+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 42
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 10680
Total Topics: 246
Most Online Today: 22
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 6612 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14901
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #105 on: March 16, 2015, 07:15:33 pm »
JM, are you a fan of Nietzsche and/or Derrida? Your recent posts remind me of them.

Quote from: Joseph McCafferty link=topic=4400.msg70382#msg70382
When we judge other peoples judgements, we are being subjective. When we judge between good and evil, we are being subjective. But there is an objective behind our asking is something right or wrong, good or evil, to be or not to be? And that is, "Will this sustain me and what I want to do?"

I go on climate skeptics websites and read their thoughts and opinions and ask myself, "Why are people like this?" How can they just ignore all the evidence? Why are they being so aggressive to climate scientists? It's because they have stuff in their life that they want to sustain - like driving to a supermarket - or working in an oil refinery, because doing those things sustain them. So they accuse the climate scientists of being evil, or activists of trying to bring about a socialist world order, or any other accusation they can pull out of their ass
.

No argument there. Willful ignorance is popular these days.

Quote
That's just one example. Ask yourself what is good or evil in your own opinion? Everything evil is what is not going to sustain you. It could be anything detrimental to your life and health, it could also be anything that goes against what gives your life meaning or your beliefs.

To do or not to do? Some people commit suicide - some people commit murder. The objective is sustainability. A serial killer is trying to sustain what drives him. A FOREX trader is trying to sustain what drives him. A sociopath is trying to sustain what drives him. Inhofe is trying to sustain what he's trying to sustain. Good is what endures, but we can see there is no durability in the ways of psychotics. So many civilizations have fallen, because they rose by psychosis
.

And that is another example of an objective moral judgment - selfish = bad. I don't agree that evil = what does not sustain me or my beliefs. My belief in God does not necessarily make me less prone to selfish behavior. I am capable of evil and do commit evil on a regular basis.

But that forces me to wonder, WHY am I so sure that my selfish behaviors are objectively wrong, instead of a product of my evolutionary, social and cultural "programming", and therefore something I shouldn't be too worried about. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that there exists a transcendent being who sets the standard (or IS the standard by nature of his being), and my choices are judged against that standard.

I don't believe that what allows us to "endure" is the measure of what is good and what is evil, although it is generally true that evil behavior is long-term destructive to us and our environments.


Quote
We are all asking, will this sustain me? We just differ in what we want to sustain, and how long for. It's why there is any disagreement at all.

Perhaps, but the issue is HOW we evaluate one person or group's opinion of what they want to sustain and for how long against another person or group's. If there is no way to objectively decide which opinion is superior, then all ethical judgments against climate deniers, murderers or anyone else are arbitrary.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14901
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #106 on: March 16, 2015, 08:24:07 pm »
This is a song that has meaning. It is sung with meaning, by the woman who wro,te it. Do you know what the meaning is?

The clouds never expect it
When it rains,
But the sea changes colors,
But the sea
Does not change

She uses metaphors to tell a story, but do you know what the story is about?
Thanks for bringing this up... I really liked this song and could hear it was sung with meaning, but I had no idea what the story was, until I looked it up on Wikipedia just now.  And, I find myself inspired by the mondegreen "one-winged dove".

Interesting page for the song on wikipedia. I never knew there was a word called mondegreen and I didn't know 'edge of seventeen' was an example of one. I took it as being literal-figurative, meaning seventeen going on eighteen - at least that's what it meant to me.

It's funny because a song is someone projecting their 'objective' meaning. All the people listening to it, give it 'subjective' meaning from their own objectivity. You rarely think what a song means, it just paints pictures - until that is the song starts meaning something to you. It's unexplained on the wikipedia page, how Tom Petty's first wife is involved in the song, but from the meaning I project onto the lyrics and story and emotion, Tom's wife's involvement is what the song's about.

The story is told from the POV of a woman, talking to her friend about how her relationship broke up. She then tells how when she first met him at seventeen, he gave her life meaning. But as time goes by, she is watching her man fall in love with another woman. That other woman is a singer - she is both the white winged dove, and the nightbird. From the POV of the man, she is the dove singing "Ooh ooh ooh!", but from the POV of the woman, she is a nightbird - an owl - singing "Come away, come away." By being a singer, and singing a song to the man and for the man, she is giving her love for him more 'meaning'. Singing I love/want you. has more meaning than saying it, and that's how the woman telling the story lost the man.

