Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
UM-Bot

Creationism: If it's supernatural it's not science

121 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Loge

George LeMaitre (1894-1966) demonstrated with his theories that religion and science -- or at least physics -- can be compatible.

LeMaitre was born in Belgium, was a monsignor in the Catholic Church. LeMaitre was fascinated by physics and studied Einstein’s famous Theory of Relativity.

Einstein conceived in his genius mind a curved, finite universe, enclosed like an egg.

The tremendous statement of Einstein still comes into our memory. He said: "The infinite tends to a limit.”

LeMaitre deduced that if Einstein's theory was true (and there had been good evidence for it since 1919), it meant the universe must be expanding.

In 1927, the year he got his PhD from MIT, LeMaitre proposed this theory, in which he stated that the expanding universe was the same in all directions -- the same laws applied, and its composition was the same -- but it was not static.

He had no data to prove this, so many scientists ignored it. (Another scientist, Soviet Aleksandr Friedmann, had come to the same conclusion independently, a few years earlier.) Even Einstein was reluctant to endorse this extension of his theory of general relativity.

In 1929 at the Mt. Wilson Observatory in California, Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies were moving away at high speeds. He was, like most people, unaware of LeMaitre's 1927 theory.

But LeMaitre using Hubble's dramatic discovery as evidence for his theory, did not know how to comprehend this, and in searching for causes, he arrived at mistaken conclusions...

user posted image

"If the universe is in a constant expansion (he absurdly explained) it is because it exploded from a centre of a primeval atom in a foregone day.”

It was easy for Lemaitre to imagine the galaxies rushing away as when we watch a movie; thus, if we just run the movie backwards, after a certain time all those galaxies will rush together. LeMaitre put forth the idea that there was once a primordial atom or cosmic egg which had contained all the matter in the universe.

Lemaitre, with his erred calculations, firmly believed that his primeval, original nucleus had an exiguous, small, insignificant diameter, only the distance from the earth to the sun, in other words, 150 million kilometers.

Others took notice and named his theory "big bang."

He pursued the topic for some time, even suggesting that there ought to be some form of background radiation in the universe, left over from the initial explosion of that primordial atom. He became more interested in the philosophical ramifications of his theory, which were many.

Others took up the big bang theory, and for several years there were strong debates between those supporting it and those who favored a "steady state" theory of the universe, in which the universe was eternal and unchanging.

This argument ended when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson found evidence of cosmic background radiation, which according with LeMaitre and other theorists had determined would be the residue of their absurd big bang's explosion many billions of years ago.

Certainly, let us imagine at least for an instant the infinite space proportionally minuscule. Such a primeval nucleus, in accordance with Lemaitre, would have so frightful a density that (because of the very proximity of the atoms) the temperature would rise (as a natural consequence) to hundreds of millions of degrees over zero.

In this inconceivable temperature, in accordance with that theory, the liberated atomic energy would be so great and the cosmic radiation so intense, that everything would end in dislocation. Therefore, the profound explosion would be like the eruption of a terrible and frightful volcano.

LeMaitre's ideas opened more questions, many of which forced physics and astronomy together to ask:

All of this is marvelous, but who placed that cosmic egg there?

What was that primordial atom like?

Why would it explode?

What existed before?

Why did this cosmic explosion have to be performed in a determinate mathematical instant and not before or after?

Where is the foundation for such a theory?

Who would be the eyewitness to these facts which are included in this hypothesis?

We comprehend in depth that the galaxies are moving away from each other. This is already demonstrated, but it does not forcedly signify that all of them had departed from the same, singular nucleus.

Again, big bang theorists are ignoring the statements of Einstein: “Mass transforms itself into energy.” And “Energy transforms itself into mass.”

"Energy equals mass multiplied by the square of the velocity of light.”

These wise postulations demonstrate that the mass of all of the universes is eternal and immutable. Matter disappears here in order to reappear there as in a type of flux and reflux, activity and repose, day and night.

The worlds are born; they grow, get old and finally die. They cease to exist in order to become energy and when this energy crystallizes into mass they then re-emerge, reborn anew.

A zero hour, a common root, does not exist in time counted retrospectively in all of the cosmoses, which in their conjunction seethe and palpitate in the infinite space. We clarify that when we say common root, we concretely refer to the concept of time as zero hour. This does not signify in any way that we deny the zero hour in an absolute way. This zero hour exists, but, particularly for each universe, for every solar system in their pre-cosmic normal state.

