Creation by the Numbers - An Evolutionists Elemental Nightmare

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

As I indicated in the last thread you posted this tripe in, 111 isn't hydrogen -- hydrogen, in its most abundant state, which is all you seem to care about based on your treatment of carbon earlier, has no neutrons. Its number would be 110.

L2Science.

I amended the OP with your suggestion. Thank you for the tip.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Do you even know what biological evolution is?

It was NEVER used to explain the CAUSE of life on Earth. It only addresses what happened ONCE there was life to work on.

What about the evolution of viruses and medicines? The evolution of Plants. Are those debunked as well?

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
This often happens in this forum. The TITLE is Origins and Creationism. Evolution is the topic I choose to give bad dreams to. If you are lost, there may be an evolution forum as well. This forum is the topic of Creationism. See the value in the symbols here and you may have found the right forum.

Yes, it does happen often, but that doesn't mean it's okay to mislead people with your topic title. You could have just stuck with "Creation by the numbers", but you couldn't resist once again taking shots at a scientific field you haven't even read about.

Evolution is a result and not a cause. To take away consciousness as preexisting matter, we blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Spirit is consciousness. The indeterminate wave of probability is collapsed by making a choice of positive and negative. Free will is collapsing wave function. The Wave is the second in the trinity. Son is Word. Word is information. Apart from information, no wave collapse can take place and entropy in information takes over, degrading the information over time. These two theories deny evolution as a cause and reduce it to a result. On this foundation, all of science lacks the proper implication from the data it observes because it leaves out information as evident in the origin of the cosmos.

You tried to say the same thing in the "lie of evolution from a credible scientist" thread. Free will, preexisting matter, information theory, collapsing wave function, all have NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution is genetic mutations sorted through natural selection. It is a cause for diversity. This isn't up for debate. You just put "evolutionist" in the title to cause controversy. Why not just focus on your theory and leave evolution out of it? Do you enjoy when all of the science heads come in here and point out your errors? Focus on what it is, not what it ISN'T.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
This often happens in this forum. The TITLE is Origins and Creationism. Evolution is the topic I choose to give bad dreams to. If you are lost, there may be an evolution forum as well. This forum is the topic of Creationism. See the value in the symbols here and you may have found the right forum.

Yes, it does happen often, but that doesn't mean it's okay to mislead people with your topic title. You could have just stuck with "Creation by the numbers", but you couldn't resist once again taking shots at a scientific field you haven't even read about.

Evolution is a result and not a cause. To take away consciousness as preexisting matter, we blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Spirit is consciousness. The indeterminate wave of probability is collapsed by making a choice of positive and negative. Free will is collapsing wave function. The Wave is the second in the trinity. Son is Word. Word is information. Apart from information, no wave collapse can take place and entropy in information takes over, degrading the information over time. These two theories deny evolution as a cause and reduce it to a result. On this foundation, all of science lacks the proper implication from the data it observes because it leaves out information as evident in the origin of the cosmos.

You tried to say the same thing in the "lie of evolution from a credible scientist" thread. Free will, preexisting matter, information theory, collapsing wave function, all have NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution is genetic mutations sorted through natural selection. It is a cause for diversity. This isn't up for debate. You just put "evolutionist" in the title to cause controversy. Why not just focus on your theory and leave evolution out of it? I just don't understand the reasoning.

Pretty much my feeling on the matter. Evolution was used to stir emotion.

Star for you (not that it's anything special )

reply to post by Daemonicon

The picture you linked is very nice. I just wish there was a version that was to scale. Bacteria are only a small fraction of that picture, but in reality they and archaea make up more that 99% of Earth's genetic diversity. Even in our own bodies, something like 10 times more bacterial than animals cells, and 100 times more bacterial genes that come with them, and then the bacterial cell vestiges (mitochondria) inside our cells.

edit. Actually the pic is completely wrong, as if we're somehow more distant from bacteria than fungi (we're not, we're sister groups).. oh well..

reply to post by EnochWasRight

But now it's even more fallacious. It's not 111. It's not 11. It's 110. I'm sorry that you can't find a way to legitimately mash hydrogen into your framework, but at least be honest about it.

And because boron doesn't fit your framework, you simply discard it and claim a "hidden element"? If you want to be honest, show some kind of a meaning for 556. I mean, if God had put the early elements into this pattern for you to discover, he would have made the most abundant isotope of boron 555, right?

And with fluorine you've broken your own rule regarding only using the most common isotope. After all, you've chosen to cast aside other people's comments when they bring up other isotopes of carbon and oxygen. Fluorine should be 9910, as the isotope with an atomic mass of 19 that has 10 neutrons is the most common one.

