Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Surely you are not suggesting Newton was an Intelligent Design pseudo scientists, are you?
Are you even aware of Newton’s extensive study of Scriptures? He was one of the first Bible Code individuals.
By all means. Those who can adopt/develop changes/traits that favor survival in a given environment will procreate and prevail.
What's that got to do with "Intelligent Design?"
Its obvious that ‘science’ whatever that word means to you in all of its permutations, is the altar where at you worship.
No one can stop you from placing your faith on the shifting sands of ‘science’. Evolutionary beliefs are not science, but some men waste their lives away srcapping for a few shards of bone fragments in order to convince themselves they are not more than an advanced ape.
Beware Arjuna, those who worship lessor gods will go onto them.
INDEED.
More specifically, “creationist” means someone who rejects the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.
Thus the anachronism of those without a proper pot to urinate in, scientifically, trying to glom onto actual scientists and paint them as rejectors of a theory that had not even been formulated yet.
Newton was not any more a creationist than I am. Both of us believe that God created the universe. Neither Newton nor I rejected the notion that physical causes could be used to describe the physical processes of creation. Neither Newton nor I showed any tendency to believe that by describing physical means to explain physical phenomena that the domain of God was thereby reduced.
Newton was careful to deal with those with this mindset in his writing, and was careful to always point out that by showing that GRAVITY moved the world was not to imply that it was not also GOD who moved the world.
Do not presume to tell me what I worship.
Evolutionary theory is science. But I wouldn't expect a fool to recognize it as such.
Humans biologically are apes. Humans and chimps are closer related to each other in DNA than either is to a gorilla. There is no biological justification for removing Humans from the ape clade.
Creationists worship a lesser god. A puny god who did things by magical means rather recently in a small corner of the actual universe. One who created a universe that needs constant tinkering and cannot hold itself up by the laws of reality.
I worship a great and mighty God. One whom the heavens proclaim the glory of, all 4 billion light years of it, not just the local 6,000 light year vicinity. A mighty God whose patience is unfathomable, and whose HAND is seen in all things, and yet is unseen.
Do you think describing how stars form from gravity and nuclear fusion means that God didn't create that star?
Why is biology any different?
I have asked that question numerous times and have yet to get an answer as to why there is some deep difference between describing a physical process for one or the other.
Somehow I doubt that you will answer with anything cogent or insightful. But go ahead and give it a shot.
On the contrary, only those who read your posts can garner that from YOUR posts, and yours only if they've read your screeds about your special evo, more specifically special amd, only definition of *creationist*.
For the rest of the world, the standard definition of creationist works- that is, someone who believes that God created the universe and usually that He created the life in it.
Evos cannot claim the right to define the term *creationist*. They claim that they have that right as scientists to *properly* define scientific terms *as scientists use them* and expect others to be obligated to adhere to them. Well, fine. Then by the same token creationists then by default, get to define creationist terms as creationists use them and everyone else is should be expected to be obligated to use them.
One thing the evos are great at is applying a double standard to every situation. What's good for evos to adhere to is good for everyone else to adhere to.
If you wish to specify a type of creationist to whom you are referring to disparage, then do so. Don't expect to have everyone somehow be able to magically read your mind so that they know that sometimes you mean one kind of creationist and sometimes another.
Comparing yourself to Newton? WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!!! You only glean what he believed from the writings he left and your interpretation of them. You cannot even begin to claim to be in the same league as him, cause it's patently obvious that your not.
And just to ward off the *You're not either*, that will inevitably come, I never claimed to be.
Evos worship a lesser God who is a slave to natural forces and must let them take their course, instead of exercising His power over them. They worship a puny God who must behave in the way the evos have decided He has to based on conclusions from the evidence their puny human brains have (mis)interpreted.
Evos have the arrogance to say that God had it wrong and told us wrong when He inspired the Bible and that they know how He REALLY did it.
Thank you for correcting the mistakes that God allowed to slip into Scripture. Where would we be without you to correct us?
When someone speaks of “evolution vs creation” or calls these threads “Crevo” threads, they are not speaking of those that believe the universe was created by God vs those who are atheists; no matter how much you long to beat up that strawman.
The Pope is not a creationist. When people speak of “creationists” they mean specifically those who reject the theory of evolution.
Far from this being MY definition, it is the commonly accepted one. Notice please that this definition (Websters) defines creationism both directly and by exclusion, i.e. NOT evolution.
Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution
Please explain this statement.
I did, but I will repeat myself. Genesis clearly states that God separated the firmament (Heaven) and the dry lands from the waters. That is how God 'created' them. The Bible clearly presupposes the existence of water and God.
Creation ex nihilo is the theory that everything even God and the water came from nothing.
I will ask you again. Where did all the water go? The Universe should be filled with water shouldn't it?
Except I don't see where Genesis describes HOW God created the Sun. So I don't see how theories of stellar and planetary formation remove God as the creator of stars and planets.
And I don't see where Genesis describes HOW God created life or species, or why so many species have gone extinct, or how life changes in response to its environment. So I don't see how theories of how life changes through natural selection of genetic variation removes God as the creator of stars and planets.
I suppose to you a God who has to run with buckets to catch rain water from the leaky roof of creation is greater, because he is more needed.
To me a God who made a roof properly and doesn't need to run around patching up the holes in reality with magic is greater.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on who has the more glorious vision of God, but I find the trickster God who plays with starlight that the Creationists believe in to be far less imposing, amazing, and beyond the thoughts of men. For it is easy for men to imagine magic accomplishing great things unseen and in accordance with great plans. Far harder to imagine that all things are unfolding by the actions of an unseen hand and all in accordance with the ‘rules’ laid down by God.
But many would apparently be happy, because their local holy man would take the place of those wicked scientists who dared to use reason and interpretation and make conclusions contrary to religious dogma.
Everything, even God and the water came from nothing?????????It is clear that you do not have even a basic understanding of the Cosmological Argument of Creation ex nihilo. More specifically argument of First Cause and Kaalams argument....which says syllogistically...
Everything which comes to be has a cause.
The universe came to be.
Therefore the universe had a cause.
Read the first sentence in the Bible. That is what references creatio ex nihilo. God created the universe from nothing. Nothing is what Aristotle said rocks dream about. NOTHING.
Now you asked me 'how God created them'. If you asked me to explain the mechanics and physics of the act of a metaphysical event I cannot do so. Neither could Einstein, Eddingoton, Hoyle, or Hawkin, though I am hesitant to put myself in the same sentence with these great men as it is reference to physics and astrophysics. But that is a different question apart from asking the metaphysical causation of creatio ex nihilo. It has meaning apart from the mechanics of the task separating water and dry ground. So I cannot answer your question specifically...plate tectonics???evaporation???In your alledged quantum universe you cannot account for anything at all.
The Bible clearly presupposes the existence of water and God.
Tell me how you deduce that water is presupposed. Again, read the first sentence.
Look, Mr.LeGrand. You are simply not educated in the various proofs and arguments for the existence of God. I thought initially you had a greater depth in your own positions and thought your statements to others, as well as myself, were arrogant and rude, and therefore I thought I might either try to inform you, politely, of some misunderstandings you had exposed. Now, of course, I understand it was simply ignorance of the topic and the issues...everything from the notion of warranted true belief, logic, rationality, reason, the Principle of First CAuse, and the many views of creation of the universe. I have led you to water and you refuse to drink. I have had enough of these 'conversations' with others like you to know that you are compelled by hubris and pride, and beyond this point my attempts will be futile towards your education. So unless you have a serious question I will simply continue to read the thread. If you pose a serious question I will answer, but I must not waste time with your silliness.
By the way, when I say you are ignorant on these subjects, I do not mean that to be rude. I simply mean you have no understanding of the topic, much as I have no significant understanding of electrical engineering...I am simply ignorant on that subject.
This statement is a lie. Read my post again.
No. You read your post again. Did you answer my questions? No. Did you give three different definitions of Creationism in response instead? Yes. I think you owe me an apology.
Now, please give me the scientific evidence which proves the above statement.
You are clearly missing the point. Nothing can be proven. Why do you think in science they are called theories? The best we can do is find falsifiable theories that hold up to all of the tests that we can put them through.
Surely things (photons, quarks, electrons, wave are something).
Yes they are electromagnetic (EM) waves of the quantum field. In other words waves of nothing. What do you think Mass is?
The problem is that all of science points to a singularity where there was no vacuum, no time, no space, no matter, and no energy.
No. Science points to a quantum field, filled with energy.
This is not an exception to the dictum of First Cause. At best it is indeterminant, as all of these studies to not begin with nothing, but a quantum vacuum rich in energy and energy fuuctuations.
You are half right. The quantum vacuum (field) is rich in energy.
However if your premise is that everything is the result of a quantum event, then you have no reason to believe anything. There is no reaon to believe that we can study the barometric pressure this morning and it will be subject to the same laws of physics as tomorrow (see Hume).
You don't understand decoherence. That phase change severely restricts the probabilities, out to 13 decimal places or so.
Science itself, with the use of logic and scientific methodology cannot be believed if the universe is under the domain of a quantum event, instant after instsant, after instant. Or, perhaps you want it both ways.
Obviously you don't understand QM and decoherence. Yes QM is based on probabilities, but it is extremely accurate. After decoherence the odds of you suddenly vanishing and appearing on Centauri Prime are infinitesimally small, way beyond the life of the Universe.
The fact that you cannot account for reason and logic in an atheistic universe confirms that God exists.
Huh? That is completely wrong. Even if you think that we can't explain something, that in no way confirms that God exists. Lack of evidence is just that, lack of evidence. It neither confirms or denies anything.
Your attempt to reason and your consciousness cannot be accounted for in a materialist universe. If you can, please explain to me how.
"Everything is waves of the boundary, life is self propagating and persisting waves."
You can measure thought??????????????OK. Measure thought.
Thought is brain waves. electrical charges passed between neurons, we measure it all the time.
So I ask you, how much does thought weigh? What color is thought? How long are they?
Weight? Do you mean mass? The Mass of thoughts is equal to the energy divided by the speed of light squared. Color? The EM radiation at that frequency doesn't produce a color that you can see. Length? I suppose you mean the wave length? That is what QM tells you. It is a wave theory after all : )
Personal explaination is different from natural scientific exoplanation. The explanation for these correlations is either a personal or natural scientific event. The explaination is not a natural scientific one. Therefore the explanations is a personal one and is therefore a personal mental event which is non-physical and therefore metaphysical and therefore theistic.
Personal events are natural events. With Transcranial magnetic stimulation devices I can see your thoughts. Your thoughts are very physical and in the end not much different than a light switching on and off.
You are!!!!I will repeat what I have said before. I will assume that you are familiar with the Cosmological proof for the exitence of God, the Teleological Proof for the existence of God, the Ontologic Proof for the existence of God and the Moral Proof for the existence of God. The most compelling, for my mind, is the Transendental Proof for the existence of God.
My, my, how quickly you forget. There are no absolute proofs. We live with uncertainty. EM waves are probabilistic not deterministic.
The laws of Logic reflect the thinking of God. They are, if you will, a reflection of the way God thinks and expects us to think.
Laws of logic are simply mathematical associations.
If you want to go into all of the permutations of the cosmological argument, which powerfully, scientifically, logically, determine that it is a fact that the universe exploded into being, I will be glad to go there.
I take from that statement that you are not prepared to defend the biblical account of creation? Which does not show a big bang by the way. Wouldn't it be easier just to explain where all the water went to?
The universe came to be.
Therefore the universe had a cause.
For deductive reasoning the premise must be sound. Yours is not sound. I will give you a contrasting example to illustrate the point clearly.
All tiny women are skinny.
Sarah is a tiny women.
Therefore Sarah is skinny.
The conclusions only hold if the premise is correct, which in both of these examples it is not.
I will give you a thought experiment that shows why your premise that "Everything which comes to be has a cause." is wrong. Balance a pencil on its tip, a dynamically unstable position, with no external forces except for gravity influencing it. When the pencil falls, the direction it falls is completely random and has no cause.
That thought experiment falsifies your premise. And if you 'think about it', the concept of free will falsifies your premise.
Your theory of God is based on that false premise, therefore, I have just falsified your theory of God.
Allmendream and I must worship the same God. My God is not a master of deception, and does not expend his efforts in creation to deceive me with dinosaurs and a changing speed of light. I worship the awesome God whose creation is so grand and complex that man’s understanding of the mechanics of it will always be changing and growing with our knowledge of the science. No where in the scriptures do I find a commandment from God to understand how He created the universe, only to recognize the fact that He did. God’s commandments to me revolve around how I am to treat and love my fellow man, not how I am to study his creation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.