The Lie of Evolution from a Credible Scientist

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to [url= by Firepac[/url]

 

Maybe a Google search on "Matter is Consciousness" would help.

..........have you conducted any such search?

I challenge you to produce anything from such a search that provides an example of a consciousness existing without matter......

reply to post by Firepac

I'm personally waiting for a comprehensive list of Bible passages that are to be taken literally, and the ones that are not. While at it, I'm also looking forward to a guide to how to interpret the ones not to be taken literally correctly. E.g. is the whale in Jonah and the whale an alien submarine, or perhaps Atlantian submarine? How to tell?

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

My answers in bold:

* DNA can and does undergo random mutations for a number of different reasons, most of these mutations result in deformities and birth defects.

Science cannot separate the programming on this from the cause. Programming is not separated from its cause. The cause is always conscious choice from a mind.

* Some of the mutations may just happen to be of benefit to the life form and result in genetic changes which are desirable.

This defied information entropy. Science has no answer for how inert matter can defy entropy in information. The theory of IE is sold mathematically.

* These random mutations will result in some life forms which are stronger and also some which are weaker than other life forms of that species.

Only if they have consciousness to design their own programming. The programming does not originate with the source of lower gross matter around them. Gross matter cannot act or think to make a choice. Information originates with consciousness collapsing the wave by making a choice. Choice is a cause and this cause comes from awareness. Can matter be aware apart from the consciousness? No.

Now we can make some fairly obvious assumptions:

No assumptions can be made until you show how a single cell formed consciousness to develop chemosynthesis for energy from subatomic particles. You can assume that a developed and fully programmed human or animal or plant can adapt programming, but not a simple cell that already possesses a factory for energy and ATP. The simple cell is not so simple. Evolution stops where it has a problem. No other assumption can be made beyond the first simple cell with the ability to derive energy from a mechanical process. Chemiosmosis is not just a chemical process. No primordial goo can help you. Lightening cannot help you. Evolution is dead in the water so to speak because the water needs biology to become living. Even the water denies evolution.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by Firepac

 

I'm personally waiting for a comprehensive list of Bible passages that are to be taken literally, and the ones that are not. While at it, I'm also looking forward to a guide to how to interpret the ones not to be taken literally correctly. E.g. is the whale in Jonah and the whale an alien submarine, or perhaps Atlantian submarine? How to tell?

The whale was a symbol for the three days (3000) years Jesus would take to raise the new temple. The temple is His body. The entire Bible is on three levels. It happened. What happened signifies what will happen. What will happen is symbolic of what is. The only way to view the Bible is on all three levels by knowing the entire story. Once you know the story and what it symbolizes, your mind will then be opened to the spiritual understanding of what is represented. Until then, you are left with only literal. Literal is bridged to spiritual by experience.

Confucius said, "I hear and I forget. I see and I learn. I do and I understand."

We are in the light and darkness both. To transcend the darkness, it only takes a spark. Once you have a spark, you have a fire lit. The fire will either burn you or be used by you. You will light the fire you burn by either way. Either you burn as a result of the fire or you burn by what the fire teaches you for motivation to expand back to unity of consciousness.

How is the literal bridged to the spiritual? The bridge is moral and virtue. Until you lower your own pride, you cannot see what is above you. When you have a pride that puts your consciousness above God, you are blinded by your own light. Your light will then burn you and blind you. This is the consuming fire of the tree of life. Genesis 3 states that the flaming sword that protects the tree of life is there to cut away your pride. What is the pride? The same thing that caused Satan to fall from God. He was jealous of man being placed above the angles. We are free and they are servants. We learn to overcome the beast of Carbon (6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons.) The fruit of knowledge is there to give us a means to the end of doing to learn. We are planted in a garden to grow by the light and the cleansing of the water.

