You believe, that's the point. Two thousand years ago, people couldn't explain lightning, and many people believed that it was an act of God. You have no evidence to support these statements, other than whatever biases you have. This is a statement of faith, and nothing else.
evolution unravled
- Thread starter JesusFreak
- Start date
You believe, that's the point. Two thousand years ago, people couldn't explain lightning, and many people believed that it was an act of God. You have no evidence to support these statements, other than whatever biases you have. This is a statement of faith, and nothing else.
maybe i should have said "i'm open to the possibility" instead of "believe".
i named three pieces of evidence, consciousness, intuition, and the placebo effect.
so is the statement "life arose naturally by natural means".
Last edited:
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Forgive me, as I know how intelligent and educated you are from reading many of your posts, but this type of thinking is only exemplary of perfectly disciplined sheep.
Good lord man, if we had to have a "scientifically proved" road map to get where we desired to go, would we ever leave?
I believe this illustrates properly the integrity of scientific desire. If we base our arguments on need, they are mute. They are mute because the arguments are decisive before we begin.
A man scientifically "needs" a road map because he will be traveling to where some have already been. Thus his journey can be made most safely and efficiently. A man "desires" a road map because of a scientific need to go where no one has yet been.
In this sense, "desire" and "need" are relevant. Which is truly static and which is truly dynamic.
It would seem that to "progress", mankind must exercise liberal doses of applied integral faith and belief. Properly executed, this would seem a logically applied formula for a progressive harmony of discovery.
I don't know exactly where the saying originates, but it illustrates a very pertinent point.
"Faith Without Actions is Dead"
anything that i post is yours, others and whomever can use it to progress better than yesterday
basically, you can call me names... or even call me late for dinner but when you use even a word that is represented, then you honor the knowledge with life.. (forget me)
i am a nobody, but the knowledge is a world changer.
below is what a religious person wrote on a different forum, perhaps it will help the scientific minds to realize what the next step is
I assume this is the NASA quote you're referring to? Regardless, I don't see how this quote is saying that something came from nothing. My interpretation is that it says everything in known existence originated at the Big Bang, i.e. all points in space were located at the singularity. What existed before the singularity, or if there even is such a thing as "before" the singularity, is unknown, and our physics theories aren't properly equipped to describe it.
I have not commented on your intelligence or that of your religious kin. I only comment on the poor state of their scientific education, and yours, based on the arguments that are being made. I mean come on- you wanted to prove that the Earth's magnetic field is always weakening, and thus the Earth must be young, so to prove your point you linked me to a paper on dentistry that you clearly didn't understand in the least. That's just assinine. I used to know nothing about science, and I put in the time and effort to become informed. That's what I'm suggesting you do, and what everyone who wants to debunk evolution and related sciences should do.
Here, this is one of the links from Wikipedia: http://geomag.usgs.gov/intro.php. That's a US government agency which actually studies the Earth's magnetic field in detail.
No, these dates are usually checked by multiple independent methods. The whole point of science is that it's too much of a coincidence for all these different methods of investigation to keep yielding the same results. I ask again, if the universe has only been around for a few thousand years, how can we see galaxies that are so far away, it takes light billions of years to travel across the gap? There are many solid means of measuring the distance from Earth to other stars, planets and galaxies, some of them even date back to the time of Galileo (i.e. triangulation). We have always observed light to travel at a fixed speed in vacuum and that is consistent with known facts about electromagnetism. What do you propose is wrong about these assumptions? Oh and as for the escaping moon, that's not what's happening. Name a source for that because I call BS. The orbit is changing all the time because of many factors, but that change is ridiculously negligible.
I'm a graduate student in physics. That's what it says under my name. I don't throw it around as a badge of authority, I point to authentic sources when they're needed to back up a point. And now how about yourself. What science textbooks have you been reading, by chance? I could put a list of what I've been through, but it consists of at least 100 very difficult texts in math and physics alone, not including the myriad of other books I've used as brief references. I've actually done real experiments and countless hours of lab work over the last several years, and will soon be involved with projects related to the LHC. And I don't even consider myself to be a particularly hard working individual compared to many of my peers in the field.
oooops!
that's an ooops of rendition granting fact to a thesis...
put 2 sail boats on the same starting line, one right in front of you (50 yards away) and the other a mile out.