I can empathise with Tom Petty's first wife, because the song is sung from her point of view - it is how I lost the love of my own life. The man is Tom Petty "seemed broken hearted" (Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers) The white-winged dove/nightbird is either Stevie Nicks or another singer, who sings for Tom and gives his life more meaning. This happened to me, and although I've liked this song for years, I only liked it for the term 'edge of seventeen' which is how old my love was when I first met her. We broke up 13 years ago now. I only know the song because it is one of the tracks that play on Liberty Rock Radio in the video game Grand Theft Auto IV - which came out in 2008. The meaning of the song only became clear to me when I read the wiki page about Tom's wife. I get Stevie's objective meaning from that, and even then, because the wiki page doesn't go into detail, I have to apply subjective meaning to it. What it meant to me, only dawned on me about an hour before I posted the video, so in the past 24 hours, I have learned something about myself and the break-up of my relationship with Barbara.



I bought GTA4 in 2008 - it changed my life. It got me hooked up to the internet again, because I wanted to choose that "muliplayer" option on the "player character's" phone (an in-game options menu) I got hooked on video games at that point - I gave away my garden to play them and give them my time. I nearly always had a game console, but it was the most casual pastime. Multiplayer and the world of the internet changed that. I liked relating to people both in-game, and on internet forums - there is something to be said for running around a virtual world where other people like you have agency. It can give your life meaning - and the way game developers make games, they can fill those virtual worlds with more meaningful activities. Caring about this and discussing this is all part of the love of gaming. The GTA community is massive and passionate, because the way Rockstar Games build worlds, fills them full of humour, activity and physics. You can switch radios on and off or change the channel - the term used is "living, breathing world." This is Rockstar's goal as artists and commercial game manufacturers.

So I'm playing this game and Edge of Seventeen is a part of it. It's just background music. First you like the sounds - music is so great - the rhythms and melodies. I can't describe music in words. Then you like the songs - the pictures they paint in your mind, sung in full voice. Then you may find it means something to you, so you give it some more attention. Then you personalise it. Have you ever noticed that when you break up with someone, all the songs seem to be about you?

In 2002 I broke up with the love of my life. We were together nine years and loved each other very dearly. I met her when I lived in the Cayman Islands. She was seventeen, four weeks from her eighteenth birthday, I was twenty-four. We fell in love, but she was from Germany and only on the island to vacation with her Godparents. I was from the UK and living under Caymanian gainful occupation license. Cut a long story short, I moved to Germany and lived there for three years - then we broke up. I came home to England, but Barbara said she made a mistake and came over to England. We lived together in England six years, but by 2002 I was having a serious problem with alcohol.

She would say to me, "Come to bed Joseph, I MEAN it!" but I would wait until she had gone to bed to open up my stash of booze that I had hidden away. She knew all about this and confronted me many times - even making me go to AA - which ended in abject failure. In this final period, she was at teacher training college, doing a post-grad so she could become a German language teacher in the UK.

Unbeknownst to me, she was going out with her friends some evenings (it's all part of drifting apart) and visiting a bar where a band played. I found this out later, that the lead singer dedicated songs to her and sung them for her. Then she came and dropped the bomb that she wanted to break up with me. I asked her why and she said it was the alcohol. Then she told me she was going to Sweden very soon; on her own to visit her Godfather without me. This was a big thing. When she came back, I had tried to clean my act up and begged her to stay. But she told me she was going to visit a friend in Oxford, and when she came back she was going to Germany and to Spain with her sister.

So she was in Spain and I went on the computer and she got an e-mail which I opened - it was from a guy. I went through her e-mails and she had hidden his e-mails among her friends and family's. I pieced together that she had not been to Oxford, but had gone to France to be with this singer.

I expolded, and changed the locks so she couldn't come back. I took all her stuff to my mothers and when she got back to the UK, it was the start of her first term as a teacher. She had to stay at one a friend's house, and eventually she needed to get her stuff from my mother's. I agreed to help and we spent a couple of days together. When she had got all her stuff into her new home, she helped me write a letter to her mother apologising for what I had done, because her mother meant a lot to me. Then I made a pass at Barbara which she rebuffed.

The next day I called Barbara and apologised and said it would be better if we didn't see each other again - she said OK. A minute after I put the phone down it rang. She was crying and said, "Come here. I want to see you." I asked why and she said, "I don't want to lose you." I ran as fast as I could to see her - I just felt the same way. We then had an affair which broke down because of my emotional state and the fact that drugs had joined the alcohol in the list of my addictions.

