Chance accident or Creator. I have proven it. Now refute it.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


...I'm not simply stating it's wrong, I'm highlighting that this is circular reasoning...circular reasoning in and of itself is illogical. The premise of an argument cannot rest on the conclusion. This is the sort of thing you learn in the first day of a logic class.

I don't need to disprove a claim that is both unproven and relies on circular reasoning because it lacks evidence and is simple illogical.

And I bothered to demonstrate how it's circular. Let me do so again:

Claim 1: Deity A exists and created nature.
Claim 2: Nature exists.
Conclusion: Deity A exists and created nature.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

Simply saying something is wrong does not make it so. Show me the evidence. Produce answers to the two questions. Your answers should be able to negate my points.

Give us points to negate SuperiorEd.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

Simply saying something is wrong does not make it so. Show me the evidence. Produce answers to the two questions. Your answers should be able to negate my points.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Hey look, it's circular reasoning! The good ol' creationist and theist tactic of using a point to prove itself! Your deity says nature proves it exists because it created it...therefore it exists and created nature.

Lovely job coming up with your own argument that makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Thanks for providing yet another example of a fallacious argument...argument from ignorance

reply to post by SuperiorEd


And your 2 stupid questions have been answered several times already...it's just that you keep on ignoring every answer that doesn't fit your worldview

Where do the governing laws of motion originate?

We don't have the answer...no one knows

How can we explain information with purpose encoded into all life and how can this information match the governing laws from question one (apart from a knowledge of them)?

Firs of all, how does the information encoded in DNA match natural forces like gravity?? You completely fail at bringing your point across. Also, you completely neglect at providing any objective evidence that would support the claim that some sort of intelligence "encoded information".

So in short, you 2 questions are complete nonsense, and you refuse to even acknowledge answers that don't end with "god did it"

In essence, what you're doing is disguised preaching...

Circular reasoning currently holds the ridiculous reasoning of evolution together. Theory is where any premise starts. 

Our theory for evolution starts with the premise that matter creates life.  We then move the circle in the direction of temporal dating of rock strata.  We date the strata based on a theory that the fossils we find in the layers demonstrate the dates of the strata.  We then date the fossils on the supposed dates of the strata. Two circles of reasoning.  

All of this circular reasoning is falsified by the facts of quantum mechanics and entropy in information theory.  The wave function of indeterminate possibility is collapsed by the observer.  Entropy is the measure of uncertainty associated with a random variable.  This is shannon theory. We have an expected value information acquires in the form of bits.  Information must be missing when the unknown value is missing. Since only conscious life has the ability to assume unknown values, then we trace this back to the original assumption.  

Assumption one: Evolution claims matter, devoid of life (information) created more information according to unknown (by the matter) laws.  This is proven wrong by current theory.  Random variables not known by matter cannot be arranged to function or move to decreased informational entropy.  Only life rises from informational chaos to ordered function by design.  

Assumption two: A creative consciousness arranged the information to match known law (no random variables except those created by the observer).  Provable by current quantum theory and collapsing wave function theory.  Probable by information theory, as the random variables do not exist to the conscious observer (since the observer is the process mover).  

We now use our circular reasoning to move the rest of the random variables into place by our root theory.  

The obvious best fit, considering the existing bits of information contained in life, is design.  Any other conclusion goes against accepted theory. New theories are needed if we are going to force assumption one into our reasoning paradigm. 

Answer the two questions and you can try proving me wrong. As for my theory, the circle works perfectly.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

...I'm not simply stating it's wrong, I'm highlighting that this is circular reasoning...circular reasoning in and of itself is illogical. The premise of an argument cannot rest on the conclusion. This is the sort of thing you learn in the first day of a logic class.

I don't need to disprove a claim that is both unproven and relies on circular reasoning because it lacks evidence and is simple illogical.

And I bothered to demonstrate how it's circular. Let me do so again:

Claim 1: Deity A exists and created nature.
Claim 2: Nature exists.
Conclusion: Deity A exists and created nature.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


No wonder you got it all wrong, you don't even understand the theory of evolution after all those links that have been posted

Assumption one: Evolution claims matter, devoid of life (information) created more information according to unknown (by the matter) laws.

The theory of evolution makes no statements regarding how life started in the first place. And you list it as the base assumption. Clearly you have not the slightest clue what you're talking about, which makes your name "SuperiorEd" very very ironic

After all these posts about evolution? No. Don't add false information. I typed pages of information from scientific theory compared to the common answer, "You are wrong." This does not constitute context for an argument of evolution. You are mistaken. Please quote any context that was presented in this thread for the evolution of life. Show some examples. Nothing was presented except bias against what I presented.

