The big scientific problem with the idea of Creationism

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by filosophia

 

The ultimate seer of all the things and events can only ever watch as the drama appears to happen. It has no control, and also the happenings have no meaning. We don't know what moves heaven and earth, but we have no choice to move with it. We can however stand in awe and wonder at the beauty of the patterns.

edit on 12-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Some problems with your logic of the dreamer. If it only sees, it can not move. And if it sees, it still has some contact with the appearances, this also ignores the plain fact that you can move your hand at will. So I don't see much rationality out of nihilist theories: theories that nothing really exists. You say there is a dreamer that sees the illusions, okay, does the dreamer outlive the dream? It would have to otherwise you can't have any memory. So the dreamer dreams the dream, meaning the dreamer does have control.

A total state of silence, in Hinduism "samadhi" is a state of super consciousness, not 'nothing' or 'simply seeing the chaos of the world' it is instead a vision of oneness, in which there is no longer randomness or a dream but only the dreamer. The subject and object become one: the dreamer becomes the dream, there exists only one "vision" which is knowledge. This is the fabric, if you will, of the universe, which is the true fountainhead of all things.

reply to post by filosophia


"Water bears" are incredibly resilient:

Tardigrades are able to survive in extreme environments that would kill almost any other animal. Some can survive temperatures of −273 °C (−459 °F), close to absolute zero,[5] temperatures as high as 151 °C (304 °F), 1,000 times more radiation than other animals,[6] and almost a decade without water.[7] In September 2007, tardigrades were taken into low Earth orbit on the FOTON-M3 mission and for 10 days were exposed to the vacuum of space. After they were returned to Earth, it was discovered that many of them survived and laid eggs that hatched normally.[8]

There's even an entire genus that doesn't age.

And since when is immortality the end goal of evolution? Evolution works to practical survival, immortality is far from practical.

reply to post by letmeDANz


Or...science explains a lot if you actually take the time to research it. And please, don't put it anywhere near religion, as science has actually contributed to the advancement of humanity.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by filosophia

 

Premise 1 equates 'goodness' to 'power'...so apparently all powerful things are good. Apparently that means an atomic bomb is a lot better than a kitten.

According to your governments it is. Political power only leads to insecurity: America is the greatest nation but has the most problems, so obviously power is not Goodness, but the power that creates everything has no equal. So it is good, as in "great, superior, outstanding, perfect."

Premises 2,3, and 4 are unsupported and merely stated as fact though there's no verification

Your entire premise is a brush off of my premise with no verification given

Premise 5 is wrong on several levels...aside from the fact that 'wisdom' is not a thing in and of itself, there's no reason to separate the mind from the body. The mind is a construct of the body through and through.

If consciousness were simply electrical impulses in your head you would be incapable of rational thought. All thoughts would be based on electrical impulses and the only reason would be which way the blood would flow. The idea of even contemplating a science becomes nonsensical under this mouse-maze type of view of the world.

Premise 6...how is a human inferior to a planet? How is a planet inferior to a star? They're different things. A planet cannot write a symphony, a star cannot support life on its surface. The comparison is odd.

Planets contain humans. Stars keep planets alive. I thought you would know that one. How is a human superior to the earth? How is the earth superior to the sun?

Premise 7 ignores what I'm talking about. I'm talking about applicability in a physical way. If all knowledge brings peace and awareness then you've simply added another layer of utility to all scientific data, not something new to your unsupported ideas.

The practical application of yoga is peace and serenity, if you tried it and found it doesn't work, then that is your fate, but if you haven't even tried it on what grounds are you speaking from? I didn't say all knowledge brings peace, only spiritual knowledge of the absolute, not say, knowledge of bombs or guns, or even knowledge of horticulture may bring happiness but not complete fulfillment.

8 and 9 are straw men. Seriously, that's just dishonest.

Care to prove how it's dishonest or should I just take your word for it? I thought science was all about "explaining"

Everything I said is not "new" it is 1500+ year old philosophy and metaphysics,

Fallacy: Argument from tradition.

society has just simply ignored it because it is no longer "mainstream" which is why people have psychological problems: they don't meditate and attune to the higher spirit.

No, people have psychological problems because of chemical imbalances, deformations of the brain, and/or traumatic experiences of both the physical and mental variety.

And it's ignored because it's poppycock.

It also is the reason why religious wars are waged: because people have lost sight of the true God (within).

...last I checked I've got meat and liquids inside of me.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

How is practical survival and immortality different? You give me an example of species that can survive extreme temperatures and then say immortality it is not practical? And if immortality is the end goal of evolution, what is? Reproduction? Which ensures that a species exists: forever! There it is again, the thorn in evolution's shoe: Eternity.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Creationism...doesn't do jack.

What does bashing Creationism do?
Give you something to feel "right" about?

You think it is dishonest to say that science has proved that meditation alters the brain?

I can find plenty of articles on it. And if you did it once in a while you would know that it does. But if you're afraid then that's okay to, I know it can be scary, allowing your mind to become aware of your mind, letting go of your internal chatter in order to really hear what is going on. It's more than most people can handle: but it does alter your view of reality.

