Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Most convincing evidence for creation theory
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 155 of 307 (412272)
07-24-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by RAZD
07-24-2007 9:29 AM


Re: What's the connection? (back to the topic?)
quote:
Now can we get to the positive evidence for your creationism?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2007 9:29 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by anglagard, posted 07-24-2007 10:05 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 159 by Straggler, posted 07-24-2007 10:24 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2007 11:28 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 182 of 307 (412473)
07-24-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Jaderis
07-24-2007 2:02 PM


Re: What's the connection? (back to the topic?)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Jaderis, posted 07-24-2007 2:02 PM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by jar, posted 07-24-2007 11:14 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 186 by anglagard, posted 07-24-2007 11:35 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 196 by Jaderis, posted 07-25-2007 12:42 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 183 of 307 (412476)
07-24-2007 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by jar
07-24-2007 9:55 AM


Re: Not only not positive evidence, absolute falsehoods.
quote:
Now exactly what support do you have for the Bible being given more weight than any other creation myth?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by jar, posted 07-24-2007 9:55 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by jar, posted 07-24-2007 11:42 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 202 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2007 5:54 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 185 of 307 (412479)
07-24-2007 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Brian
07-24-2007 4:30 PM


Re: What's the connection? (back to the topic?)
quote:
Not all deists believe in creation though.
I say they do. Once you track them down, the buck stops with ONE. No alternative here, even when intermediary agents are used.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Brian, posted 07-24-2007 4:30 PM Brian has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 188 of 307 (412483)
07-24-2007 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by jar
07-24-2007 11:14 PM


Re: What's the connection? (back to the topic?)
quote:
I can find no book called MultiVerse and no connection between either the comics of that name or the Michael Morcock references in his SF to an author of that name.
You can hear his interview here, following his book release:
SpaceBanter.com
BBC 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by jar, posted 07-24-2007 11:14 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by jar, posted 07-24-2007 11:58 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 191 by AdminAsgara, posted 07-24-2007 11:59 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 194 by anglagard, posted 07-25-2007 12:31 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 190 of 307 (412485)
07-24-2007 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Dr Adequate
07-24-2007 11:06 AM


quote:
Ask where quarks come from, and how new particles ('virtual' particles) are made, inturn responsible for all products in the universe. Here we are told there are 'vibrations' in the eather which excite the quarks ...
Dr:
No. No-one has ever told you that. You made that up.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-24-2007 11:06 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 192 of 307 (412488)
07-25-2007 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Cold Foreign Object
07-24-2007 2:50 PM


Re: A SOBERING THOUGHT:
quote:
Joey: you have made a blatant error. It is an uncontested historical fact: Einstein was an Atheist. Simply do a google search or read Jammer, Einstein the Atheist is not disputed.
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:
Agreed without any buts attached. Design appearance logically corresponds to invisible Designer. Once the identification correspondence is made we then refer to the most respected and proven and factually infallible source for invisible Designer (the Bible). Of course when this happens, Genesis special creation comes with it, evolution is falsified. This is why evolutionists must fight tooth and nail to deny the appearance of design to be real or actual.
Very well said. There is clearly an agenda with those touting 'myth' as their only claim to fame.
quote:
Evolution is falsified right here: the same appearance logically does not correspond to an antonym (mindless natural selection). The amount of illogical special pleading that the evolutionist engages in on this specific point is equal to the degree that evolution is based on atheistic presuppositions known as Methodological Naturalism or Materialism.
Whence sayest the evolutionist, "our theory says nothing about God"? Wherein everytime the evolutionist denies design to correspond to the work of invisible Designer.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-24-2007 2:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 193 of 307 (412489)
07-25-2007 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by AdminAsgara
07-24-2007 11:59 PM


Re: What's the connection? (back to the topic?)
quote:
Sir Roger Penrose, Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Maths at Oxford University
Are you sure you have the name of the book correct?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by AdminAsgara, posted 07-24-2007 11:59 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 195 of 307 (412491)
07-25-2007 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by jar
07-24-2007 11:58 PM


Re: What's the connection? (back to the topic?)
Soory, I will get another. That heading indicated it was his BBC radio interview.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by jar, posted 07-24-2007 11:58 PM jar has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 197 of 307 (412494)
07-25-2007 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Jaderis
07-25-2007 12:42 AM


Re: What's the connection? (back to the topic?)
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 had
been 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Jaderis, posted 07-25-2007 12:42 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by AdminNosy, posted 07-25-2007 1:26 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 199 by Jaderis, posted 07-25-2007 2:07 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 200 of 307 (412506)
07-25-2007 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by AdminNosy
07-25-2007 1:26 AM


Re: Another small warning...
quote:
This thread is focussed on creationism so I, for one, am not paying much attention to the science in it.
However, this is to warn you that if you step into other science thread with this kind of nonsense you will be suspended immediately.
I have not noticed that you have supported any of your assertions. (The wonders of Biblical accuracy for example). Make any of those in any science threads and not supply support when you make them and you'll also be suspended.
You need to understand that you know very little about anything discussed here. Certainly nothing about any of the sciences and, it seems, not much about the bible. You have a chance to learn. You are not taking that opportunity.
Meanwhile you are cluttering up threads with silly stuff. Stop!
I learnt one thing from you. Go play with yourself. GOOD BYE!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by AdminNosy, posted 07-25-2007 1:26 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by AdminCoragyps, posted 07-25-2007 8:07 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 230 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 07-25-2007 11:12 PM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 203 of 307 (412515)
07-25-2007 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Modulous
07-25-2007 4:41 AM


quote:
Einstein publically denied a belief in a personal God in the last year of life or so...falsifying this comment comepletely. "I do not believe in a personal God" - Einstein 1954
The OT forbids a personal Gd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Modulous, posted 07-25-2007 4:41 AM Modulous has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 204 of 307 (412516)
07-25-2007 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Straggler
07-25-2007 5:54 AM


Re: Ultimate Premise.
quote:
You previously affirmed that the principle of cause and effect underpins your ENTIRE creationist world view.
Yet when this was challenged on the basis of quantum theory and it's inherently probibalistic nature you just stopped replying.
Linear cause and effect of the common sense type you are basing your whole argument on is little more than the result of limited human perception and is not an inherent principle of nature in the way that you need it to be to support your misguided views
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2007 5:54 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2007 8:31 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 210 of 307 (412537)
07-25-2007 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Straggler
07-25-2007 8:31 AM


Re: Ultimate Premise.
quote:
This predicatble pattern is based on probability
We cannot predict which individual atoms will decay
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2007 8:31 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2007 10:29 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 211 of 307 (412539)
07-25-2007 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Admin
07-25-2007 9:30 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
quote:
it does represent a significant opportunity for creationists to enumerate their most convincing evidence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Admin, posted 07-25-2007 9:30 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by RAZD, posted 07-25-2007 10:35 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024