In other words, we will state that each solar system of the unalterable infinite has its cosmic days and nights, epochs of activity and repose.

Millions of solar systems exist within this galaxy in which we move and have our Being in and while some of them are found in their zero hour, others are in complete activity. This is also repeated in the human being and in the atom, it is repeated in all that was, is, and will be.

Modern scientists try to explain all of these things, but, only based on the natural laws.

It becomes frightfully ludicrous to want to exclude the intelligent principles of such laws.

Our solar system, which was brought into existence by these agents, is certainly constituted of seven parallel universes.

Therefore, the cosmic intelligence is the electric, vital, personified power, the transcendental unity which embraces all of the cosmic energies, not only in our tridimensional world but as well as in all the parallel universes of the superior and inferior dimensions which are unknown for present physicists.

Any explanation of cosmic mechanics which excludes the Noumenon behind the phenomena, the intelligence behind any Cosmogenesis, would be as absurd as to suppose that a car could appear by spontaneous generation, as a product of chance, without special fabrication, without engineers, without mechanics, etc.

The trajectories of galaxies never indicate that they have their origin or point of departure in such a reduced nucleus as the hypothetical egg of Lemaitre.

As proof of this, we have that the angle of dispersion always varies between 20 and 30 degrees, in other words, that these galaxies could have passed away in an enormous distance from the supposed centre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Me_Again

Hey its Me_Again, here again laugh.gif and Loge you didn't mention me as one of those 10.000 people wink2.gif I have enjoyed reading this thread - especially your replies thumbsup.gif

Now start creating wub.gif with orgasmic pleasures thumbsup.gifcool.gif

*listens to Stone Temple Pilots "Wicked Garden"...

O.K., O.K., back on topic... w00t.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loge
I have enjoyed reading this thread - especially your replies.  thumbsup.gif

O.K., O.K., back on topic...  w00t.gif

Thank you!

Enjoy this Cosmic Teaching from ......................?

user posted image

The Infinite is Quantitative and necessarily Spherical.

The Hubble telescope is capable of detecting about 80 billion galaxies in our Infinite.

Beyond our Infinite, which is perceptible with the most powerful telescopes, there exists another Infinite.

It is written that much further than the Infinite beyond, there is yet another Infinite.

The total number of Firmaments or Infinites is known only by the Eternal-Cosmic-Common-Universal-Abstract-Absolute-Creator.

The supersensible Regions of the Universe and all Universes of Matter or Antimatter glisten within Multiple Cosmic Infinite Spheres.

The varieties of universes from these Multiple Cosmic Infinite Spheres appear and disappear within the bosom of the Eternal-Cosmic-Common-Universal-Abstract-Absolute-Creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shadowsleet
I would like him to place the chemicals elements upon the table of the laboratory in order for a radio or an automobile or simply an organic cell to emerge by chance.

That would be abiogenesis - a process proven to be very possible indeed, whereby inorganic material can (and did during expiriments) turn into organic material. So, what you'd like "them" to do, has actually already bee done tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loge
I would like him to place the chemicals elements upon the table of the laboratory in order for a radio or an automobile or simply an organic cell to emerge by chance.

That would be abiogenesis - a process proven to be very possible indeed, whereby inorganic material can (and did during expiriments) turn into organic material. So, what you'd like "them" to do, has actually already bee done tongue.gif

387115[/snapback]

On a certain occasion, a materialistic atheist, an enemy of the Eternal Living God, had a discussion with a religious man. They were arguing in order to decide upon the following enigma: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

One of them stated: “The egg was first.”

“Oh right,” stated the other, “it was the egg. But who laid the egg?”

The answer: “Well, the chicken.”

Then, the other one replied, “If the chicken was first, where did the chicken come from?”

The answer: “Well, from the egg.”

As you can see, this is a tale that never ends.

Following, the religious man, who was a little impatient, stated: “Could you create an egg the way God has done?” disgust.gif

The materialist answered: “Yes, I can!” devil.gif

“Do it!” exclaimed the religious man.

Thus, the materialist made an egg which was identical to that of a chicken. This was an egg with its yolk, albumen and shell. Noticing this, the religious man stated:

“Wonderful, since you have made an egg, now let us see if it will produce a chicken. Let us place the egg in an incubator in order for the chick to be hatched”.