Here's an interesting article on the topic: onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

reply to post by filosophia


There is a dream. No dreamer. An experience of a dream. The dreamer and dream is watched. This watcher can not be seen, for it is seeing. This watcher has no control, it watches movement, life flowing, it sees a character fussing over the perils of life, the character believes he has control, but will one day see that he has no control.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by filosophia

 

There is a dream. No dreamer. An experience of a dream. The dreamer and dream is watched. This watcher can not be seen, for it is seeing. This watcher has no control, it watches movement, life flowing, it sees a character fussing over the perils of life, the character believes he has control, but will one day see that he has no control.

you keep contradicting yourself. You say there is a dream but no dreamer, only an "experience" but experience would require a conscious dreamer, otherwise it is a completely random dream that means nothing, again, it is nihilism, a philosophical position that makes zero sense. If it were nothing, it could not see. It could not do anything, it couldn't even know there was a dream.

reply to post by filosophia


The seer sees but does not move. Appearances appear and disappear, they move. You (the seer) never moves, always in the centre of your experience. Notice that things are not solid and fixed, only your point of reference is fixed.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by filosophia

 

The seer sees but does not move. Appearances appear and disappear, they move. You (the seer) never moves, always in the centre of your experience. Notice that things are not solid and fixed, only your point of reference is fixed.

if you see and never move you are a thing, albeit an immaterial thing rather than a physical thing. That is the self.

reply to post by filosophia

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by filosophia

 

Premise 1 equates 'goodness' to 'power'...so apparently all powerful things are good. Apparently that means an atomic bomb is a lot better than a kitten.

According to your governments it is.

Malta? Really? I didn't know that. I'll have to ask the Prime Minister myself.

Political power only leads to insecurity: America is the greatest nation but has the most problems, so obviously power is not Goodness, but the power that creates everything has no equal. So it is good, as in "great, superior, outstanding, perfect."

So again you're simply stating that absolute power is good because it is unequaled. But that's not a logical progression, it's a non-sequitur. Your conclusion doesn't come from anywhere.

Premises 2,3, and 4 are unsupported and merely stated as fact though there's no verification

Your entire premise is a brush off of my premise with no verification given

...so you just told me "no you"? I'm saying that you simply stated 3 incredibly extraordinary claims without any sort of extraordinary evidence.

Premise 5 is wrong on several levels...aside from the fact that 'wisdom' is not a thing in and of itself, there's no reason to separate the mind from the body. The mind is a construct of the body through and through.

If consciousness were simply electrical impulses in your head you would be incapable of rational thought. All thoughts would be based on electrical impulses and the only reason would be which way the blood would flow.

...ok, you clearly don't understand how a neuron works. Thoughts are based on electrical impulses, we understand that all too well. Those electrical impulses are stored in neurons. We can even measure the activity with several devices. It has nothing to do with blood flow.

Once more, you make a statement that's a non-sequitur. Thoughts being electrical impulses doesn't lead to a lack of rational thought.

The idea of even contemplating a science becomes nonsensical under this mouse-maze type of view of the world.

No, it really doesn't.

Premise 6...how is a human inferior to a planet? How is a planet inferior to a star? They're different things. A planet cannot write a symphony, a star cannot support life on its surface. The comparison is odd.

Planets contain humans.

Exactly one planet does.

Stars keep planets alive. I thought you would know that one.

Planets don't get 'kept alive'...life just sort of grows on them. Well, one of them at least.

How is a human superior to the earth? How is the earth superior to the sun?

I'm superior to the Earth in that I can think, I have a relative amount of choice over the direction I move in, I can (along with the efforts of several other of my fellows) choose to leave the orbital path I'm on around my star, I'm capable of communication, I can produce offspring, etc.

The Earth is superior to the sun in that it's a much nicer place to live.

"Superior" is a relative term. It depends on what you're talking about specifically.

Premise 7 ignores what I'm talking about. I'm talking about applicability in a physical way. If all knowledge brings peace and awareness then you've simply added another layer of utility to all scientific data, not something new to your unsupported ideas.

The practical application of yoga is peace and serenity, if you tried it and found it doesn't work, then that is your fate, but if you haven't even tried it on what grounds are you speaking from?

Yoga provides...boredom and added flexibility. Frankly, I prefer self-reflection while stargazing, it's a lot more productive. ...but you're still not addressing the point. What does that have to do with creationism?

I didn't say all knowledge brings peace, only spiritual knowledge of the absolute, not say, knowledge of bombs or guns, or even knowledge of horticulture may bring happiness but not complete fulfillment.

Well, now you're assuming the existence of "complete fulfillment".

8 and 9 are straw men. Seriously, that's just dishonest.

Care to prove how it's dishonest or should I just take your word for it? I thought science was all about "explaining"

It's a straw man. You created a man of straw in my image and shoved words in its mouth. It was the most blatant straw man I've ever seen on ATS because you actually phrased it as a dialog between the two of us while choosing the words I said.