As both approach the exact same line, going 8 knots;
now i ask, which one 'looks' like it is going faster?
sure ain't a 'speed of light' difference. (that is what happened to galileo)
a blatant lie
there is no vacuum between points of mass, ever!
never has one been created either, as it is IMPOSSIBLE!
that is fact A1 to remember, when representing the speed of light
then to suggest you measure the age of the universe based on this, shares a compounded listing of errors
JeF, you wanted the truth..... the error is on the table!
and what you failed in, is that being a grad student does not mean holding a book and say, this is the 'word of god', just as the religious folk do!
Einstein himself died still working; that's a good idea to remember that shares the current model was still incomplete, as even the glial monster himself was still not satisfied.
So let's set some ground rules; neither book you folk hold is correct as absolute. :bugeye:
Each have value, each are important but neither are perfect, in fact!
now then,........................ how the hell are ya?
I appreciate that you're not a literalist: yet, what is the "process" and what is its evidence? How can it be tested? What about detrimental characters?
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Bishadi, please join in as I am certain that I stand to learn something via the fact.
Geoff
I am not sure the orientation of your questioning. Are you asking how the process of evolution is tested? Also, are you asking about "detrimental characters" occurring within ToE with respect to "intent/design"?
Precisely. How are you going to prove God?
Exactly. Why do they occur? What design has our appendix? Or three toes on a horse? Why should such anachronisms occur at all?
i got the goathead
Since the thread is an evolving progression; the context of performing a living rendition also reveals, the evolution of knowledge.
In which the evolution is from an interrelation of the ‘purpose’ and the environment. Such that if I change an idea of reference it is most likely to be because of the NEW material absorbed allowing a better usage of the existing tools.
The understanding of ‘Life’ is the process to observe. The laws that truly define existence can be found in-between the existing ToE’s.
And just look around the scientific community, we in a big ToE jam. (and it stinks, too)
then change the direction imposed by the 2LoT (h….. plancks constant…. http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html) He set the tone of bias to equilibrium by maintaining entropy as a law, see the publication and his own words.
But in reality life (energy) is progressing in the exact opposite direction.
Think this through; a flat pond; tap the surface. Notice the wave at its most concentrated point, is at the initial impact. The waves are concentrated and roll away from the central point. The waves themselves seem to get smaller over time and appear to dissipate or equilibrate with the surrounding water
But then be aware as it seems the concentration is reducing, the amount of mass being affected in increasing. So the energy is progressing in the venue of how much it is entangling to the event. Likewise, no matter how you slice it, the impact did occur and the energy is still there, even if the lake returns to a flat surface once again; the action still exists and is still continuing. (it was caused, it continues)
SO back to our pond; tap the surface twice….. to many, we see the waves as the life of the pond. When the waves interact, we can see the energy combine and the waves increase both in deeper troughs and wave height/size. The energy associated to increase the total potential and then to compare that with the single impact, you can see the waves of the 2 that combined seem to last longer over time. (good: supports life to continue)
The amount of evidence and experimental data is enormous. (all branches of the sciences can be combined, the QM crash is over)
My goal is to be able to represent the simplicity of ‘the truth’ within words. (the math or last word for absolute verification is done)
This frame was identified a couple decades ago when observing electrical theory with physics and chemistry; they don’t combine but within the 3 there is a framework that reveals itself by observing the ‘state’ as having purpose (biased to continue). The bias is sound in that ‘we exist’ so life ‘is’ and not as defined in the current model as being an after affect of chemical reductions. (like an accident)
The specimen (life) is the energy (light) upon the mass. Hence: ‘light is life.’
Then to observe the progression of life, the ‘correct’ law showed itself:
Life: purposed to continue.
Or my favorite to rattle even the most liberal mind of the sciences….”life abuses entropy!” One day I would like to hear a song with that in it. (in heavy metal, because what makes metal... heavy, the life of it, of course!)
Please do.
Since the thread is an evolving progression; the context of performing a living rendition also reveals, the evolution of knowledge.
