Getting back to Origins of belief

Sorry late in responding (just got back from Haiti).You seem disturbed by my use of the word speculation. Ned, what holds protons together? Like charges repel. Science can only speculate in gross metaphysics what really holds matter together. The deeper you go into science truth, the more speculative and metaphysical it becomes. What do you speculate, Ned?Here's another: The universe, is it a closed or open system? If it's a closed system with no outer curvature (highly speculative) you must speculate your strawman thus. When has the curvature of the universe been demonstrated telescopically? Never.If its an open system, i.e., infinity and beyond, then there's God and the supernatural. You must speculate and use crude faith to explain it (like that of your speculative primitive tribes).No matter how you attempt to explain the space-time continuum we're stuck with man's pathetic speculations. Dare to be dogmatic or opinionated with your speculations? Are you anti-Christ or pro-Christ? Are you Pro-redemptive-love or scientifically anti-redemptive love?A tenable conclusion is: redemptive love seems the only explicable force holding elements together that they dissolve not. Likewise, redemptive love seems the only explicable force that holds the space-time continuum together. The Bible is crystal clear in this matter. Your evo-science (like your supposed "primitive tribes") is politically and personally sinful with dogmatic speculation(s).The primitive tribes (Haitian) I've dealt with (as a physician) are far more advanced in their Bible-science than you seem to be with your anti-redemptive (anti-christ/christian) dogmatic evo-speculations.Quit being dogmatic with evolutionism, its a dangerous and deadly science. It's destroyed many converts (pre-converts) of redemptive-love sciences. Evolutionism is anti-Christian, anti-Christ, anti-Redemption, anti-Resurrection, and anti-Gospel science to be sure. Mega-evolutionism is a conscience-hardening myth and nothing else ... just man's natural (e.g., sadistic/Satanic) speculation(s) churned into natural science. There is no evidence for any of it despite our naturalistic temptations to dogmaticize it. It has no place in any curriculum.

PhilipIn response to this question. It is known as the strong nuclear force.In turn it is one of four forces that exist in nature. I am sure you are familiar with them too.Since I am sure you are not an idiot you realize that enormous work has gone into figuring out the means by which the atom works.I don't suppose you have an alternative theory to explain what scientists have been doing wrong all these years do you? If so why don't you go study this web page and point out for me where the errors are? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuccon.html#c1You can do this right?I will respond to other things raised in this post when I return from work. Good Day.

---

"I am not young enough to know everything. "
Oscar Wilde

quote:

---

Here's another: The universe, is it a closed or open system? If it's a closed system with no outer curvature (highly speculative) you must speculate your strawman thus. When has the curvature of the universe been demonstrated telescopically? Never.

---

When has anyone observed the earth going around the Sun telescopically? No one. So the earth doesn't go around the sun?

quote:

---

If its an open system, i.e., infinity and beyond, then there's God and the supernatural. You must speculate and use crude faith to explain it (like that of your speculative primitive tribes).

---

Could you show me the argument that requires the existance of God if the universe is infinite? Sounds like an argument from a primitive tribe to me.

quote:

---

A tenable conclusion is: redemptive love seems the only explicable force holding elements together that they dissolve not. Likewise, redemptive love seems the only explicable force that holds the space-time continuum together. The Bible is crystal clear in this matter. Your evo-science (like your supposed "primitive tribes") is politically and personally sinful with dogmatic speculation(s).

---

Unsupported assertion. I could just as easily say that Mary Poppin's magic umbrella hold atomic nuclei together with just as much supporting evidence as you present for your theory. This is called God of the Gaps theory, God resides in the gaps in our knowledge. You could just as easily put Marry Poppins into those gaps.

quote:

---

Evolutionism is anti-Christian, anti-Christ, anti-Redemption, anti-Resurrection, and anti-Gospel science to be sure. Mega-evolutionism is a conscience-hardening myth and nothing else ... just man's natural (e.g., sadistic/Satanic) speculation(s) churned into natural science. There is no evidence for any of it despite our naturalistic temptations to dogmaticize it. It has no place in any curriculum.