Over the next two years I lost everything that meant something to me. I was a first class ecology student at MMU, on my way to becoming a biology teacher - that blew up. I had a part time job as a domestic at the Manchester Royal Infirmary - where I meant something to people - that blew up. I lost my cat - I left it out in the hall drunk one night and she disappeared. Everything just collapsed and all that was left was the alcohol and drugs.

In May 2004 I didn't drink for one night, and one night became two. Then a week passed and by now I was back doing the job I was doing on the Cayman Islands when I met her. I said to a colleague, "Not drank for a week!" He said it's good to have a break now and again isn't it? "Yeah."

11 years later and I've cleared myself of drink and drugs, and I'm listening to that song and talking on the Doomstead Diner about existence and God (who I saw years before Barbara by the way) and the meaning comes to me. Not Stevie Nicks' objective meaning but my own. The song itself is about meaning - and how saying I love you through song, has more meaning than just saying I love you through language.

Stevie Nicks is singing the song through the eyes of Tom Petty's wife, she herself is the night bird. Stevie Nicks is saying that the POV of Tom Petty's wife is more song-worthy than the POV of herself (or other singer)

[embed=1056,594]<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ojGKSgug_FM?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]

This is what makes Humanity new in the Universe - meaning. The question is not, "What is the meaning of life?" because Humanity = life plus  meaning. My cat has a conscious mind. Conscious minds have no meaning. Only humans, in the known universe, have meaning. Life has no meaning. From life only humanity has meaning. Meaning is everywhere and it is a ubiquitous part of human life. The most intelligent animals can do tricks and are capable of emotions, but they cannot do the meaning thing.

There is no life on the internet - only meaning. You ask the question, "What does something mean?" Look around the room or place you are in right now. It is a place in this universe that holds some of your meaning. Everything in the room has meaning, because you have meaning and project it onto it. You could be looking at somebody elses meaning, reflecting back at you. It is what you are doing as you read my words. What is reflecting back is your meaning of them.

Why are we here in the Diner? It is a quest for meaning. I'm going to project my meaning as best I can, but remember - meaning is only 100,000 years old - give or take a few millennia. It was born in a human mind and into a universe where powerful forces already existed. Life, chemistry, physics, free will. Those things and many others that came into existence, added stature to the thing that was there in the beginning - that thing is The Great Spirit.

My question to The Great Spirit - God - is are we just here to provide You with meaning, and when we go You keep the meaning? Or do we take meaning with us and You have no further use for it?

JM,
Thank you for sharing all the challenging and difficult experiences you went through. It takes courage to be honest. I salute you for that honesty.  :emthup:  :icon_sunny:

Quote
My question to The Great Spirit - God - is are we just here to provide You with meaning, and when we go You keep the meaning? Or do we take meaning with us and You have no further use for it?

I don't have the mental horsepower to answer for God. All I know from my experience is that we exist and there is a right way, a wrong way and (many ways in between) for us to behave as human beings. What is "right" and what is "wrong" is not, in my opinion, subjective. In fact, the Being that created us wrote the owner's manual into our spirit.

The "owner's manual", if followed perfectly, will enable us to achieve our highest potential. Aristotle, in so many words, said that happiness, while we all would love to have it 24/7, cannot be sought because happiness is the byproduct of a life of virtue.

Many will split relativistic hairs on what "virtue" is and what "vice" is.  ::) 

I think that ALL human beings, mentally retarded or Amygdala stunted psychopaths excluded, understand instinctively what "virtue" is and what "vice" is. IOW, if you can't handle it, don't dish it out. If you see someone in need, help them if you can. Protest against any and all physically and mentally harmful actions by your fellow humans against themselves, each other and other life forms (beyond honest, not contrived, self defense). 

We are designed to support the tribe, not to seek to have the tribe rotate around our wants. Service without self interest is counterintuitive to a degree, but it is the only modus vivendi that provides the "meaning" to a life that gives happiness as a byproduct.

People who are that way live more fulfilled (i.e. happy) lives.   

I believe God needs nothing from us. We are the ones that need to follow the owner's manual instructions written in our spirit. I believe God is pleased by that because God is good.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14901
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #107 on: March 17, 2015, 01:11:24 am »
AG, your posts on dog DEvolution have been extremely informative 

I was hoping that Palloy would follow up on HIS suggestion and actually debate this with you, but that's not looking very likely now...