Explain evolution for us.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

No wonder you got it all wrong, you don't even understand the theory of evolution after all those links that have been posted

Assumption one: Evolution claims matter, devoid of life (information) created more information according to unknown (by the matter) laws.

The theory of evolution makes no statements regarding how life started in the first place. And you list it as the base assumption. Clearly you have not the slightest clue what you're talking about, which makes your name "SuperiorEd" very very ironic

Books upon books have been written to present a house of cards for how life started. All proven wrong by quantum entanglement and dimensional M-theory. The observer must have a hand in the arrangement of particles. The duality of light is yet unexplained. Your are correct in one thing. There is no theory that can support evolution to life. The only obvious answer so far is design. This is unthinkable so science continues to avoid the obvious. As this thread is demonstrating, no argument against design can be presented in any way. If there is a way, then answer the two questions. Otherwise, I have made the point for design from current theory.

The theory of evolution makes no statements regarding how life started in the first place. And you list it as the base assumption. Clearly you have not the slightest clue what you're talking about, which makes your name "SuperiorEd" very very ironic

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

No wonder you got it all wrong, you don't even understand the theory of evolution after all those links that have been posted

Assumption one: Evolution claims matter, devoid of life (information) created more information according to unknown (by the matter) laws.

The theory of evolution makes no statements regarding how life started in the first place. And you list it as the base assumption. Clearly you have not the slightest clue what you're talking about, which makes your name "SuperiorEd" very very ironic

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Explain evolution for us.

That would be an off-topic post and get me spanked by the mods. Like I said, evolution doesn't make any claims regarding how life started, which according to the thread title "Chance accident or Creator" is the subject. The theory of evolution is a proven theory that shows how life evolved and still evolves, and for example how we evolved from an ape-like ancestor...it doesn't state how life started, and neither does it need to in order to validate the theory

It's you who's making off-topic posts in your own threads

And even worse, you misrepresent the off-topic subject (evolution) by completely misrepresenting the science behind it. Hell, your last post clearly shows that you don't even know what the theory of evolution is and states. As for me summarizing if for you, just look it up on Wikipeadia, I'm sure you can type

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Books upon books have been written to present a house of cards for how life started. All proven wrong by quantum entanglement and dimensional M-theory.

Misrepresenting science once again

There's tons of hypotheses about how life started, none of them were disproven through quantum theory or M-theory. But who cares about facts if you can just as well make random stuff up, right?

Cutting Edge Theory presented by evolution:

LINK

"Somewhere on Earth, close to 4 billion years ago, a set of molecular reactions flipped a switch and became life. Scientists try to imagine this animating event by simplifying the processes that characterize living things."

"Shapiro and others insist that the first life forms were self-contained chemistry experiments that grew, reproduced and even evolved without needing the complicated molecules that define biology as we now know it."

"An often-told origin-of-life story is that complex biological compounds assembled by chance out of an organic broth on the early Earth's surface. This pre-biotic synthesis culminated in one of these bio-molecules being able to make copies of itself."

What type of circular reasoning is needed to assume that matter can achieve these words?

"Flipped" "Became" "Animating Event" "Self-contained chemistry experiments" "Grew" "reproduced" "assembled" "able" "make copies"

I think you need to rethink your assumptions from the standpoint of information theory. We know much more today than we did when evolution was first supposed. If you add to this fact that we have a complete record of claims about how life stared in the Bible, you can then reason that the Bible must match the theory. As it turns out, the theory continues to adapt itself to the Bible. Light and wave duality is only one example. The best example is here:

"In the Beginning (TIME), God created the Heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER).

Seven Hebrew words comprising seven foundational principles based on the gematria numbering of the words and letters:

Summary in video:

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Why do you mention evolution in the same post above when EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABIOGENESIS?

"In the Beginning (TIME), God created the Heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER).

Scientifically speaking, this is utter nonsense. You are just replacing words with random others. Whatever fits your irrational belief is true I guess, right?

Really? Beginning is a word that means the start of a time period. Heavens denotes space. In Genesis it calls heaven where the stars are. Earth is matter. I see no stretching of truth unless you can somehow call creation of reality something other than Space, Time and Matter. Einstein showed this in our recent history.

"It is a radical vision: Space is no longer the box the universe comes in; instead, space and time, matter and energy are, as Einstein proves, locked together in the most intimate embrace." LINK

It is startling that Genesis gets it right. After giving us notice of Time, Space and Matter, the Bible proceeds right to LIGHT and energy. The video establishes that the WORD is there in the first verse. We have Space, Time, Matter, Energy from the duality of light and particle. All of physics there in Genesis 1:1-3. This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The rest of the Torah is filled with these codes and clues for us to see. The evidence is overwhelmingly slanted in the direction of God's amazing genius. We cannot conceive, but we are free to understand the direction this thread heads. Creation by design with the manual (Bible) provided.