The sacrifice of the temple (body) is done in the water (Baptism into the water of reality). Baptism is the symbol for our immersion into a water reality to rise to new life in the spirit (Pure consciousness). Who does God refuse to baptize? Ask John the Baptist. Before you do, realize that he is Elijah. In 1 Kings 17, Elijah is said to control the water. He is then shown to raise a widow woman's son to new life after taking him to heaven. Jesus said you must be born again. John the baptist reveals our baptisms. There are four. Earth, Air, Water and Fire. Fire is trial. Now ask John who he refuses baptism in the water. Instead, they must face the fire.

Matthew 3

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with[c] the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

The Pharisees and Saddusees are the leaders who manipulate the law. They also represent those who questioned Jesus as to his claims. Jesus stated that they would only receive the sign of Jonah. The sign of Jonah is the three days (3 thousand years) that we have left in the week. Read my signature link to find more on this topic.

If you know three things, you now see an example to follow for understanding by your original question.

1) History happened as stated.

2) It is motivated by the providence of God by literal happenings and figurative allusion to the future.

3) If you want to understand, you must live by virtue. If not, you only get the literal. The literal is meant as a harsh law to govern a criminal and thief who steals the fruit of knowledge (Carbon 666) for selfish ends. The spiritual law is love under the surface and waves of the light. If you stand on the shore, you see the ocean and waves from the light. If you dive into the ocean, the darkness hides what you need another vision to see. Are both present? Is the ocean more than what you see on the surface of light and wave? Yes. Nature shows the way. Science shows the way. Only spirit shows the truth of the inert matter around us.

reply to post by Prezbo369


Yes, I've conducted research. Maybe we're not talking about the same thing.

Can you point me in the direction where I can find proof that Spirit Conscious is made up of matter?

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
This defied information entropy. Science has no answer for how inert matter can defy entropy in information. The theory of IE is sold mathematically.

Yes it does. It's called modern synthesis.

No assumptions can be made until you show how a single cell formed consciousness to develop chemosynthesis for energy from subatomic particles. You can assume that a developed and fully programmed human or animal or plant can adapt programming, but not a simple cell that already possesses a factory for energy and ATP. The simple cell is not so simple. Evolution stops where it has a problem. No other assumption can be made beyond the first simple cell with the ability to derive energy from a mechanical process. Chemiosmosis is not just a chemical process. No primordial goo can help you. Lightening cannot help you. Evolution is dead in the water so to speak because the water needs biology to become living. Even the water denies evolution

All you need for energy is a chemical gradient. No need for consciousness, that is just your uneducated opinion.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
The whale was a symbol for the three days (3000) years Jesus would take to raise the new temple.

LOL NO! The whale is a symbol for a submarine, I'm just not sure of its origin. Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
The whale was a symbol for the three days (3000) years Jesus would take to raise the new temple.

LOL NO! The whale is a symbol for a submarine, I'm just not sure of its origin. Prove me wrong.

You see the literal and reveal your heart. That's all. I just explained for you. Better read again. The reason you can't see is because you are blinded by your own light. If you look to your own lamp of understanding, you miss the sun shining all around you. If you look directly at the sun, you are also blinded. You must eliminate your own light and come out of the cave of shadows. The cave is the illusion, not the reality.

If you have an eye for philosophy, you know what I just said. If not, you will languish in the cave and burn by your own fire. You need to roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb to see the risen Christ.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
This defied information entropy. Science has no answer for how inert matter can defy entropy in information. The theory of IE is sold mathematically.

Yes it does. It's called modern synthesis.

No assumptions can be made until you show how a single cell formed consciousness to develop chemosynthesis for energy from subatomic particles. You can assume that a developed and fully programmed human or animal or plant can adapt programming, but not a simple cell that already possesses a factory for energy and ATP. The simple cell is not so simple. Evolution stops where it has a problem. No other assumption can be made beyond the first simple cell with the ability to derive energy from a mechanical process. Chemiosmosis is not just a chemical process. No primordial goo can help you. Lightening cannot help you. Evolution is dead in the water so to speak because the water needs biology to become living. Even the water denies evolution

All you need for energy is a chemical gradient. No need for consciousness, that is just your uneducated opinion.

Not so. Theory must be piled on theory to avoid design. Design is what we see to the end of the chain of information.