It's also fascinating how animals such as dogs were pre-designed to interact uniquely with humans, in ways they don't interact with ANY other animal, including other dogs. They possessed these qualities BEFORE any humans existed, so evolutionists have absolutely NO explanation for why they developed in the first place. I have not heard any evolutionist even attempt to explain how these uniquely human-interactive qualities developed in MANY birds and mammals. To believe this all happened due to sheer coincidence is the height of magical thinking.

Thank you, sir. Evolutionists have their hands full, that's for sure.  Even bringing up three way symbiotic mechanisms like the two types of ants in one colony, one for leaf harvesting, and one for tending the leaves, with a fungus that metabolizes the leaves to make a nutrient for the ants, gives them a headache.Ant-plants and fungi: a new three way symbiosis.  Ants, plants and fungi have rather different 'evolution', to put it mildly.  ;)

The name given to this activity (co-evolution) is absolutely hilarious, as well as being another excellent example of pseudo scientific magical thinking.

But for now, I'm about to get VERY controversial. ;D I have dug up some fascinating commentary that, although covering some of the ground that has been covered here already, adds some clarity and evidence, that I had not researched much before  :-[, that is rather eye opening, to put it mildly.  ;D

I will post segments that cover, more or less, one issue, so it can be kept relatively simple to debate. Yeah, I know - mission impossible! But we can have a lot of fun! 

Quote
 
Evolution
Most people assume that a dialectic exists between the paradigm of evolution and deep time on one side, and religion on the other.  That is basically wrong.  The dialectic is between evolution(ism) and other branches of science, particularly mathematics and probability theory.  In the mid 1960s when computers capable of analyzing the math and probabilities involved in evolution became available a series of symposia were held at the Wistar * center at the University of Pennsylvania and a non-meeting of the minds ensued involving evolutionary biologists on one side and mathematicians on the other , and both sides left with the feeling that the other was in some sort of denial.

The biggest group of people who do not believe in evolution is probably mathematicians, and not Christians. 

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution08/evolution_main.html

*WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION

With the dawn of large main-frame computers came the data needed to disprove evolution. Wistar buried evolutionary theory. Yet the evolutionists won't admit it.

Evolutionary theory is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Nothing else can explain the evidence found in nature. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
* CONTENTS: Wistar Destroys Evolution

The Philadelphia Meeting: Evolution destroyed by mathematical facts at Wistar
The Alpbach Meeting: More evidence against evolution
The New York Meeting: The situation became even worse
The Cambridge Meeting: The finishing touch

This material is excerpted from the book, HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists. You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page,  History of Evolutionary Theory.

THE PHILADELPHIA MEETING


It was not until the 1960s that the neo-Darwinists really began fighting among themselves in earnest. At Wistar, evolutionary theory was destroyed by mathematical facts.

"The ascription of all changes in form to chance has long caused raised eyebrows. Let us not dally with the doubts of nineteenth-century critics, however; for the issue subsided. But it raised its ugly head again in a fairly dramatic form in 1967, when a handful of mathematicians and biologists were chattering over a picnic lunch organized by the physicist, Victor Weisskopf, who is a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and one of the original Los Alamos atomic bomb group, at his house in Geneva. `A rather weird discussion' took place.   

The subject was evolution by natural selection.
The mathematicians were stunned by the optimism of the evolutionists about what could be achieved by chance. So wide was the rift that they decided to organize a conference, which was called Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution.

The conference was chaired by Sir Peter Medawar, whose work on graft rejection won him a Noble prize and who, at the time, was director of the Medical Research Council's laboratories in North London. Not, you will understand, the kind of man to speak wildly or without careful thought. In opening the meeting, he said: `The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory. This dissatisfaction has been expressed from several quarters."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 4.

A milestone meeting
was the Wistar Institute Symposium held in Philadelphia in April 1966. The chairman, *Sir Peter Medawar, made the following opening remark:

"The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them."— *Peter Medawar, remarks by the chairman, *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.

A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in several areas, and showed that its "fitness" and "adaptation" theories were tautologous—little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of the biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how thoroughly defunct evolution really is.

For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain—and that would require purposive planning by an Intelligence.

* C.H. Waddington, a prominent British evolutionist, scathingly attacked neo-Darwinism, maintaining that all it proved was that plants and animals could have offspring!  :o  ;D

The 1966 Wistar convention was the result of a meeting of mathematicians and biologists the year before in Switzerland. Mathematical doubts about Darwinian theory had been raised; and, at the end of several hours of heated discussion, it was agreed that a meeting be held the next year to more fully air the problems. *Dr. Martin Kaplan then set to work to lay plans for the 1966 Wistar Institute.