The odds of sheep herders and nomads getting this right in any part of the Bible would be nothing short of a miracle. To have it there in the first verse is PROOF! Following God requires a leap of faith. This is not a leap of ignorance. No. Just the opposite. Faith is leaping away from your own weakness and placing your trust in God. That's all he has ever asked. Believe and Love your neighbor. This is easy if you realize the direction entropy is taking your body. This is hard if you think you are taking any of this with you. Your belief and humility before God is all that will leave this place. It is the emerald found among the pegmatite.

PtahHotep, (Joseph, Vizier form the 5th Egyptian Dynasty):

"Be not arrogant because of that which you know; deal with the ignorant as with the learned; for the barriers of art are not closed, no artist being in possession of the perfection to which he should aspire. But good words are more difficult to find than the emerald, for it is by slaves that that is discovered among the rocks of pegmatite."

This thread is a gift to you. There are no mistakes with God. These seed will grow.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Why do you mention evolution in the same post above when EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABIOGENESIS?

"In the Beginning (TIME), God created the Heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER).

Scientifically speaking, this is utter nonsense. You are just replacing words with random others. Whatever fits your irrational belief is true I guess, right?

edit on 2-5-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

reply to post by SuperiorEd

"It is a radical vision: Space is no longer the box the universe comes in; instead, space and time, matter and energy are, as Einstein proves, locked together in the most intimate embrace."

That's your base premise, but how on earth does that prove divine intervention? The bible obviously isn't objective evidence that would prove such a claim...so what's your argument?

Consider this leading theory of how the brain works: The human brain works as a hologram (LINK). The mind stores information in a quantum holograph instead of bits in any one area of the brain structure (LINK). It works by the same principle of collapsing wave function by the blur of an interference pattern. The brain creates an image from the same quantum events that happen outside in the material world. The brain is in relation to the universe it creates. Yet another theory that gives credence to my comments on this thread. Another interesting theory is that the universe is the same type of holographic image projected in relation to the observer. LINK Theory continues to improve and move away from older theories such as abiogenesis. A chemical origin is less and less plausible in light of new discoveries such as these.



The Leading Edge (So titled) from Stanford University

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Why do you mention evolution in the same post above when EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABIOGENESIS?

"In the Beginning (TIME), God created the Heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER).

Scientifically speaking, this is utter nonsense. You are just replacing words with random others. Whatever fits your irrational belief is true I guess, right?

edit on 2-5-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

reply to post by SuperiorEd


I'm sorry...but that is not the leading theory in neuroscience. I'd like to see a slew of published scientific articles to actually support that claim, not a few YouTube videos.

You fail to see the point. The evidence should have disproved the Bible long ago according to the improbable claims it makes. As it turns out, the quantum world is just such a place as the Bible describes. Quantum weirdness has continued to show the validity of the Bible. The more we learn, the more the theories continue to fit the enigma the Bible presents. We are slowly seeing the Bible reveal faith in to fact. The material world seems real, but we now know that we only see one slice at a time of what is really there. Time is a good example. 'Now' is all we see as we are fully aware that past and future are there as well. We see only the image of time in spacial movement.

The Bible makes this clear in 1 Corinthians 13.

"9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

You must read the words of the Bible in the same way it was written. It is written in layers like an onion. This is a perfect description of a holographic projection of an image. Without gnosis, reading the abstract nature of the holographic images is not possible. This comes form receiving it in plain spoken words as you get it from me, or you get it from God revealing it to you himself when you are humble enough to receive. Either way, God is doing the teaching, either through a teacher or directly.

Translation of the above:

Reality can only be sent and received in part. When reality is seen from a higher dimension, the parts are seen as a whole. This would be like the flatland video where a two dimensional creature sees the third dimension for the first time. We will also see our reality in the same way as we move up a dimension. Compare this insight to the development of a child to a man. A man understands the foolishness of youth and puts the old nature behind him. Reality is in reflection. A mirror can only see itself in reflection. You are a mirror. When we leave the image for the true reality, we will know and be known fully. 'Now' is in relation to faith (consciousness) moving through hope (possibility) and ending in love. Love is peace and rest, all possibility realized. Reality is outside the collapsing event horizon you are riding through the education called reality.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

"It is a radical vision: Space is no longer the box the universe comes in; instead, space and time, matter and energy are, as Einstein proves, locked together in the most intimate embrace."

