Theosophy and Christianity

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


Pangaea

Fossil evidence for Pangaea includes the presence of similar and identical species on continents that are now great distances apart. For example, fossils of the therapsid Lystrosaurus have been found in South Africa, India and Australia, alongside members of the Glossopteris flora, whose distribution would have ranged from the polar circle to the equator if the continents had been in their present position; similarly, the freshwater reptile Mesosaurus has only been found in localized regions of the coasts of Brazil and West Africa.[9]

You have a habit of doing only half the research.

More fuel in the fire for the fine-tuning argument

From 'The Case for a Creator' chapter 6...Robin Collins

"There are other examples of fine-tuning," he said. "For instance, there's the difference in mass between neutrons and protons. Increase the mass of the neutron by about one part in seven hundred and nuclear fusion in stars would stop. There would be no energy source for life [stable hydrogen burning stars would cease to exist; Leslie, John (1989). Universes. New York, NY: Routledge. pp.39-40] .
"And if the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life in the universe would be impossible. Or consider the strong nuclear force. Imagine decreasing it by fifty percent, which is tiny one part in ten thousand billion billion billion billion, compared to the total range of force strengths."

"What would happen if you tinkered with it by that amount?"

"Since like charges repel, the strong nuclear force would be too weak to prevent the repulsive force between the positively charged protons in atomic nuclei from tearing apart all atoms except hydrogen," he said. "And regardless of what they may show on Star Trek you can't have intelligent life forms built from hydrogen. It simply doesn't have enough stable complexity."

The cosmological constant in today's physics corresponds to the energy density of empty space and is probably the most fine-tuned value to enable life to exist. A positive value enables space to expand and a negative value causes space to collapse in on itself (just the right value is needed to allow the particles for stars and galaxies to clump together). It is estimated to be fine tuned to the degree of at least one part in 10^53, that is, one part in a one hundred million, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion or it would be like throwing a dart at the surface of the earth from outer space, and hitting a bull's-eye one trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter (less than the size of a single atom).
----------------
Now remember people, with all these way out probabilities for each fine tuned parameter, they would need to be multiplied all with each other ...creating a improbability to the absurd level (beyond comprehension).

reply to post by AfterInfinity


The distribution of animals is not an argument that I have to engage in....I believe that the pre flood world and some conditions were different than what we presently have. Under those more lush conditions where life would have been diverse even in known desert regions now, it is impossible to say what could have thrived where and what the distribution of animals were pre flood to what we have now. All I have to do is prove the flood and that line of argument of yours disappears. I have already posted one video related to prove the global flood which you may want to review.

If you wanted to prove Pangaea then you would have to rearrange the massive plates on the Earth to do it...it is not possible. It really is a dead-end line of thinking...I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the fine-tuning argument in the natural laws that have made life possible to exist though and how you reconcile that across different worldviews, either random naturalistic explanations or supernatural explanations outside of space-time.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

The distribution of animals is not an argument that I have to engage in....I believe that the pre flood world and some conditions were different than what we presently have.

Are we to understand, then, that not only are certain categories of fact-based discussion unworthy of your attention, but that you are now passing off your beliefs as established scientific fact?

You have an interesting way of proving your theories.

All I have to do is prove the flood and that line of argument of yours disappears. I have already posted one video related to prove the global flood which you may want to review.

Not really. It simply proves that mass quantities of water existed at once point or another in every region of the world. It could have been an ice age, it could have been an aquatic landmass at one time, or it could an ocean that shifted locations with the movements of the tectonic plates, i.e. Pangaea.

You still haven't proved the it could ONLY have been a flood.

If you wanted to prove Pangaea then you would have to rearrange the massive plates on the Earth to do it...it is not possible. It really is a dead-end line of thinking...I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the fine-tuning argument in the natural laws that have made life possible to exist though and how you reconcile that across different worldviews, either random naturalistic explanations or supernatural explanations outside of space-time.

So...you're an expert in geology and archeology and ancient history now, is that right? Can you post your credentials that make you so wise? After all, to call so many established scientists liars (who DO have credentials and the education/experience to accurately declare the veracity of their claims) is to say that YOU are the one who should be earning a six-figure salary to tell everyone what's what.