---

Ahh, now we get to the heart of your argument. You don't like the outcome of scientific inquiry so, therefore, it must be wrong. Whether people defend it dogmatically or otherwise, the fact remains that it does have supporting evidence, unlike creationism which has the opposite problem, falsifying evidence. You can't deal with the actual evidence within the theory of evolution so you call it names and argue from illogical philosophy. My guess is your next statement will be "I don't know that much about biology, but . . . ". Why don't you attack to the actual evidence instead of calling scientists names.

Dear Philip:In Post #16 above, you say, "Mega-evolutionism is a conscience-hardening myth and nothing else ... just man's natural (e.g., sadistic/Satanic) speculation(s) churned into natural science. There is no evidence for any of it despite our naturalistic temptations to dogmaticize it. It has no place in any curriculum."Read your words very carefully and realize what you're saying. Let me substitute some words to show you what I mean:[Traditional religion is comprised of] conscience-hardening myths and nothing else ... just man's natural(e.g., sadistic/satanic) speculation(s) churned into natural science. There is no evidence for any of it despite our naturalistic temptations to dogmaticize it. [Traditional religion] has no place in any [public school] curriculum."Remember every equation has two sides.I particularly am amused at the line "there is no evidence for any of it (religion-based myths) despite our naturalistic temptations to dogmatize it." Wow!Peace.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-13-2004]

quote:

---

5) On the sub-atomic level: protons must be held together by highly speculative forces that may defy theoretical attributes.

---

The theory that describes the force that holds the proton together is called "Quantum Chromodynamics". Like any theory in science, one can make predictions based on it, and in high energy physics, in particle accelerators, these predictions are observed. You can call this theory "highly speculative" if you want, but it has been confirmed.What do you mean "may defy theoretical attributes"? That maybe the theory is wrong, that someone may observe a phenomenon that contradicts the theory? Of course. That is what science is all about. Every theory is provisional (in theory, anyway, heh heh), and scientists are continually testing each one in order to see whether it holds up.

"The primitive tribes (Haitian) I've dealt with (as a physician) are far more advanced in their Bible-science than you seem to be with your anti-redemptive (anti-christ/christian) dogmatic evo-speculations.."
Maybe the Haitians are "more advanced in their Bible-science" (which would contradict "primitive") because, like early Christians, they have either no acces or limited acces to education. So, they haven't had the opportunity to acces ALL information and come to their own conclusions, but even then they might end up "more advanced".
"Evolutionism is anti-Christian, anti-Christ, anti-Redemption, anti-Resurrection, and anti-Gospel science to be sure."
Is there a reason for why you think that? Or have you not evolved to the level of reasoning.

Philip,At the risk of it looking like you are being ganged up on, I think you must realize that a post like yours (#16) will generate lots of questions and comments. But then, if everyone agreed, there wouldn't exist the opportunity for great debates, would there?I would echo the questions and sentiments of Sidelined, Loudmouth (especially his/her closing paragraph), Abshalom, Chiroptera, and Tagless.I would also add that evolution and evolutionism has no agenda. It isn't anti-anything. That it conflicts with, or renders irrelevant, certain beliefs is a by-product. But this unintended by-product was never any sort of goal.These kinds of conflicts have happened in the past. Look at Copernicus and Galileo. It took some kicking and screaming, but finally, the people of religion have embraced the advances of astronomy. Eventually, the same thing will happen with evolution.Please explain how you think evoultionism is a dangerous and deadly science.And please explain what you mean by "redemptive love science". Is it something that spawned out of the science of the teen-aged crush?Your statement about what belongs in any curriculum seems to beg for a discussion on the First Amendment. That might be something for another thread, but I might enjoy getting into discussing that for a bit. I realize that this may have been done to death here before, but I'm pretty new here, so please forgive if this made some of you cringe.Verzem