In which the evolution is from an interrelation of the ‘purpose’ and the environment. Such that if I change an idea of reference it is most likely to be because of the NEW material absorbed allowing a better usage of the existing tools.
The understanding of ‘Life’ is the process to observe. The laws that truly define existence can be found in-between the existing ToE’s.
And just look around the scientific community, we in a big ToE jam. (and it stinks, too)
to observe the life of mass as the energy upon that mass. To observe that energy as light (em). (there are no electric fields without the magnetic field at perpendicular planes (see right hand rule) hence ‘electromagnetism’ (em)…….. (I can understand that ‘light upon mass,’ is not light propagated/radiation and perhaps why a few have a hard time digesting the frame)
then change the direction imposed by the 2LoT (h….. plancks constant…. http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html) He set the tone of bias to equilibrium by maintaining entropy as a law, see the publication and his own words.
But in reality life (energy) is progressing in the exact opposite direction.
Think this through; a flat pond; tap the surface. Notice the wave at its most concentrated point, is at the initial impact. The waves are concentrated and roll away from the central point. The waves themselves seem to get smaller over time and appear to dissipate or equilibrate with the surrounding water
But then be aware as it seems the concentration is reducing, the amount of mass being affected in increasing. So the energy is progressing in the venue of how much it is entangling to the event. Likewise, no matter how you slice it, the impact did occur and the energy is still there, even if the lake returns to a flat surface once again; the action still exists and is still continuing. (it was caused, it continues)
SO back to our pond; tap the surface twice….. to many, we see the waves as the life of the pond. When the waves interact, we can see the energy combine and the waves increase both in deeper troughs and wave height/size. The energy associated to increase the total potential and then to compare that with the single impact, you can see the waves of the 2 that combined seem to last longer over time. (good: supports life to continue)
look around; that is the beauty of it; with the logic you can examine evidence in everything you see.
see post 258….. notice how two bodies of mass, can do more work combined, than the addition of the 2 maximum amounts added
a paradigm shift……. The whole of the sciences, logic and comprehension of physical laws are affected. There is intent of ‘life’ (energy) versus the reduction.
The amount of evidence and experimental data is enormous. (all branches of the sciences can be combined, the QM crash is over)
My goal is to be able to represent the simplicity of ‘the truth’ within words. (the math or last word for absolute verification is done)
This frame was identified a couple decades ago when observing electrical theory with physics and chemistry; they don’t combine but within the 3 there is a framework that reveals itself by observing the ‘state’ as having purpose (biased to continue). The bias is sound in that ‘we exist’ so life ‘is’ and not as defined in the current model as being an after affect of chemical reductions. (like an accident)
The specimen (life) is the energy (light) upon the mass. Hence: ‘light is life.’
Then to observe the progression of life, the ‘correct’ law showed itself:
Life: purposed to continue.
Or my favorite to rattle even the most liberal mind of the sciences….”life abuses entropy!” One day I would like to hear a song with that in it. (in heavy metal, because what makes metal... heavy, the life of it, of course!)
the trinity: all mass, all energy all time.... the corporeal, the spirit, the tanscendent....... the combining of these into a math line, is the name to know
to begin the understanding, maybe hold a 'cross'....... electromagnetism; electric and magnetic field at perpendicular planes. The orientation is from the source; to hold a unit of light in your had and point it, would be a cross.
(a prochronism)
way ahead of yourself........... first the rules start at atoms and energy, then follow the progression
if the answer is not self evident, then keep looking. That is what science does, progresses/evolves. The key is 'your' intent. (honesty)
because many are complacent to an old accepted frame, and rather than observe the often conflicting truth allow the old 'law' to maintain precedence.
That is what the 2LoT did to the sciences and beliefs did within the faiths: retention of complacent anachronisms!
Oooo-kay. Has anyone does this? What were their findings? How does this relate to God?
All right: what if the answer is evidently that there is no need for a guiding intelligence to explain the process of evolution? You're asking me to dig up your own evidence. I'm taking the position that you cannot prove or disprove God in the context of evolution.