The arrogance...

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Are we to understand, then, that not only are certain categories of fact-based discussion unworthy of your attention, but that you are now passing off your beliefs as established scientific fact?

The reason I have an ordered framework for discussion is for such a point. I have not presented yet on the flood proper and factors putting a maximum age on the Earth. I have a factor which shows scientifically that the earth's atmosphere is less than 10,000 years old. That means all your animals on 'Pangaea' would be dead/never alive because there would be no oxygen for them to breathe. Another factor also pertinent to your topic is the erosion rates of the landmasses caused by the oceans. Presenting those two points would make you think twice before ever suggesting Pangaea.

The order of discussion is that I present the major holes in the traditional big/bang naturalist evolutionary model from cosmic to micro-evolution and everyone else try and refute the holes that I have just shown or agree that the holes are valid points. I then will talk factors limiting the maximum age of the earth and then the flood (and geological formation attributed to it) and you try and pick holes in my arguments.

It is only at the end of that time you should bring up Pangaea....and at that point you would think twice about it. I am not going to argue your theory yet when you haven't even tried to backed up the intermediate stages to get there. I have the discussion ordered for a good reason, so a development of thinking and understanding occurs and not disjointed thought

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


Now what happens when we all stop posting and simply ignore your ridiculous 'hypothesis'?? Troll harder...

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


That's when you've stooped to his level. Ignoring opinions just to satisfy your own version of reality.

Get my point?

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


I cannot be bothered to wait for 2 weeks while you get to the point - so

These might help you out (no need to thank me)
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by racasan


Thank you for that post. Lead a horse to water...

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

That's when you've stooped to his level. Ignoring opinions just to satisfy your own version of reality.

Get my point?

So far the only argument I would consider sufficiently filled in enough by you all (reaching the limits of understanding where I am able to respond back properly) is the argument of the conservation of angular momentum. The other two arguments of that have been attempted to be responded to, why we can't detect population III stars (yet detect perfectly well population I and II stars) and the complete lack of anti-matter around has not been successfully argued (despite AugustusMasonicus making an honest attempt). And the other couple lines of arguments raised (from the order of my framework) have not been argued basically at all. The idea that I am ignoring opinion is a poor argument. The general gist of the thread was that the creationist and the YEC believe in fairy-tales and the weight of evidence is against them. I stepped in to see just how good the alternative consensus view of the mainstream (supposedly backed up by science) really is. Obviously, in the opinion of you all at the start, the creationist and the young earth creationist should be able to come up with no proper arguments at all, right?

So far AfterInfinity you have ignored every single one of my 5 or so 'opinions' made...the lack of argument and discussion is being dishonest in trying to mutually discover how the world is but it places you in a spot where, by you lack of a response at my shots at the uniformatiarian/naturalist/evolutionary belief system, you are then, by default, admitting the only alternative, that being, supernaturally intervened creation from an intelligent designer outside of space-time.

How much validity should I give you Pangaea argument when your lack of response forces your credibility to only argue from a creationist frame now.

I will be happy to not 'ignore your opinion' (even though you provided no evidence to explain how the crustal plates would move so readily on molten magma which is twice as dense as granite and explained no subduction of abduction areas that would obviously form all the plates hitting each other to our current arrangement away from Pangaea). Generally, flicking me a link and saying 'what about Pangaea' is not going to cut the mustard with me in validly proving your argument for Pangaea, you have to explain your argument every step of the way to iron out all the problems in it. That is homework you never did in your response...and I am meant to take it seriously? It is like flicking you a link to Wikipedia or any other place where it say 'many scholars believe the Bible accurate'. That is a piss weak argument!

If I jump ahead temporarily in what I want to present to give you a few examples only (that you won't have any good response for) of why the the Earth has to be less than 10,000 years old based on various limits, would that satisfy you that your Pangaea 'opinion' is debunked (as it relies of assumptions of hundreds of millions+ of Earth's existence)?