It was the development of tremendously powerful digital computers that sparked the controversy. At last mathematicians were able to work out the probability of evolution ever having occurred. They discovered that, mathematically, life would neither have begun nor evolved by random action.

For four days the Wistar convention continued, during which a key lecture was delivered by *M.P. Schutzenberger, a computer scientist, who explained that computers are large enough now to totally work out the mathematical probabilities of evolutionary theory—and they demonstrate that it is really fiction.

*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).

Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!

*George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also,—and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die.

For more information on the 1966 Wistar Institute, we refer you to the book quoted above, by * Moorehead and *Kaplan. For much more on mathematical problems confronting evolutionary theory. (See DNA and Cells).

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm

 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14901
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #108 on: March 22, 2015, 08:51:52 pm »
Creation is faith; evolution is science’? 


by Florin Mocanu

Published: 22 March 2015 (GMT+10)

It’s very likely you have heard this phrase before. And it’s actually true—but only half of it. That is, “Creation is faith” is true. As Christians we affirm that creation is indeed a matter of faith. We accept by faith that God created this world; and we can’t do otherwise. None of us was there when this world was created, so we only have God’s word for it; or rather, His Word.

The Bible does not shrink from teaching that belief in creation is indeed a matter of faith. Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is, “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” And what’s the very first thing on the list that needs to be accepted by faith (v. 3)? “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” There we have it! As Christians, we accept that we believe in creation—it’s a faith statement. Yes, there are many scientific facts that assure us that our faith accords with reality—but our faith rests ultimately on the Word of God.

Yes, there are many scientific facts that assure us that our faith accords with reality—but our faith rests ultimately on the Word of God.

However, I cannot say that the second part is true as well: “… evolution is science”. Yes, this is what evolutionists want us to believe; yes, this is what they teach our children in schools; yes, this is what they present as truth in movies and TV programs. And yet this part of the statement is simply not true.

And why would I say such a thing? Do I want to commit academic suicide?    ;D On the contrary, my academic training made this abundantly clear to me.     ;D

While taking a year-two cell biology course, I became acutely aware of the amount of faith that is necessary to accept evolution. For example, phrases like, “it just happened that …” did not sound very convincing as a scientific explanation of how the DNA code arose. I had heard of evolution being supported by ‘just so’ stories, but I still found it shocking to be served one in my cell biology course.  :o

The evolutionists’ faith

Then Hebrews 11 came to mind.  ;DI realized that this text applies not just to belief in creation, but also to the ‘Big Bang’ and evolution hypotheses. How would Hebrews 11 sound in the ‘evolutionists’ standard version’ ?

Quote
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. This is what the ancients were commended for.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed in a Big Bang,
so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible; by faith we realize that the universe made itself from nothing.

By faith we know that stars were formed out of gas clouds.
By faith we acknowledge that heavy elements were formed from stars that exploded; we proudly affirm that we are all ‘star dust’, ‘sons of stars’.

By faith we claim that first life appeared in a ‘chemical soup’
—although there is no geological evidence that this soup ever existed.

By faith we accept that the genetic code appeared through a mindless and unguided process of chemical activity, that the coded information got corrupted by many copying errors, and that this led to the production of new and better adapted types of organisms.

And without faith and imagination it is impossible to understand evolution, because anyone who studies evolution must believe that it really happened, since no real scientist doubts it.

By faith we affirm that the ‘present is the key to the past’. We don’t really know what the past was like, but this faith helps us ignore all the evidence for Noah and the Flood—such a preposterous idea would mean that God has judged the world and He may do it again.

By faith we boldly affirm that death is the hero of the plot and that less adapted organisms have to be sacrificed on the altar of progress. The less fit need to die in order to make space for the more fit—there’s no mercy and no care for the weak. Struggle for existence and death have always been around—this is how it was, how it should be, and how it will always be.

By faith we accept that we are nothing but animals.
It’s only random mutations and natural selection that brought us here some 100,000 years ago and made us able to study our evolutionary past. We are here for a while, we suffer, and then we die.

And what more shall I say? I do not need to say many words about those who have already died: they are dead and buried and the chemicals that once formed their bodies have already entered nature’s cycle. As for their deeds—whether they did right or wrong, whether they brought justice or injustice, whether they were brave or cowards, whether they raped women or were faithful husbands, whether they properly raised their children or rather abused them, whether they helped others or tortured them, whether they invented new drugs to heal people or rather committed genocide—these are all irrelevant since there is no resurrection of the dead and no final judgement.