...and the rest of the post I'm responding to seems to be the rest of the post you're replying to without alteration or quote formatting...might want to edit that so that it's either presented in the appropriate quote format or just get rid of it.

reply to post by filosophia


...I just provided an example of a species that is hard to kill and an example of species that doesn't age (which you ignored). Now, there isn't a practical way of achieving being unable to die in any way possible. It's just the laws of physics on that front.

reply to post by DeReK DaRkLy


And it's the old "Makes you feel like a big man" attack. You could try addressing the issue instead of myself. And no, it doesn't give me something to feel right about. I only attack creationism because it is a scourge upon the minds of millions of people who don't understand science. I hope to sway people with my posts.

reply to post by filosophia


Nope...but you do like putting words in my mouth. I never said that...of course, I think the reason meditation alters the brain is purely material (and the research backs me on that one).

Again, a straw man with my name on it. Soon you'll have a whole baseball team of little straw mes.

reply to post by filosophia


I know, it's quite miraculous that this could be happening at all.
All this is, is experience, there really is not a separate individual and an experience. It looks like that, otherwise like you say it wouldn't see. But one can not exist without the experience, and the experience could not exist with out the viewer. This is what they call consciousness.
There is like you say a 'thing' that knows. That is here always. It is the presence, the presence is just that, it is not the controller, or any other word or concept. It is the presence. Still that is just another word, but it is the watcher, the seer.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Class, who can tell me what the point of science is?

...nobody? Oh, I'm typing out a thread, not talking to anyone. Ok, the point of science is to explain the universe around us in a manner which we can then put to use. Scientific theories are supposed to have explanatory power. Creationism has no explanatory power...it merely has a single answer that helps us with nothing.

Evolution helps us understand the way life works. It helps us provide more appropriate and varied doses of antibiotics to prevent antibiotic resistance evolving in bacteria, it provides us with all sorts of helpful insights into agriculture and husbandry, and it just generally helps us understand biological systems. I mean, this is really why I find the people arguing against evolution more and more ridiculous the more I learn about how evolution is actually applied daily. If people are actually doing useful things with a scientific theory, it's a pretty good indication that it works.

Creationism...doesn't do jack. If a 'creator' 'created' life, what are the uses of it? What are the predictions of such a theory? Does a 'created' world have certain properties? Can we gain anything from exploiting them? No? Alright then, scrap the idea. It's useless.

You're not getting into heaven with that attitude Mister.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


you are making a religion out of your science if you believe in evolution. You ask what practical applications come from creationism, what practical applications come from evolution? How does evolving from a monkey supposed to make me gain some type of insight as to why I'm alive? It makes no sense. The argument of evolution is: look a bunch of fossils that somehow show animals evolve over time, a beak here, a claw here, a hand here, it makes absolutely no sense on a logical level: a man must come from a man and a woman, not a monkey, not a man and a monkey, not a woman and an alien, it must come from a man and a woman, meaning the "template" (DNA) of a man and woman must exist eternally, but of course we have already illustrated how you have a hard time with that word: eternity.

Gradual change we can believe in? As if it is hard to believe in millions of years of evolution, how about an eternity? Can you believe in that?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


ah, but if the brain is altered physically, that proves the mind alters it, and the mind is immaterial. Even if you believe consciousness is entirely made up of neurons, a person chooses to meditate or (like you) chooses not to meditate. So that means the mind has a reason apart from the neurons forcing him to do so.

You seem to believe that the mind is physical, but if that were the case then you have no control over the neurons firing in your body, which isn't true. The heart is unconscious, you do not control that, but you do control your hands. This means that there is a "you" that can operate your hand at will. The you = will, the two words have one and the same meaning and point to the same object. But this object is two-fold: physical and spiritual, physical in the sense that it can be sensed by the consciousness, and spiritual in the sense that it originates with the higher God. God gives you consciousness so you can see and make rational judgment. To explore the universe. But when you turn this mind upon itself you see the light of your own consciousness, which is a feeling of infinity and eternity, which is the faith that people speak of when they speak of belief in God, which no amount of science can prove or disprove to them. This feeling, when considered logically, makes sense only if you think of it as a Singular Eternal Essence (Monism).


You see, I'm speaking not from theory but from experience, meaning from my perceptions what I am speaking of is science. A king from the middle ages would not consider a microwave to be science, but it is, so until you experience the light within yourself, you won't be able to talk scientifically about it.

BTW: you're from malta? As in the Knights of Malta and the crusades? Yeah, I'd say they'd think an atom bomb was a good thing.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


miraculous in the sense that the higher Self originates itself, it dreams its own dream, meaning there is control. Once you see the true Self you start to wake up from the dream, and you find that you do have freedom and control. I don't advocate nihilism because it is a dream-like state: waking is much better. Although fearful at first it is a superior state than dreaming. Using your rational intellect is always more fulfilling than the imagination, no matter what concoction the imagination comes up with. But no reason to dismiss the imagination, it is an invaluable tool after all, really it is the mind.