I feel bad calling this tripe in an earlier post. Tripe can at least be used to make a tasty soup. I didn't mean to insult tripe by comparing it to something devoid of honest thought.

reply to post by Barcs

Yes, it does happen often, but that doesn't mean it's okay to mislead people with your topic title. You could have just stuck with "Creation by the numbers", but you couldn't resist once again taking shots at a scientific field you haven't even read about.

Misleading is to imply that my title, "Creation by the Numbers - An Evolutionists Elemental Nightmare" is somehow implying a happy message for evolution. On the contrary, the title is in a Creationists forum with a title that says that the Evolutionist will have a nightmare because of the truth in this thread. I think I have been more than transparent from word one. Creation.

reply to post by Barcs

You tried to say the same thing in the "lie of evolution from a credible scientist" thread. Free will, preexisting matter, information theory, collapsing wave function, all have NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution is genetic mutations sorted through natural selection. It is a cause for diversity. This isn't up for debate. You just put "evolutionist" in the title to cause controversy. Why not just focus on your theory and leave evolution out of it? Do you enjoy when all of the science heads come in here and point out your errors? Focus on what it is, not what it ISN'T.

Yet, the OP is a new title and new topic. Your bias is being worn on the sleeve. Try some context toward the OP and provide your rebuttal from a scientific perspective. I'm here to do the same.

reply to post by iterationzero

But now it's even more fallacious. It's not 111. It's not 11. It's 110. I'm sorry that you can't find a way to legitimately mash hydrogen into your framework, but at least be honest about it.

Attacking me is a sure sign you have no argument.

11 is more accurate since Hydrogen has 1 electron and one proton. The neutron is not there. This allows Hydrogen to have a balanced charge. Again, you have added something.

Good and Evil are in balance with the first element by charge. Negative and positive are at equilibrium. Once again, God is amazing.

reply to post by iterationzero

And with fluorine you've broken your own rule regarding only using the most common isotope. After all, you've chosen to cast aside other people's comments when they bring up other isotopes of carbon and oxygen. Fluorine should be 9910, as the isotope with an atomic mass of 19 that has 10 neutrons is the most common one.

I feel bad calling this tripe in an earlier post. Tripe can at least be used to make a tasty soup. I didn't mean to insult tripe by comparing it to something devoid of honest thought.

With fluorine, we have the same marker as before. 999 is it's signature, much like my name when writing checks. My name then comes in different forms, as does my skill set in life. Sometimes I'm a musician and at other times you will find me in the garden. This does not imply that my name is not associated with my character and skills. If you were less busy attacking me and more about the task of finding additional clues, you might notice something I missed. If this had been a topic showcasing the existence of aliens, the bias would be gone. Bias is only there because I have implied God at work in his own garden. By naming the fruit, I have engaged the pride gene in some people. That's to be expected.

Originally posted by Daemonicon
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Do you even know what biological evolution is?

It was NEVER used to explain the CAUSE of life on Earth. It only addresses what happened ONCE there was life to work on.

What about the evolution of viruses and medicines? The evolution of Plants. Are those debunked as well?

You do know that we all took biology in High School and College, right? You do know we have watched the Discovery channel, right? For you to say this with a straight face is a bit on the side of fantasy. Dawkins states that we don't know where the first single cells come from and how life stated from nothing. From that statement of delusion, he then goes on to imply that the cells themselves eventually create the branches on the various trees of life by the process of evolution. The best you can hope for by saying that Evolution is a result of some "Mystery" process is to then include the possibility that we are Created. A rational mind would yield to this possibility. A rational mind would also see the evidence that we are pure information and that we are a construct of energy in Time and space. We are an image, just as the Bible states. Have you watched this video?

reply to post by EnochWasRight


If somone had spent as much time as you have on all this religious drivel... and then found out it really was all just mythical stories spun into a literal religion....

Would you think that person would be upset enough to kill themself? or would they accept the way they have been thinking was wrong and accept reality?

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

If somone had spent as much time as you have on all this religious drivel... and then found out it really was all just mythical stories spun into a literal religion....

Would you think that person would be upset enough to kill themself? or would they accept the way they have been thinking was wrong and accept reality?

When I was swallowed up in sin and pride, my life was a disaster of one heartache after another. Remember, when you smoke, you get cancer. Sin causes a debt. Taking reward leads to suffering. Sin is taking reward. It makes us a thief. Break a basic law and you know what happens. The odds catch up to you and you eventually hear the officer say, "mandatory court date." Sin is sin.

The time spent seeking truth ends up allowing a person to see the truth. Suffering first leads to reward. When we do the work necessary to gain the truth, reward follows. A destiny locked in debt is exchanged for a future open to opportunity. The more you open yourself up to opportunity, the more it becomes available. Opportunity happens by direction. Either you find the opportunity to take or you find the opportunity to give. Giving suffers work. Taking enjoys reward from the betting. Suffering always follows reward that is not earned.