The reason I don't like to jump ahead is because if I present that information then it clouds the discussion in other areas. For instance, if I provide irrefutable evidence for a very young earth then by default the only belief-system that can account for that is young-earth creationist. If I already establish that then what does that do to the very important discussion needed on debunking the evolution of organic matter to life and more complex life (macro and micro evolution). By default, those traditional evolutionary theories will be unable to be argued from the now view of having to fit it into a YEC framework. I want to have an honest discussion on the straight up merits of organic, macro and micro-evolution without the argument being destroyed by confirming to short ages.

So I put it out to those on the thread, do you want me to refute Pangaea's merit right now by targeting its assumption of an Earth that has been around look enough to make it possibly happened (and thus stuffing up the honest discussion on organic and macro-evolution) or it is acceptable to you that we put off such a topic (relating to the geological features of the Earth) until after the time I have presented fully (not halfheartedly) on the arguments that limit the Earth to a young age (after the topic of micro-evolution) and the evidence for the global flood (which we will be looking at in detail to explain many of Earth's unique geological features).

What say you all...?

My vote is to hold off for now so we can have a proper discussion of the last and most important (readily believed) stages of the evolutionary framework....and go through properly the other steps...when we get through to the part offering alternative hypothesis to the geological features of the Earth then the topic can be raised (is it still wants to be).

Democracy people...you decide

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


You have already stated that you believe the Bible to be 100% accurate. And you have proven that you believe the earth to be only 8-10 thousand years old. The ability to argue well will not change the scientific facts that the earth is over 4 billion years old. Now as far as me arguing against you or anyone else on a science level, I am not the guy for the job. If you want your new building designed for a new network and you want your infrastructure to be strong and reliable, I am your guy.

But you have no room for your mind to change. I have no desire to change your faith. We share the same one (to a point) But for you to enter into a discussion already sure that you are correct, I doubt anyone could offer anything to change your opinion. Dinosaur bones, carbon dating, The same science that we have all learned has not been debunked. You are searching for facts to back up faith. faith is something you just have or you don't. It cannot be proven.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


Whatever gave you the impression that we're done inventing? If we don't know something, it's because we don't have the means to see it yet.

You act like if we can't see it or don't know it now, we never will. And that's just...well, ignorant.

reply to post by network dude


Network dude, I haven't yet presented the evidence to for the YEC view to deal with dinosaurs or the carbon dating issue yet (I was planning on wanting to have a proper discussion on this after the Flood and Earth's geological features discussion...because it would be slightly more difficult for me to argue the case to explain the dinosaurs without assuming the flood....although I can explain them still strongly enough without it and I could do right now, before going through Darwinian evolution and the Earth age topics)

It is 4,5,6 odd people against 1 here and I am meant to have the view that should not be able to be backed up at all (it doesn't matter that I have confidence in my belief to the point of knowing it is true). I am dealing with each one of your belief-systems based on the knowledge you have to explain and justify it, not whether everyone here is a scientist, geologist. The idea of the discussion is to go through each topic slowly so it gives people enough time to research the new information for themselves and form their own opinion (to explain their world), not whether 'science' has solved it all for them or not. I want to challenge you guys to understand your own belief systems and what they are based on and what evidence YOU have to support it. If you want to say that the mainstream opinion says differently so I am just going to agree with the mainstream then that is fine, but how often is the mainstream right? If you have a few powerful families in the world with tremendous influence over mainstream-media, what is taught at universities thus having tremendous control over shaping public opinion, are they going to fairly present the evidence for you when their beliefs are Luciferian and totally anti-Christian?

Would you have believed the mainstream view back in the 1850's when life expectancies where not much longer that 35 years...where they gave arsenic to people for certain illnesses, told them to smoke to cure bronchitis, never sterilized themselves or their instruments before going from one operation to the next???

The role of this discussion is to introduce alternative thoughts that are generally kept from mainstream discussion....I am seeing if mainstream can deal with them.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


Oh, you're free to believe that 2+2=128...

Just don't expect the rational minds to concur with that ideal.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
If you have a few powerful families in the world with tremendous influence over mainstream-media, what is taught at universities thus having tremendous control over shaping public opinion, are they going to fairly present the evidence for you when their beliefs are Luciferian and totally anti-Christian?

I have a problem with this viewpoint as it roughly paraphrases into 'science is Satanic'.