That's your base premise, but how on earth does that prove divine intervention? The bible obviously isn't objective evidence that would prove such a claim...so what's your argument?

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Circular reasoning currently holds the ridiculous reasoning of evolution together. Theory is where any premise starts. 

...so you're going to deflect? We're not talking about evolution here, I was pointing out that the statement we were discussing was definitively circular, I even demonstrated this by phrasing the argument as a syllogism.

Our theory for evolution starts with the premise that matter creates life.  

...no, the theory of evolution begins with the premise that life exists for whatever reason. It doesn't matter how or why life exists, it merely starts with it. If a flatulent space mule barfed the first life forms on Earth, evolution would still be valid.

We then move the circle in the direction of temporal dating of rock strata.  We date the strata based on a theory that the fossils we find in the layers demonstrate the dates of the strata.  We then date the fossils on the supposed dates of the strata. Two circles of reasoning.  

...wow, you're really dragging out the old creationist arguments. Please, show me a single piece of published geologic or paleontologic work in a credible journal that uses this method.

I mean, it's not like we have potassium argon dating for those fossils. It's not like we understand deposition and other facets of stratography which I'm mostly unfamiliar with but have a basic understanding of.

All of this circular reasoning is falsified by the facts of quantum mechanics and entropy in information theory.

You just used a bunch of words in a sentence in which those words have no meaning. Please, try and make sense of this somehow...

 The wave function of indeterminate possibility is collapsed by the observer.  

Please, cite a place where 'observer' requires something conscious. Can the act of collision not count as an 'observation'?

Entropy is the measure of uncertainty associated with a random variable.  

...no, entropy relates to heat loss in transference. You will always lose a bit of energy when it is transfered within a system.

This is shannon theory.

...no, it really isn't. I mean, I had to double check, but I'm guessing you mean Shannon-Hartley theorem, which is an equation that determines data flow.

We have an expected value information acquires in the form of bits.  Information must be missing when the unknown value is missing. Since only conscious life has the ability to assume unknown values, then we trace this back to the original assumption.  

...no. You just spat out the most long-winded non-sequitur I've seen in a while.

Assumption one: Evolution claims matter, devoid of life (information)

Information and life are entirely different concepts. And again, evolution says nothing about matter...except for already living matter.

created more information according to unknown (by the matter) laws.  

...I'm sorry, but we actually witness evolution 'creating' new 'information'. Duplication and insertion. It's not unknown.

This is proven wrong by current theory.  

...no, it isn't. You're just spitting out half understood or entirely misunderstood scientific concepts strung together incoherently.

Random variables not known by matter cannot be arranged to function or move to decreased informational entropy.  Only life rises from informational chaos to ordered function by design.  

Life isn't all that 'ordered'. A diamond? That is really damn ordered. And entropy within the system of Earth isn't a big deal because we have a giant power source that we're circling constantly. We can increase complexity by utilizing an outside energy source.

Assumption two: A creative consciousness arranged the information to match known law (no random variables except those created by the observer).  Provable by current quantum theory and collapsing wave function theory.  Probable by information theory, as the random variables do not exist to the conscious observer (since the observer is the process mover).  

...no, not at all.

We now use our circular reasoning to move the rest of the random variables into place by our root theory.  

No...you just don't get it. At all. I've explained to you that you're simply misapplying quantum mechanics because you simply don't understand quantum mechanics.

The obvious best fit, considering the existing bits of information contained in life, is design.  Any other conclusion goes against accepted theory. New theories are needed if we are going to force assumption one into our reasoning paradigm. 

...you're just spewing out a word salad of scientific terms here. You just don't understand the words you're using.

Answer the two questions and you can try proving me wrong. As for my theory, the circle works perfectly.

...a circle is not a valid argument.


As for your questions:
"Where do the governing laws of motion originate?"

Answer: Why must they have an origin? Where is your basis for claiming that they can be otherwise? Are you certain that they aren't merely a consequence of the universe's existence?

Answer to second question: Where is your proof that there is purposeful information in DNA?

5 Google Pages for Google Scholar

Pribram is as respected as they come. 84 pages of citations in the Journal of Neuroscience. LINK

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

I'm sorry...but that is not the leading theory in neuroscience. I'd like to see a slew of published scientific articles to actually support that claim, not a few YouTube videos.

There is no such thing as a non-theory-laden observation. All knowledge is circular since the language of mathematics which we use to describe data was created out of the observation of that data. The argument against circular logic brings us back in a circle to the theory. Design is evident. This is the theory that is inescapable. The Bible makes the claims to describe this reality. It succeeds.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul