|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Most convincing evidence for creation theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Why do you think science has not found any cause behind the universe's emergence - or a single item's origin within the universe? This is evidence, even in a murder trial in a court, as (circumstantial) evidence by elimination. No alternative exists for creationism. Sorry if this offends your faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
He's very famous and a long standing atheist. Recently he gave numerous interviews, and stated his position concerning complexities and randomness. He can be googled under MultiVerse (last book) or Roger Penfold/biologist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Genesis is the only scientifically based premise for creationism, introducing science itself, evolution and origins knowledge of both the universe and life. When this subject is debated, it is between science and genesis only; this is where its at. There is more vindication in genesis than darwin concerning life's origins and how it came about - at least we have a definition here, namely the first life forms were dual-gendered and then separated to become male/female offspring. This is not myth but a legit different view which is not unscientific at all! The differencials and groupings of life forms are cast from a creational perspective, and thus modern humans are listed as one 'kind' (speech endowed biengs, as opposed 'species' denoted by generic skeletal and biological imprints), and others as land/air/water based 'kinds'. Its counterpart is life emerged by accident, with odds well outside scientific possibilities, and based on premises which have never been proven. Genesis is correct in its mode of categorising from a creational view, while darwin is correct for sub-category differentials separating different forms of land/air/sea based life forms. This is not myth but a different view which is not unscientific at all! Genesis also appears more correct in noting life forms in their origin began as dual-gendered. Genesis also caters to CAUSE AND EFFECT (Creator/Creation), as opposed to the unscientific premise of randomness, and that the universe was eternal and infinite: these are escapist non-answers. There is good science here, and it cannot be denied by your use of 'myth'. If its myth, I challenge you in open forum to show us where science-based medicine comes from? We already know where the first recording of correct life forms grads, in their chronological order comes from - and its not from darwin! Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I say they do. Once you track them down, the buck stops with ONE. No alternative here, even when intermediary agents are used.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: You can hear his interview here, following his book release: SpaceBanter.comBBC Radio 4's "In our time" had an interview today with Martin Rees, Roger Penfold and Carolin Crawford, who summarised the current thinking on these matters. You can hear it on BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time AbE AA - correct link seems to be BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, Alchemy --wrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Hertfordshire England Edited by AdminAsgara, : gave correct link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Quarks, when first discovered, was touted as the smallest particle known, one that did not even have another side. It was found when there was a quest to find the smallest, indivisable particle. They were wrong, and soon a nano-universe was found within quarks. It is still one of the smallest particles, which produces virtual particles, and the Omega particle which escapes the electron belt to become independent. This is my understanding from what I've read.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Not in his last days. He was also nominated for the Presidency of Israel before he died, declaring that science without religion (OT) is lame. One must read between the lines of 'Gd does not play dice', and consider Einstein's history in Germany. There is also no dispute Newton was a feverently religious scientist (link available).
quote: Very well said. There is clearly an agenda with those touting 'myth' as their only claim to fame.
quote: The issue is not understood by creation rejecters when they demand proof not found in the texts: would they understand such proof 3000 years ago - the OT is written for all generations of man, vindicated here and now by its debating. What is not understood is that science is just another study mode as is math, history and logic. Genesis makes a positation, which can be science, math or history based; it does not give an accompanying summary of proof beside each positaion, in accordance with today's status requirements - this is vindicated by human deliberation and research, according to a generation's knowledge status. Darwin's Evolution resulted from the premise of it indicated in Genesis. I find it amazing that the oldest and most accurate calendar, the first based on both the solar and lunar, is called 'myth' in this forum: it is the only one when examined, and concludes no other way than the earth is not flat but a moving spheare. But this is subject to man's deliberation of it, and its explanation is not accompanied in the OT with today's mode of math, physics and cosmology - nor would this be understand 3000 years ago. This is not acknowledged because of a religious-type reverse agenda displayed by atheists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: No, I'm not sure of the exact name of the book, but it is about Multiverse. I have read excerpts and essay reviews, and heard him on three interviews, on radio and cable. He came up with film layers separating universes, but his underlying controversial theme is a complexity must lie at the base of the universe's complex structures. He is an atheist science, apparently in contradiction of the Randomness basis of the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Soory, I will get another. That heading indicated it was his BBC radio interview.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Your not picking on me, but you are looking for commas and items not related to the fulcrum points debated. I have a copy of Penfolds interviews and will post it. The link I gave you does show he is more than a math or biology professor ('he is, after all, considered by some to be the leading mathematician in the pursuit of the Theory of Everything'),:
Roger Penrose, who hadbeen pleaded with not to question the phrase 'dark energy' until we'd at least broken it in and who had been asked by me that something called 'the cosmological constant' was best left until half past nine, brought everything up at once, brilliantly (he is, after all, considered by some to be the leading mathematician in the pursuit of the Theory of Everything), and for a few moments, as I listened agape, I realised that in one way I could wrap up the programme at then about thirteen minutes past nine and call it a day. However, I managed to plough on. Superficially you can get some sort of handle on it, even if you are as big a non-physicist as myself. The forces at work - expanding universe, kinetic energy, dark matter, dark energy, gravity - can at some level be blotted up in the swotting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I learnt one thing from you. Go play with yourself. GOOD BYE!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The OT forbids a personal Gd.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The point I was making about QM is that there was no ramdomness here, that the probabilities were a definitive, predictable pattern, and thus we have electronics and chips - utilised by those predictables. My point about cause and effect is that the cause is lacking in non-creationism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The former makes it non-random. QM is utilised on a guarantee of its probability predictables. Today, many gamble the share market and horce races on this factor: they know that in 10 races, one favourite will come up (this factor is better guaranteed in QM). Creationism depends on the non-random, and no singularity, premises. None of these have ever been identified anyplace in the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I gave my view here. The pivotal factor is cause and effect, and here cause means being transcendent of the effect. While this is not provable in a lab, it is well defined by the term Omnipotent. But even academically, this factor is missing with non-creationalists, even discounted from the equation, but it is encumbent on them to nominate, as opposed proving, a causation factor. Evolution is an effect. The more sound premise prevails. Randomness is another term for NO CAUSE - because to evidence randomness, one has to identify an origin point, which has never been possible. The latter signifies that matter or anything else cannot emerge on their own, as does the intergration factor. I have heard of some imaginative appraisals to contrive randomness, but it is laced with glitches: infinite universe; it just happened; miraclulous odds which occured only outside of humanity's spacetime; etc. These are retreats. Creationism is the superior science and logic here. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024