“Agreed!” stated the materialist.

Thus, they placed the egg within the incubator.

However, the chick never came out... sad.gif

The sage, Mr. Alfonso Herrera, author of Plasmogeny, managed to create a cell. However, it was a dead cell which never had life.

Hybridization is performed on plants. A branch from one plant is implanted into another, to supposedly improve the fruits. Thus, this is what the know-it-alls do, when desiring to improve Nature. wacko.gif

Nevertheless, what they do is an absurdity, because hybridized plants do not carry the same natural living force of the Megalocosmos. Thus, the ingested adulterated fruits come to harm the human body. This is from the energetic point of view.

Nonetheless, materialistic scientists feel satisfied with their experiments. They do not want to understand that each tree captures energy. The tree then transforms and retransmits this energy into its fruits. Therefore, when a tree is altered, the energies of the Megalocosmos are altered also. Thus, the fruit of a hybrid tree is no longer the same because that fruit is the product of an adultery that harms the organisms.

Regardless, materialistic scientists believe that they know when truthfully they indeed do not know.

They do not only ignore, but what is worse, they ignore that they ignore. huh.gif

Artificial inseminations are made with the famous spermatozoon, with the vivifying cells, which are extracted from an organism. devil.gif

Therefore, in this day and age, based on that artificial inception, materialistic scientists think that they are creating life. They do not acknowledge that they are only utilizing what nature has already made. blink.gif

Let us put on the laboratory table the chemical elements which are needed in order to fabricate a spermatozoon and an ovum. Let us tell the scientists to make the ovum and the spermatozoon.

Could they do it? I say that they could. But, would they have life? Could perhaps a living child come out of it? No, a living child can never, ever come out of it because they do not know how to create life. w00t.gif

Therefore, if they are not even capable of creating the seed of a tree, a seed that can germinate, with what proof do they deny the superior or creative intelligences? What is the basis that materialists have in order to deny the creative intelligences? Why do they pronounce themselves against the Eternal One?

Has any materialistic scientist been able to create life? When? w00t.gif

To play with what Nature has already made is something easy, but to create life is different. No scientist can do it...

They divide an amoeba into two, they separate its parts on a laboratory table and they unite it with another piece of micro-organism. Subsequently, they exclaim: Eureka! Eureka! Eureka! We are creating life! Nonetheless, they are not capable of creating an amoeba.thumbdown.gif

Therefore, where is the science of these materialistic gentlemen? When have they demonstrated that they can replace Divinity? disgust.gif

The reality of facts shows us that they not only ignore, but what is worse, they ignore that they ignore.

Facts are what count and until now they cannot demonstrate that they cannot replace Divinity.

The only thing that they do is to deny Divinity because they are dimwitted! bounce.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shadowsleet

Loge, until you learn the difference between rhetoric garbage, and an arguement that has anything like depth and substance to it, you're posts aren't even worth the energy of reading....

Anyway, the answer is obvious. The egg came first. It was laid by something similar to, but not altogether a chicken. Although the differences would have been very slight....one species doesn't magically turn into another, the change is extremely gradual....you probably couldn't tell the difference between any species and its immediete forebearer without tearing up its genes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loge
Loge, until you learn the difference between rhetoric garbage, and an argument that has anything like depth and substance to it, you're posts aren't even worth the energy of reading....

Indeed, I already learned the difference between your garbage and the truth. So, if my statements do not have depth and substance, then, do not waste your time, ignore them! thumbsup.gif

Anyway, the answer is obvious. The egg came first. It was laid by something similar to, but not altogether a chicken. Although the differences would have been very slight....one species doesn't magically turn into another, the change is extremely gradual....you probably couldn't tell the difference between any species and its immediete forebearer without tearing up its genes.

I do not accept your nonsensical natural selection process in which one species turn into another, that natural selection concept is extremely unintelligent, it is a dimwitted hypothesis that I do not even consider! w00t.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shadowsleet
I do not accept your nonsensical natural selection process in which one species turn into another, that natural selection concept is extremely unintelligent, it is a dimwitted hypothesis that I do not even consider!

And why is that exactly?

We know that genetic inheritance is a fact - characteristics are passed on from one generation to the next. We also know that some characteristics WILL make an organism better suited to survive in an environment. Certainly, short term adaptations are far from a myth, they've been seen to occur in animals such as Darwin's finches, where the same creature, traced from a common ancestor with the same characteristics, has developed into many, many varieties depending on their enviromental niche, according to what characteristics helped them survive.