Take a look at that motor. It's a irreducibly complex machine. Molecular oxygen is not present apart from life. Hummmmmm....... It's a pump. Hummmmmm. Thinks that make you go hummmm typically ask you to reevaluate your premise.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
The whale was a symbol for the three days (3000) years Jesus would take to raise the new temple.

LOL NO! The whale is a symbol for a submarine, I'm just not sure of its origin. Prove me wrong.

You see the literal and reveal your heart. That's all. I just explained for you. Better read again. The reason you can't see is because you are blinded by your own light. If you look to your own lamp of understanding, you miss the sun shining all around you. If you look directly at the sun, you are also blinded. You must eliminate your own light and come out of the cave of shadows. The cave is the illusion, not the reality.

If you have an eye for philosophy, you know what I just said. If not, you will languish in the cave and burn by your own fire. You need to roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb to see the risen Christ.

No, you are wrong. The reason you're wrong is because you are blinded by your own light. The whale is a symbol for a submarine. Look in the shadows and you will understand this.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
This defied information entropy. Science has no answer for how inert matter can defy entropy in information. The theory of IE is sold mathematically.

Yes it does. It's called modern synthesis.

No assumptions can be made until you show how a single cell formed consciousness to develop chemosynthesis for energy from subatomic particles. You can assume that a developed and fully programmed human or animal or plant can adapt programming, but not a simple cell that already possesses a factory for energy and ATP. The simple cell is not so simple. Evolution stops where it has a problem. No other assumption can be made beyond the first simple cell with the ability to derive energy from a mechanical process. Chemiosmosis is not just a chemical process. No primordial goo can help you. Lightening cannot help you. Evolution is dead in the water so to speak because the water needs biology to become living. Even the water denies evolution

All you need for energy is a chemical gradient. No need for consciousness, that is just your uneducated opinion.

Evolution cannot explain this as some simple chemical gradient. This is a process of design from one end of creation to the other:

reply to post by rhinoceros


Get past the carrier protein only. I dare you to get past this process and you then have a trillion other processes to get past that are DESIGNED. Easily seen as engineered.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

In the video you see present day 'machinery', a result of 3.7 billion years of evolution. Assuming first cellular life had something like that is plain stupid (thus it's an assumption only evolution deniers make).

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

In the video you see present day 'machinery', a result of 3.7 billion years of evolution. Assuming first cellular life had something like that is plain stupid (thus it's an assumption only evolution deniers make).

Information entropy is mathematically sound as a theory. A bit of information will always degrade. You are speaking of a move from simple to self-aware and beyond. Really? Not in this universe. Another perhaps. Not in this one. We know this to be true by the observation from macro to micro. It all tells the same story. We are consciousness first. Bring more science and I can show you how it is motivated by the extra quotient of bias in the equation. Theory is moved to avoid the correct value of consciousness per-existing matter.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Information entropy is mathematically sound as a theory.

Yes it is. However, it does not contradict evolution in any way. That part is just your misinterpretation.

Originally posted by Deetermined
Are you talking about the person who made this statement? Because he didn't say what you're claiming.

You quoted the wrong thing. This is what I was responding to:

I'm convinced that the more intelligent you are the more you can't deny the complexity of life points to the magic that was set in motion by God. Say what you want about the Bible. It's the only thing I've ever seen that qualifies to be Gods word.

Sorry, but you have to explore all the possibilities in order to provide the proof, and so far, science hasn't come up with it. I could say the same to you about how using "scientific proof", without considering what might be, still gets you nowhere.

Okay, so explain to me how we explore the possibility of unicorns. We've never seen one, we've never unearthed a fossil, there is no indication at all to suggest they exist. Show me how science should explore that. You are going to have to be specific if you wish to suggest scientific proof means nothing without considering what it might be??? I don't follow. Please give me examples. Scientific proof is scientific proof and wouldn't be labeled as such if it didn't prove something.