I have taken the time to read extensively into the science topics that interest me (cosmology being one of them) and I do not find anything remotely akin to Satanism in my studies.

I have pointed out where comsology is still seeking answers and where there are still incomplete or unporven portions of certain theories. The problem I have is when people make the jump to 'science does not know for certain, therefore the Bible'.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


can you explain why you think the none detection of population III stars is a problem?

Given that if they where there then it must have been at the start of the universe which is estimated to be about 14.5 billion years ago – so population III stars would be very distant objects by now, practically undetectable with our current technology

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


What I mean by it is that the agenda of the people who are able to control things is to promote evolution at basically all costs (like the voice given to the creationist evidence in peer reviewed journals and the evidence given in mainstream media being next to non-existent). The studies show that 75% of Christians lose their faith upon the 1st year of university in encountering biological evolutionary theory. From my research into these controlling families, their beliefs are Luciferian....if they know it is so effective at destroying Christian beliefs by promoting evolution when it is so ill founded (which I would like to show through going into the organic and macro evolution stuff).

As an example, scientists came out with dating mitochondrial eve (based on genetic mutations in the genome of heaps of people) to be between 100,000-200,000 years old and it was widely published. It was later found out that the rate of genetic mutations occur 20 times faster that they thought they occur which then dated this 'Eve' to be only 5,000-10,000 years old only which completely stuffs up evolutionary theory and totally confirms the Biblical timeline....such information was not widely published or spoke of at all.

I am here to given the evidence that is not widely spoken about but is their for people to look and find it and is scientific.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
What I mean by it is that the agenda of the people who are able to control things is to promote evolution at basically all costs (like the voice given to the creationist evidence in peer reviewed journals and the evidence given in mainstream media). The studies show that 75% of Christians lose their faith upon the 1st year of university in encountering biological evolutionary theory. From my research into these controlling families, their beliefs are Luciferian....if they know it is so effective at destroying Christian beliefs by promoting evolution when it is so ill founded (which I would like to show through going into the organic and macro evolution stuff).

In my opinion science and God do not have to be mutually exclusive. I find that my understanding of science has made me more spiritual than less.

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by JesuitGarlic

 

can you explain why you think the none detection of population III stars is a problem?

Given that if they where there then it must have been at the start of the universe which is estimated to be about 14.5 billion years ago – so population III stars would be very distant objects by now, practically undetectable with our current technology

The problem with it is is that according to the big bang theory, heaps of these population III stars (the initial stars containing only hydrogen, helium, and trace lithium) are needed to be present to justify the existence of population I and II stars. They are able to detect what the stars has (so I don't take the argument that they can't detect accurately just yet to be a valid argue 'the argument of ignorance'). Also with the big bang model it would say that these population III stars would still be developing now out of the big masses of hydrogen and helium gases forming stars. The problem here though is that despite how many supernovas remnants (dying stars) scientist have observed, they haven't yet observed 1 star EVER forming.

This are massive issues in trying to justifying chemical evolution of elements in the period table above Lithium. No observational evidence that stars can actually form (every galaxy they see off into the far distance a fully formed mature galaxy) and no population III stars which are need from the naturalistic/evoultionary point of view to justify the existence of the heavier stars. The issues with the naturalistic model all through the process from beginning (big-bang) to end (micro-evolution) is fraught with catastrophic, irreversible issues. That is why I say I can't understand why anyone would believe in the naturalistic model when the evidence is so weak for it when you take a critical look.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
Also with the big bang model it would say that these population III stars would still be developing now out of the big masses of hydrogen and helium gases forming stars.

I am not aware of any model that describes Population III stars as still forming. What journal or publication is this theory discussed?

The problem here though is that despite how many supernovas remnants (dying stars) scientist have observed, they haven't yet observed 1 star EVER forming.

It is postulated that their lifecycle was very brief and their formation would have been in the very early universe which we are currently not able to view with present technology. The James Webb telescope is hoped to be able to view distnaces far enough that enables it to view these theorized Population III objects and is scheduled to launch in 2018.

Again, just because we have not seen them yet does not mean that they do not exist nor is their current abscence reason to insert Young Earth Creationism into the dicourse.