These are all dead, and very soon we will be too. There is no meaning in universe, and no purpose in life.

Eyewitness testimony versus a just so story

Belief in creation is based on faith indeed—and so is belief in evolution.

The two faiths, though, were not born equal: one is based on a continuously changing system of inferences, ‘educated guesses’, and ‘just so’ stories (which sometimes even defy logic and known scientific principles 1); the other is based on a historical account inspired by the Creator who, needless to say, was there when these things happened. And this account makes sense of the world we live in and which we all experience.

http://creation.com/creation-faith-evolution-science



Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14901
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #109 on: March 23, 2015, 06:38:06 pm »
For those here that have issues defining objectivity (or accepting that objectivity exists at all!), duality, a personal God and so on, I think this all goes to the ENORMOUS disagreement on what HUMAN PERCEPTION validates as true or not true in this forum.

I see demarcation arguments left and right used for the SOLE PURPOSE of invalidating hard empirical evidence of what IS and what AIN'T.

But let us say, for the sake of non-argument, that everything our brain, consciousness, mind, soul (or whatever you want to call the "illusion" of cognition  :icon_mrgreen:) is kidding itself 24/7.

If that is so, everything we perceive is suspect, along with any and all concepts (because concepts are a function of our "illusory" cognition  ;)) about right and wrong.

This "illusion" we all have is an ORDERED illusion. That ORDER is necessary to CREATE THE ILLUSION of cause and effect. Cause and effect, from the observed laws of nature to the metaphysical claims of right and wrong, as a duality world view function of obedience or disobedience to a Supreme SEPARATE Being OR as a Monist function of harmony within the ONENESS of all (see ethical behavior of Monists).

But that STILL leaves us with the DEMARCATION argument that CAUSE AND EFFECT ORDER (laws of thermodynamics and measurable phenomenon) are THEMSELVES and illusion.

That argument is CIRCULAR. It's a TAUTOLOGY. Therefore it CANNOT "fly" as a valid demarcation argument.

We NEED some phenomenon that we ALL CAN AGREE is objectively observable and scientifically measurable. Monists DO NOT WANT TO GO THERE. They say that our minds are creating that order so anything measured is no proof of DUALITY.

I posted all the evidence of incredibly complex cell machines as a direct refutation of the monist view that our minds shape the order of our reality. Nobody said jack **** about that. The scientists, mostly atheists, were EXPECTING (see order created by mind over matter "creates perception" according to the monist world view) to see SIMPLE MECHANISMS that could have evolved randomly in 14 billion years! They SAW what they DID NOT WANT TO SEE!

But let us assume that they were, as any monist worth his salt will claim  :icon_mrgreen:, really, deep down, expecting complexity that contradicted all their atheistic views. That's certainly possible but it sounds rather improbable if our mind, as monists claim, works 24/7 to SHAPE reality.

But let us say that cell complexity is just part of a random universe and we just haven't figured out the evolutionary mechanism, like Palloy claims.

Even THAT claim will be challenged by monists because everybody is at a different "level" of "oneness" so no universal this or that will ever be discovered (MORE demarcation fun and games).

RE agree that the mind of God created the ORDER in the universe. That order is measurable and is evidence of a creator.

I will go further. That ORDER is NOT shaped by our expectations and perceptions, as Monists claim. When Mankind ONLY had his senses to measure cause and effect, the words of Aristotle ("Man is the measure of all things") might have worked for the Monist view of a universe shaped by ONE mind that we are, according to our level of spiritual advancement, capable of tuning into and perceiving the whole enchilada with (see meditation).

BUT, mankind invented INSTRUMENTS. The LATEST measurements by those extremely sophisticated instruments that measure quantum frequencies within chains of atoms have found evidence TOTALLY at odds with the scientific view of a random universe. And the ORDER at the sub atomic level is BEYOND the power of ANY human mind, regardless of what the monists will claim.

What has been found is that the Fibonacci ration of 1.618 ORDERS quantum particles. That was discovered in 2010. The scientists DID NOT WANT TO DISCOVER THAT. It blows away any and all concepts of randomness in this universe. It is the FINGERPRINT of a God CONSTANTLY creating 24/7.