Sorry, "chaotic" is only a word to describe that which is not understood. Just because you or I don't understand it, doesn't make it "chaotic". Also, as far as proof of existence of God, other than what we see (which I think is proof alone), it requires a personal experience. This is something where proof is only given to the person who experiences it. There is no other way.

It's not about not understanding, it's about disorder. The only thing in the universe that gives the appearance of order is gravity. But again, you just proved my point, because the existence of god is based on personal faith, not science. I never said otherwise. You use a word like "perfect" without even considering the implications and instead of providing examples of "perfect" things in the universe, you deflect to criticizing the definition of chaotic wrongly.

I think Enochwasright is more advanced than anyone else here by trying to bring religion and science together instead of constantly trying to separate it. It's just a matter of time before people realize that they are not exclusive from one another. One day people will also realize that you can't scientifically prove the workings of consciousness, spirituality, or anything that can't be seen for that matter. It is only nonsense to you because you don't understand that aspect of reality.

Science = backed by objective evidence
Religion = backed by nothing but faith
They are 2 completely separate concepts.
Now there's nothing in science that says religion is wrong. There's no reason evolution and a creator can't coexist, or a creator to use evolution as a tool. I have no issues with that. I do have issues when people wrongly criticize evolution while knowing nothing about it. Again, I have nothing against the idea of god, it's just when people claim complexity is somehow proof, they are flat out wrong. Science indeed might be able to prove consciousness as something beyond the brain, or spirituality some day. Why is it so hard to accept science for what it is? Most rational people do because it's backed by evidence.

Surely you're not so dense that you don't realize that these animals were created to blend into their environments as a form of survival....that was designed that way. You think it's random chance that animals are the colors that they are? You think it's random chance that any animal, bird or insect is the color that it is? Do you think it's random chance that female birds of the same species differ in color than their male counterparts so that they can blend in and protect their young better? Come on!

So we're back to resorting to the "if you don't realize everything was created, you are dense" argument. Please stop that. It is NOT random chance. It's genetic mutations, that are caused by various factors, a lot of which we know. You should study genetics if you are really interested in this, because we can tell how mutations affect things such as fur color. Why do you think humans can have so many different hair colors? I don't like the words "random chance". It is basically saying "I don't understand the universe, so every thing I don't know is random". I mean you pretty much have to deny the entire scientific fields of biology and genetics to think that nothing evolved. That's downright silly. We have proof!

Now you're just speaking in circles with your above statements. Regardless, it started with Universal law that was created by intelligence. How far the intelligence is carried out through the law is only speculation.

Prove objectively that "universal law" was created by intelligence. These arguments need to cease. They are doing nothing but misleading people.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
I have demonstrated more evidence in this thread than any evolutionary theory can show.

I'm calling flat out BS on that one. You are speculating about information theory. It has nothing to do with evolution.

What I have show in this thread makes sense of the theory that evolution misses. Evolution happens. The problem is, evolution is not a cause. It is a result

And you have no proof of that at all. Why do you say evolution happens, but then say there is no evidence? That's flat out wrong. Consciousness can be explain by this funny thing called a brain, and it didn't just magically appear. It evolved over hundreds of millions of years. Evolution absolutely IS a cause. It's proven to be. That doesn't mean it's not also an effect of something else, but saying it is not a cause only shows complete lack of understanding of how cause and effect works.

The cause is consciousness and design. We can see it from micro to macro. Let's ask Rob. All his videos back me up. This video demonstrates the current view by mentioning the names of major physicists that agree. Evolution as a cause is a lie. We know this now.

There is no proof at all that suggests consciousness and design causes evolution. The videos are hypotheses and nothing more. If you've got objective evidence, please post it.

Originally posted by Prezbo369
I challenge you to produce anything from such a search that provides an example of a consciousness existing without matter......

I think he doesn't understand that NOTHING exists without energy. Matter is energy. A lot of people are not understanding the basic principles of matter. Everything in the universe is made of energy / matter. Consciousness requires organic living matter with sufficient enough intelligence.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to [url= by Prezbo369[/url]

 

Yes, I've conducted research.

Well theres always a first time for everything, care to then show the results of your research?