Selective breeding in dogs and cats alone is a fine example of exactly how different animals can become when various genes are expressed. While it's true humans do speed up this process greatly under selective breeding, and many varaties show up that wouldn't exist in nature (given obvious physical defects), it is nevertheless an example of what nature has done.

Why is it that you find evolution so offensive? It's a very logical and straightforward process, that has managed to withstand the test of time, and the analysis of minds far bigger and brighter than you or I. If evolution was as obviously flawed as you claim, then it certainly wouldn't be defended with the same passion that a vast majority of the scientific community invest in arguements such as this one.

There's nothing dogmatic about evolution....scientists belief it because not only has it made sense but...now get this, because it's the funny thing creationists don't do tongue.gif....we verify it. A scientist will actually go and TEST a theory...they'll study it...they'll spend a great teal of time tearing the thing apart to make sure, beyond a doubt, that it is scientifically viable.

You see, that is where you assumed incorrectly....when you said that "fact ignores"...this is ridiculous, fact can't ignore, given that it's fact. Science ignores nothing in the creation of a theory...this would imply some kind of bias of agenda, when science is simply a means of determining the truth. If the evidence led towards creationism, of the existance of god, then we'd currently be hearing "the theory of creationism" in schools, instead of evolution....science bases its conclusion upon the evidence, it doesn't take the creationist route and base the evidence on the conclusion, tossing away anything that doesn't conform.

Evolution has been torn apart in search of any gaping flaws for years, and none, so far, have been evident. I don't know exactly why you seem to have set out to make evolution your personal nemesis, but I assure you, it remains perfectly sound despite your hatred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me_Again

Well it is a choice, choices and change, change and choices...

I find it hard to believe the thought, of there not, being dIVINE CREATION.

So back on topic...Creationism: If it's supernatural it's not scienceic...

Lets look at the word supernatural, its natural and its super. Isn't that exactly (well almost), what science is all about? There is nothing wrong with schools putting this disclaimer in their textbooks - Theories are just that...

A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Note: ``This word is employed by English writers in a very loose and improper sense. It is with them usually convertible into hypothesis, and hypothesis is commonly used as another term for conjecture. The terms theory and theoretical are properly used in opposition to the terms practice and practical. In this sense, they were exclusively employed by the ancients; and in this sense, they are almost exclusively employed by the Continental philosophers.'' --Sir W. Hamilton.

Thank you Sir W.Hamilton, I understand now wub.gifclap.gifuppydown.gifstretch.gif << Me_Again and Sir Hamilton... laugh.gif sitting in a tree... oh Hi Stewey original.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Me Again, thank you for attempting to bring this topic back on track. Hopefully, it will stay there. Now then, back to work...

A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.  An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Me Again, the dictionary doesn't have all those different definitions so that you can pick and choose which one you want. There are specific definitions for specific purposes. Yes, those two are definitions of the word theory, however, when we are talking about theories of science, then we are required to (not optional), use the scientifi definition. This means using the definition which specifically references a scientific theory as an example:

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>

This is not how the creationist campaining for the label are representing it, however. They are trying to equate simple beliefs, principles, and assumptions, with the extremely rigourous methodological process that goes into creating a scientific theory. They are basically using wordplay in order to minimize the implications that the term scientific theory has, which includes the authority and credibility of scientific backing, in order to downplay its importance to science, and thus eliminate the considerable barrier of verifiability that stands in the way of their agenda to teach creationism in public schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loge

user posted image

The cause of the effulgence of the atoms comes from units of energy which are called quanta.

A quantum is the smallest amount or quantity of solar-energy- that exists independently within and without the matter; it is a discrete quantity of electromagnetic solar radiation.

Normally, the quanta travel at the speed of light and in a circular way.

The quanta move themselves within the diamond at the half of their velocity, their velocity progressively decreases within the air, water and earth.

An atom is like a vibrometer that produces waves whose momentum flows in accordance with its own type.

The emotional attachment of disembodied people diminishes the velocity of the quanta within their tetradimensional ex-personality in such a manner that the radiance from the deceased’s ex-personality can become accessible to the retina of a living physical person. Then, the tetradimensional ex-personality of the deceased person remains physically palpable.