If I had not spent the time suffering the work, the reward I enjoy and the fruit of my labor to rise from the ashes would not have been possible. God honors those who honor his law of love. Suffering is the point. As evidence, tell me you do not have the same story of suffering. Either you reap your sowing or you reap the harvest of your suffering toward the reward. It rains on the evil and the just alike. The journey to find out the source of the law becomes the emerald hidden in a rough place.

"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." PTAH HOTEP, 5th Dynasty Egypt

Notice that I do not resort to bias against you in all may many posts. I engage you with content and truth. If you could do the same on your own path in life, the reward is the love you give. Did you read my signature quote. The full article is in the link.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

reply to post by EnochWasRight

Attacking me is a sure sign you have no argument.

I'm only attacking you after showing how inconsistent you are by your own rules. It's plain that you're willing to discard evidence where it doesn't fit with your pattern, as in the case of boron, and manipulate other evidence so it fits, as in the case of hydrogen.

11 is more accurate since Hydrogen has 1 electron and one proton. The neutron is not there. This allows Hydrogen to have a balanced charge. Again, you have added something.

Yes, there is no neutron. Therefore, according to your own convention of protons - electrons - neutrons, it is 110. Not 1. Not 11. If you don't understand the difference between 110 and 11, you are truly lost.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

With fluorine, we have the same marker as before. 999 is it's signature, much like my name when writing checks. My name then comes in different forms, as does my skill set in life. Sometimes I'm a musician and at other times you will find me in the garden. This does not imply that my name is not associated with my character and skills. If you were less busy attacking me and more about the task of finding additional clues, you might notice something I missed. If this had been a topic showcasing the existence of aliens, the bias would be gone. Bias is only there because I have implied God at work in his own garden. By naming the fruit, I have engaged the pride gene in some people. That's to be expected.

But, once again, you're discarding evidence that doesn't fit with your pattern and manipulating other evidence so it does. Very dishonest. You've been dismissive of people who pointed out that there are other isotopes of elements that you could have used by saying that you were only concerned with the most common isotope. You've now broken your own rule with fluorine because the truth is inconvenient to you.

reply to post by iterationzero

But, once again, you're discarding evidence that doesn't fit with your pattern and manipulating other evidence so it does. Very dishonest. You've been dismissive of people who pointed out that there are other isotopes of elements that you could have used by saying that you were only concerned with the most common isotope. You've now broken your own rule with fluorine because the truth is inconvenient to you.

You are accusing me of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness on detail rather than the larger view. Much more consideration goes into the implication that is drawn than a single detail. I can understand why you are looking to derail a thread when it does not agree with your own notions of the world around us. The evidence still stands that a Creator designed us with an engineering that is beyond our words to describe it. Words will often fail our descriptions, yet we still notice the overall design with little effort. Evolution is an implication drawn from the results, yet it is a dimly lit version of what it describes. When we take the overall understanding, we can see that our view can be refined by taking a step back and seeing the larger picture as it emerges. Design is evident.

What do you make of this video? Water and Hydrogen have continued to show the ability to act as a memory molecule. The leading research on this is in Russia. A previous documentary matches the conclusions drawn here. LINK We can easily see the connection to per-existing consciousness and the entangled nature of the elements. An all seeing and knowing God emerges from what we observe.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

The best you can hope for by saying that Evolution is a result of some "Mystery" process is to then include the possibility that we are Created.

Are you so stunned to have not seen the irony in that statement. You create a thread, mangling science to fit some grand plan by god, and yet you can't spot the 1 area where your "religion" can indeed mesh with science?

Evolution is a result of some "Mystery" process is to then include the possibility that we are Created.

Evolutionists have NEVER stated there is no creator. They merely show the mechanical and biological processes that allowed life to evolve and flourish on this planet. They never even attempt to address what started all of that.

That is your opening for a creator, why there is something instead of nothing. Science tries to address this, but with intangible, and untestable, theories.

But at least people using science tend to understand the science, instead of, well, to put it bluntly, MAKING CRAP UP.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

The leading research on this is in Russia.

No fake scientific discoveries have ever come out of Russia. Maybe you should go back to the thread you lifted that video from, and actually READ it. Nah, scratch that, we both know you won't.

You can't manipulate science, ignoring some while modifying others, to make it fit. That's not how it works.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

So when the evidence you're trying to use to support your "larger view" is inconsistent or contradicts that "larger view", the "larger view" must still be correct? Thank you for providing an almost perfect portrayal of the difference between religious dogma and science.