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing.

We are discussing the fact that every single consciousness we have ever encountered has been the product of a brain (i.e matter), and we have never encountered a consciousness, a mind, that wasn't the product of a brain.

Can you point me in the direction where I can find proof that Spirit Conscious is made up of matter?

What in Zeus's butthole is 'Spirit Conscious'?

Did you just make that up? or can you give a few examples?

In any case, as previously stated every single case of a consciousness we have ever encountered has been the product of a brain. If you have an example of a consciousness that was not the product of a brain/mind/matter, please enlighten me...

Originally posted by Barcs

Okay, so explain to me how we explore the possibility of unicorns. We've never seen one, we've never unearthed a fossil, there is no indication at all to suggest they exist. Show me how science should explore that. You are going to have to be specific if you wish to suggest scientific proof means nothing without considering what it might be??? I don't follow. Please give me examples. Scientific proof is scientific proof and wouldn't be labeled as such if it didn't prove something.

My point, much like you stated about the unicorn, is that there are aspects to human life that science will never be able to determine because it's not entirely physical, it's spiritual too. I'm not trying to imply that "scientific proof" means nothing, but the proof that exists will never reach a total/final conclusion based on my previous sentence.

It's not about not understanding, it's about disorder. The only thing in the universe that gives the appearance of order is gravity. But again, you just proved my point, because the existence of god is based on personal faith, not science. I never said otherwise. You use a word like "perfect" without even considering the implications and instead of providing examples of "perfect" things in the universe, you deflect to criticizing the definition of chaotic wrongly.

You're right. I can't help you to see perfection, just as you can't help me to see chaos at work. I can only try to point out observations that might lead us to believe that all things work together in unison.

Science = backed by objective evidence
Religion = backed by nothing but faith
They are 2 completely separate concepts.
Now there's nothing in science that says religion is wrong. There's no reason evolution and a creator can't coexist, or a creator to use evolution as a tool. I have no issues with that. I do have issues when people wrongly criticize evolution while knowing nothing about it. Again, I have nothing against the idea of god, it's just when people claim complexity is somehow proof, they are flat out wrong. Science indeed might be able to prove consciousness as something beyond the brain, or spirituality some day. Why is it so hard to accept science for what it is? Most rational people do because it's backed by evidence.

Maybe religion was the wrong word to use here. Maybe spirituality would have been a better fit.

It's not hard to accept science. It's only hard to accept it as the final word or thought when there's so little that has been discovered compared to what's out there to be researched. The problem is thinking that those who question or criticize evolution don't know anything about it. Are you telling me that no reputable scientist has ever questioned it? If scientists weren't constantly questioning each other, we'd probably never have proof of anything, nor would it ever advance.

By the way, has anyone claimed on this thread that evolution does not exist? All I've read OVER and OVER is the suggestion that maybe a higher consciousness created the push/laws to start the evolution process. If you don't have a problem with a God doing the pushing, why does everyone appear to be taking this so personally? Because it really appears that way to me. In the meanwhile, we can hope that science and spiritually come together some day, but I'm not betting on it.

So we're back to resorting to the "if you don't realize everything was created, you are dense" argument. Please stop that. It is NOT random chance. It's genetic mutations, that are caused by various factors, a lot of which we know. You should study genetics if you are really interested in this, because we can tell how mutations affect things such as fur color. Why do you think humans can have so many different hair colors? I don't like the words "random chance". It is basically saying "I don't understand the universe, so every thing I don't know is random". I mean you pretty much have to deny the entire scientific fields of biology and genetics to think that nothing evolved. That's downright silly. We have proof!

Sorry for suggesting that you were dense. Glad to hear that you don't like the word "random". Once again, I'll point out that no one has suggested that mutations don't take place and that life does not evolve, only that the process may not have originated the way science thinks it did.

So, in essence, we're not really even arguing about evolution itself. We're arguing about whether or not it originated from a big bang or a higher conscious. Well, that and whether or not anything is random, and since you don't see it that way, there's nothing to discuss there.