It is indubitable that a close relationship exists between the energetic and atomic personality and the quanta which posses their own vibratory frequency. The disembodied persons customarily unconsciously decrease the quantum vibration of their personalities due to their emotional attachment towards this tridimensional world. Thus, this is how they (the phantoms) make themselves palpable and perceptible to our physical senses.

user posted image

The quanta from the superior dimensions are fast; this is why they are not perceived by the physical senses. When they are too slow, they are not perceived either.

The secret of time is hidden within the atom. However, the concept about time is negative. No one could demonstrate the velocity of time. Time cannot be enclosed in a laboratory.

We place the concept of time between one event and another. The proof of this is in the great number of different calendars.

The attitude that we have at a given instant is what decreases the velocity of the quanta. This same quantum phenomenon is what usually occurs at spiritualistic meetings.

We breathe oxygen; however there exist beings who breathe quanta and whose matter is not like our matter - gross and ugly.

The processes of the Cosmos are performed in an eternal now. The rising and setting of the Sun are performed in an eternal instant.

We must move on towards the developing of our own way of thinking. From the energetic point of view, each of us is a mathematical point that allows to serve as a vehicle of specific values, whether they are positive or negative.

Energy is indestructible. I do not believe that the quanta can be destroyed. However, it is possible to manage to transform them.

user posted image

There exist many types of atoms (matter) that do not belong to this tridimensional world and whose solar energetic effulgence vibrates in other dimensions, i.e. our thoughts and emotions belong to other dimensions this is why we do not perceive them with our five senses, but they exist within any person. The sixth sense can perceive the effulgence of the atoms of thoughts and emotions; this is how we can read the mind of people as when we read an open book.

It is better to perceive the effulgence of the atoms (the quanta) in all dimensions than to theorize about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
The only thing that they do is to deny Divinity because they are dimwitted!

The only dimwit around here is you. You ask for organic matter to be created from inorganic matter... its been done... and all you do is ignore it now. This is a thread for those who know what they're talking about, k?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Me_Again

*energized thumbsup.gif :

Hey, I know what I'm talking about - don't I? huh.gif

There is nothing wrong with textbooks, putting this statement in...

Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things

Bananas should also contain disclaimers, something like this...

This banana has been genectically modified laugh.gif

ba·nan·as    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (b-nnz)

adj. Slang

Crazy: “That's the horrible thing when you're bananas nobody can know the awful things that are going on in your head” (Otto Friedrich). “City dwellers... are subjected to so much noise it drives them bananas” (New Yorker).

ROFL rolleyes.gif

Can anyone tell Me Again why this statement shouldn't be in our childrens textbooks whistling2.gif Whats the big deal ph34r.gifw00t.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

The big deal is defining a scientific theory "a hunch"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
ROFL rolleyes.gif

Can anyone tell Me Again why this statement shouldn't be in our childrens textbooks whistling2.gif Whats the big deal ph34r.gif w00t.gif

I'm not completely sure how many different ways I can say the same thing.

This is not how the creationist campaining for the label are representing it, however. They are trying to equate simple beliefs, principles, and assumptions, with the extremely rigourous methodological process that goes into creating a scientific theory. They are basically using wordplay in order to minimize the implications that the term scientific theory has, which includes the authority and credibility of scientific backing, in order to downplay its importance to science, and thus eliminate the considerable barrier of verifiability that stands in the way of their agenda to teach creationism in public schools.

I personally vote No, because I see the disclaimers as an outright attempt by the creationist faction to undermine the credibility that science has through the underhanded and sly use of etiquette. I do not consider it an honest mistake or misunderstanding, or an innocent call for clarification; I consider it a deliberate attack on a system of verification that has, in the few hundred years that it has existed, garnered greater credibility and authority, as well as provided far more answers and progress, than all of subjective thought has accomplished in the millenia in which it was the undisputed ruler.

The fact that it is refered to as a scientific theory means, by sheer definition, that it has provided either the imperical evidence, the logical deductive reasoning, or both, that convinced a board of their peers that this research was done following all the rules of scientific methodology and is both valid and credible and should be considered correct up until a better theory comes along and proves its worth.