Monists will say, ho hum. That's cool. You are entitled to your illusions. But phi down to the quantum level is NO ILLUSION. Spare me the demarcation argument. This is OBJECTIVE evidence of a creator separate from Homo SAPS. Quantum particle ENTER and EXIT our universe CONTINUALLY. Some AGENCY is ORDERING them in the phi 1.618 ratio EX NIHILO. That AGENCY is God CREATING MATTER AND ENERGY 24/7.   



http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,4447.msg70987.html#msg70987
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14901
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #110 on: April 21, 2015, 10:21:27 pm »
« Last Edit: August 03, 2015, 11:49:13 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14901
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #111 on: April 26, 2015, 09:41:11 pm »
« Last Edit: August 03, 2015, 11:47:06 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14901
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #112 on: June 21, 2015, 07:32:27 pm »
https://youtu.be/G-4F9e7tr5U
Panspermia is a dodge because it refuses to address WHO created the Panspermists!  ;D
« Last Edit: August 03, 2015, 11:44:53 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14901
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #113 on: June 28, 2015, 10:04:08 pm »
https://youtu.be/VHeSaUq-Hl8

Dr. David Berlinski explains why the Theory of Evolution is based on Conjecture, NOT reproducible, empirical scientific evidence.


Who is Dr. David Berlinski? Find out HERE:  ;D

https://youtu.be/0XIDykeZplU

Dr. David Berlinski: The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

Intro is a bit long with too many corny jokes.  ;) Jump to 8:40 to go straight to this VERY interesting presentation.  8)



« Last Edit: August 03, 2015, 11:43:39 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14901
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #114 on: June 29, 2015, 06:52:23 pm »


We NEED some phenomenon that we ALL CAN AGREE is objectively observable and scientifically measurable.

I have posted here all the evidence of incredibly complex cell machines as a direct refutation of evolution according to atheist Darwin worshippers. Nobody said jack **** about that. The scientists, mostly atheists, were EXPECTING  to see SIMPLE MECHANISMS that could have evolved randomly in 14 billion years! They SAW what they DID NOT WANT TO SEE!

But let us say that cell complexity is just part of a random universe and we just haven't figured out the evolutionary mechanism, like Palloy claims.

RE agrees that the mind of God created the ORDER in the universe. That order is measurable and is evidence of a creator.

Atheists poo poo that and claim it's all the product of random space time farts and fluctuations.  ;D

These same atheists admit, and indeed celebrate, the fact that mankind invented INSTRUMENTS. The LATEST measurements by those extremely sophisticated instruments that measure quantum frequencies within chains of atoms have found evidence TOTALLY at odds with the scientific view of a random universe.

What has been found is that the Fibonacci ration of 1.618 ORDERS quantum particles. That was discovered in 2010. The scientists DID NOT WANT TO DISCOVER THAT. It blows away any and all concepts of randomness in this universe. It is the FINGERPRINT of a God CONSTANTLY creating 24/7.

This is OBJECTIVE evidence of a creator separate from Homo SAPS. Quantum particles ENTER and EXIT our universe CONTINUALLY. Some AGENCY is ORDERING them in the phi 1.618 ratio EX NIHILO. That AGENCY is God CREATING MATTER AND ENERGY 24/7.   





Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14901
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #115 on: July 05, 2015, 02:55:11 pm »
Facts versus the LENSE though which you view the facts
https://youtu.be/AwEev_bnhGk

Quote
CMI's Dr Robert Carter is interviewed by Jim Cantelon of 100 Huntley Street. Dr Carter's PhD is in Marine Biology. He currently works as a scientist, researcher, writer and speaker for CMI-US. See creation.com for thousands of articles that show how the latest scientific discoveries support creation.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2015, 07:19:52 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14901
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #116 on: July 20, 2015, 07:18:14 pm »
Quote
... the theory of natural selection was first extensively developed not by Charles Darwin, but by the Christian creationist Edward Blyth. In 1835 (many years before Darwin’s Origin book) Blyth stated, “The same law (natural selection)*, therefore, which was intended by Providence (God)* to keep up the typical qualities of a species, can be easily converted by man into a means of raising different varieties (artificial selection)* … ”.    :o  ;D


The Religious Nature of Evolution Theory and its Attack on Christianity


http://creation.com/evolution-religious



Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14901
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #117 on: August 03, 2015, 11:03:17 pm »
https://youtu.be/pa2_1Xb5A7M
The holocaust BEFORE the holocaust.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14901
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #118 on: August 07, 2015, 09:33:15 pm »
Quote
New study claims significant oxygen 3.5 billion years ago

A recent report reinforces the notion that the atmosphere contained oxygen well before the GOE, in fact about one billion years before, some 3.46 Ga ago within the evolutionary/uniformitarian timescale.9 Primary hematite, directly deposited and not a result of subsequent events, was found in iron rich sedimentary rocks in northwest Australia dated at 3.46 Ga. Such hematite can form in two ways. In an oxygen-less atmosphere, ultraviolet light reaching the earth’s surface, strikes iron hydroxide minerals and triggers a reaction that drives the water away forming hematite.