Sidelined,You have asked, So, I asked Jehovah for some tidbit on how He goes about changeing the electro-magnetic world. Here's what I heard. As always, prophecy of this sort is up for judgment, and will be incomplete, but useful none-the-less.First, He said that His favorite way of moving electo-magnetic stuff around was to do some sort of quantum thing in human brains, releasing a cascade amplification of neural responses, resulting in changed thinking and acting in the person. Then the person would move other things around for Him. But, He also noted that, from His perspective, sitting above the dark matter world, operating with vacuum energy, He builds machines called faith ("Not at all what My enemies, the Christians are talking about!"). These faith machines are like plugs that allow zero-point energy to flow into the electro-magnetic world. Now, (He said) "as some of the Greek philosophers caught onto, zero-point energy is archetypical, has structure to it, that shapes forms in the electromagnetic world, when it flows into or onto it. Like light flowing around some object before the source, and making a shadow." "I speak a word, forming objects in the zero-point energy, dark matter fields. Then, I project through faith that image onto "physical" reality." Names, He said, are plugs that connect the two energy fields, electro-magnetic and vacuum. Intention is the wiring, and wisdom is knowing how to turn on empowered electro-magnetic objects, so that the power does real work.Faith, and other objects in the vacuum, zero-point energy fields are formed by His speaking words.To me, it is interesting that He could say this to me only because I have studied the PEAR Lab's studies on intentionality and moving objects, and dark matter and energy physics. God seemed delighted that I wanted to understand, and was searching it all out, and going to the trouble to get the vocabulary so that I could understand, at least a little.Note that this sort of thing is to give understanding, not persuasion. To validate this understanding, clearly one has to hear God speak, to know what sorts of things He might be building in the zero-point energy fields. One must get names for these things, and choose intentionally to reveal their shadow in this world. Then, one must get wisdom to know how to effectively move that shadow. Note that shadows can collide without the objects making the shadows touching. I've kissed a few girls where that happened.Stephen

Somebody tell Dan he's got a new competitor for the Class Clown title.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Who's Dan?

StephanYour Jehova needs to go to school and sort out his understandings of physics.LOLOf cousre I do suppose He could cheat and no one would call Him on it.

Pointless replies (to me); you keep your strawman and I'll keep mine as we'll never make sense one of another.

And please explain what you mean by "redemptive love science". Is it something that spawned out of the science of the teen-aged crush?--Thanks for your polite reply. Redemptive love science is a creationist's strawman (a dogmatic hypothesis that needs biased data to support it). Like all strawmen it begs science to support the hypothesis. Specifically you'd also look up the word "redemptive":Christians define redemptive love as Salvation from sin (via a Christ vicariously loving and interceding on behalf of persons), restoration from a cursed state, raising from the dead, healing, etc. All kinds of bias (hope) and faith are invoked to support any such redemptive love science. Such forced science is crucial to any YEC's position. This YEC forces science to comply with the Bible, thus (perhaps to the same extent that Evos force sciene to comply with their strawmen)Some YEC examples:
1) Higher elements were created EX-NIHILO for the earth'a inhabitants only (vs. some outlandish evo-speculation of decaying super-novas)
2) Repair DNA enzymes were created and never evolved, being exceedinly and irreducibly complex in nature.
3) Earth alone can sustain life in the entire cosmos.These and many other observed phenomena point to the hypothesis of redemptive love as being more tenable than mega-Evo hypotheses where life, origins, and cosmic existence are concerned.(Of course the Evo-strawman won't allow the Redemptive-strawman and vice-versa.)Now "Origins of belief" is an extremely subtle topic here. Yet I'm sure you have a story to tell like the rest of us losers here.

Chiroptera, what really holds these + charge together? Of course quantum theory works! But you haven't given a real quantum mechanism, nor have the speculators explained it.Now I admit, something (other than neutrons) may have a place in theoretical quantum science: Perhaps is a focal point of 'holding protons together', perhaps a sub-atomic particle that bears great negative energy (not yet proven in theory).Even if man comes up with a valid theory some day, he won't understand what this particle really is, nor the proton, nor any other atomic or sub-atomic entity. Man's knowledge is growing but pathetic.Are you really that optimistic that you can reduce all quantum events into finite theory? Has quantum speculation stopped and become theory of a sudden? Give it up! You and I only have a feeble (albeit blessed) speculative knowledge of crucial quantum mechanics.

Tagless,We are all jesters of truth. Myself guiltiest. Perhaps we can focus on one accusation:i.e., Mega-Evolutionism (in its rawest form) is anti-Christian:The central theme of Gospel Christianity is that one man (Adam) willfully sinned and ruined everything (after Eve's deception by the sadistic Devil). But a second (God-)man (Christ) became that sin and became the eternal sacrifice and propitiation, thus circumventing our innate eternal damnation.Well the evo-strawman requires that the God-Christ Savior descended from big-daddy-the-ape. It infers Christ did nothing supernatural nor metaphysical let alone redemptive nor restorative to man and his cosmos.