I mean evolutionary anachronisms, such as three toes in horses. Why does this occur occasionally? Should not all organisms be created perfectly for their environments?
That's fine, but you can't just claim "Second Law of Thermodynamics" and throw your hands up in the air. Living beings organize and catabolize their own materials as they go. Within the concept of overall entropy, there is surely ample room for limited organization. The chemical processes of such organization are well-known.
yep...me
how life exists
many define god in many ways, but to look at them collectively then describing the same thing; existence itself. (monkeys put a god on a thrown)
Darwin shared a bunch to understand the basics of evolution. Capping the questions of the complacent regime has been a huge waste of resources, when science is not created to make people happy but to decribe what is true.
No, to answer your own question. there is enough knowledge to answer all of the questions any person could ever think of; the problem is to have enough moxy to do the homework.
not trying to
defining reality takes nothing from God, it helps understand HIM (existence) at work
when you shared why kids are often born with a cleft palate, then i will work on horse toes, deal?
meaning, if the work is to be performed, than some good must come from it, not just to make someone happy. So if you can do something for others/mankind then perhaps i could possible entertain, entertaining you.
created for their environment? what truth is in that?
that is as crazy as believing in some dude on a thrown with a magic wand.
i see a rock in a stream i know it came from somewhere else and was rounded over a long period of time; you would think people could comprehend the same about a platypus evolving.. There is a chain, learning how to define is the chore. Either roll up your sleeves and get dirty or go lay by your dish.
that is what you are doing with the horse toe, since none have answered your questions your hand fly up...
the 2LoT is a joke........ centuries old, before energy was understood
and if you can wake up tomorrow and be more capable than yesterday based on increased knowledge, then you just busted entropy.
if you reproduce (give a cell to combine and make a baby) and that baby lives beyond your physical body, then you just busted entropy; you still live.
the perspective of what life is, is what changes the comprehension to reality
chemistry is a joke..... reductionism is based on the mass being the goal rather than the progression of the energy having intent
for the theologically based, why not just brand you;
most all life is carbon based; chemically speaking 6 electron, 6 protons and 6 neutrons......... take a ride on reading!
you want to follow the ignorance, then wear the mark!
What were your findings? Have they been replicated? Where is this material published? How does it relate - specifically - to God?
Explain.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
I have no idea what you're saying here. Again: what if the answer is evidently that there is no need for a guiding intelligence to explain the process of evolution?
I've done it. Again: what if the answer is evidently that there is no need for a guiding intelligence to explain the process of evolution? Or will you just "refer me back" until I provide the response you want?
It's the same problem. Why does this God create beings that are fundamentally flawed?
Special creation.
You misunderstand. I have done my work. I do not find this evidence for God as an intelligent agent of evolution. Now it is time for your work: illustrate some evidence, some kind of argument for your position.
...I just busted entropy, then. I produced a theory just a little while ago that I'm about to submit to a top-line journal. It may revolutionize everything we think about micro-evolution. The day before I thought of the theory, I was by definition "less capable" than today. Entropy loses! I win!
...? Eh? :bugeye:
...
Okay. I haven't the foggiest what you're on about here. I recommend - strongly - that you "take a ride on writing" something that makes sense and stop with the personal attack nonsense. There isn't the tiniest doubt in the mind of any reader which one of us knows what's going on and which seemingly doesn't. Otherwise I am happy to wear the mark of ignorance as to your theory.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
This in and of itself is a typical scientific misrepresentation (not intentional on your part Geoff, and no degradation meant whatsoever on my part) of the too quickly observed juxtoposition of "God vs.ToE".
Take God out of the observation and replace God with "order"
what is the proof for self awareness?
The proof for self awareness seems to be the exact same as the concept of order.
You seem to be under the impression that "God" is a super human being that sits at a drafting table and designs a perfect world. That is not at all what I mean when I state that I perceive more logic within the notion of "guided evolution" than I do within the ToE.
To believe that all present complexity and order evolved from (what!?...nothing?) is beyond what any man could ever possibly fancy as "faith"
where is your proof for this?
It's not fair to state that the origin of life is "other" than that which constitutes ToE. It sure seems like dodging the bullet to me.