However, hematite can also form by the oxidation of iron without ultraviolet light. This is the type of hematite formation claimed for the hematite/chert sedimentary rocks supposedly formed about 3.5 Ga ago. These sedimentary rocks were sandwiched between two thick volcanic layers (greater than 3 km) that strongly suggest they were formed in deep water, at least 200 m, and possibly up to 1,000 m, deep. This deduction was based on:
1. the lack of erosion surfaces in the rocks,
2. the absence of textures from waves or currents,
3. the lack of features associated with subaerial volcanism,
4. the lack of bubbles in the volcanic rocks suggesting the layers all formed under high water pressure, and
5. the virtual absence of aerosols, detrital minerals, and volcanic ash.

So, if there was oxygen in the seawater to form hematite, there was also oxygen in the atmosphere:


“The implications are profound: if oxygen existed at near-modern levels in such a broad, deep body of water, the atmosphere must have been oxygenated also. Presumably that oxygen was produced by organisms capable of photosynthesis, also pushing back their appearance.”10

Pushing back an oxygen atmosphere by a billion years also pushes back the evolution of photosynthetic bacteria a billion years or more, since evolutionists believe the oxygen had to come from these bacteria.

This result does not leave much time for the supposed evolution of these complex bacteria.


Such rapid evolution of single-celled creatures from chemicals makes evolution ever more astonishing: “Envisioning the steps that led to this complex biochemistry [of photosynthesis] is mind-boggling.”11

Furthermore, the hematite was in the form of single crystals indicating that they were not made by ultraviolet light. The researchers go on to say that geochemical analysis of the hematite crystals suggests that they formed at temperatures greater than 60°C from hydrothermal discharges rich in ferrous iron that spewed into cool, oxygenated waters.

This new evidence seems convincing to many and offers evidence “that the Earth’s atmosphere held significant amounts of oxygen far earlier than previously thought”.10

http://creation.com/did-early-earth-atmosphere-contain-oxygen
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14901
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Darwin
« Reply #119 on: September 06, 2015, 03:21:00 pm »
Convergent Evolution Pseudo-Scientific Speculation IS Wishful Thinking

Description

Quote
We are commonly told that similarities between living things prove that they are related by evolution, but did you know that many similarities found in nature defy evolution?

Take for example the marsupial mouse and the placental mouse. These creatures are remarkably similar, but according to evolutionists they did not inherit this startling similarity from a common ancestor. Instead, we are told, ‘evolution’ achieved the same design in both creatures, independently.
 
They call this ‘convergence’ because evolution has supposedly converged on, or arrived at, a similar looking outcome. But ‘convergence’ is really just a word used to try to explain away similarities that don’t support evolution.

Indeed, convergences are so common in nature that they cause major problems for evolutionists—but they fit nicely with the proposal that the living world is the handiwork of a single divine designer.

The similarities tell us that there is one mind behind it all. He even designed things in a way that thwarts evolutionary story telling.  ;D

http://creation.com/creation-videos

Self Writing Software?  ???    I Don't Think So.


Description
Quote

What is something computers and humans have in common which constantly needs upgrading in computers but not in humans? The answer is software. You might not have realized that you have software but inside the nucleus of each of your cells a program is written in the form of three billion DNA letters.

Intelligent programmers write computer software but what about living things? Evolutionists tell us that the information in the first living cell just appeared by itself, with no intelligent input required. But is that possible? The answer is a resounding no.

Even one of Australia's best known scientists, Paul Davies, conceded that, "There is no know law of physics able to crate information from nothing." And perhaps that's why, in a New Scientist article, he lamented, "How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? Nobody knows."  ;)
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

+-Recent Topics

Wind Power by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 08:31:14 pm

End Times according to the Judeo Christian Bible by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 05:15:13 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 04:51:30 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 04:32:51 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 02:54:22 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 02:51:42 pm

Batteries by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 02:03:09 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
October 18, 2018, 02:00:45 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
October 17, 2018, 09:16:57 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
October 17, 2018, 05:43:54 pm