see others blindly post you praise and agreement over sharing a personal religious view also does not lend support to your writing. There is difference between adding to the content of a thread, and being a cheering gallery of yes men.

This is not an attack, and I'm not stating beliefs for or against. I just feel you failed to prove.

NOTE: this is for the OP. I meant to reply 'on' another persons post, wherein you had replied tothem, but I see I hit the wrong button. I apologize.

edit on 4/10/2011 by LargeFries because: added 'NOTE" cause i think i messed up my post by not hitting "Quote"