Every single theory in the scientific community, including all the theories of evolution, have got to, at an absolute minimum, meet the five pre-requisites of scientific methodology before they can be considered theories. Every single one, without exception. There is no "faith" about it. Creationism, quite simply, does not meet the pre-requisites, and therefore cannot be considered a scientific theory. The only way in which the word can be used in conjunction with it is in a layman's form, and creationist, just as you just did, use this misdirection, this layman label of "Theory of Creation", which means nothing scientifically, as an equivalent of "Theory of Evolution", which implies the strong support of imperical evidence, logical deduction, all five pre-reqs, a review by a board of peers, and complete dissemination amongs the scientific community.

But it cannot be read without reading between the lines. There is absolutely nothing innocent about this disclaimer. It is an outright attack, a character assassination of the credibility of science. The creationists are not simple innocents concerned that there might be some miscommunication, no, they have a stated objective to remove, by whatever means they have, the authority and credibility that science has and which they do not possess. This is not even a secret, nor does it require inference or guesswork. Go to the major creationists websites, and they will state that outright for you.

This disclaimer was very carefully crafted, but not for neutrality. This disclaimer takes the layman meaning of the word "theory": a hunch, and reinforces the unimportance of it by layering on top a strong warning that, should anyone be tempted to think so, it is most definitely not a fact, i.e. something true. It then attempts to sound fair and humble by dropping the "open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.", by extension implying that anyone who does not agree with this disclaimer is guilty of those crimes.

The problem is in the way it is approached. "Theory" has a scientific definition, and a common use definition. What the creationists are proposing is to use the common use definition as the scientific one, and that is bad science (to say nothing of grammar). The reason for multiple definitions in a dictionary is not to provide variety, but to provide precision. If you are using a term in science, then you must use the scientific definition, not the common use definition.

Science is not done by compromise. Science is not done by vote. Science is not done by law. To call a theory, any theory, a "fact" is a demonstration of how easily science can be misunderstood. The definitions used by the layman are so different than the definitions used by scientists that to attempt to mix the two would result in utter and complete confusion for the student. The fear isn't wether evolution will stand up to investigation, but rather that the students will not learn how to investigate scientifically in the first place.

Exactly. Unfortunately, thanks in no small part to creationist propaganda, the common person thinks that science calls theories "facts" and considers everything to be "100% true". Allowing creationists to continue this disinformation by plastering misdirection on textbooks will not help the situation at all.

I have truly done my best to eliminate any gray area as to why this diclaimer should not be allowed on the books. Am I being so vague? Am I not sharing my viewpoint on the matter? I don't really have a problem with others disagreeing with me, as long as they first understand what I am trying to say. Please, if there is any doubt remaining in anyones mind, ask me specifically what it you wish to know, because I can't think of any more ways to put this.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xenojjin

*reads through thread*

w00t . this stuff again .

Loge , quick note , ask any theist who has had a college education in biology and chances are pretty high that they will admit to you that evolution is true . When I was a christian I believed in evolution , and still do . Heck , its not really even a matter of believing in it , its pretty much there .

I suggest you dont fight evolution . Its a losing battle . Instead research it and perhaps look into theistic evolution . ( i believed in theistic evolution for a good 6 years )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loge
*reads through thread*

w00t . this stuff again .

Loge , quick note , ask any theist who has had a college education in biology and chances are pretty high that they will admit to you that evolution is true . When I was a christian I believed in evolution , and still do . Heck , its not really even a matter of believing in it , its pretty much there .

I suggest you dont fight evolution . Its a losing battle . Instead research it and perhaps look into theistic evolution . ( i believed in theistic evolution for a good 6 years )

388160[/snapback]

My friend, I comprehend that Evolution is a law and not a theory; I study evolution from the point of superlative consciousness, however Evolution is just part of a great cosmic wheel; it is just part of the wheel. The other part is called Devolution (the reverse of Evolution).

The wheel of Evolution and Devolution rotates in all the Kingdoms of Nature; they are mechanical laws that Nature uses in order to exist.

With my superlative consciousness I experienced that which people call God. So I know that God is.

Theists believe in God; atheists do not believe in God. Those who have experienced God with their superlative consciousness do not need to believe in God; they know that God is.

God is the Multiple Perfect Cosmic Unity whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loge

What else do the Materialists, the Protists who now belong to the kingdom Protoctista, a new classification in their most modern taxonomic systems, say?

What do they so arrogantly affirm?

What do they suppose about the origin of life and of the human psyche?

They say that the consciousness, the Being, the soul, the Spirit, or simply the psychic principles, are nothing more than the molecular evolution of the protoplasm throughout the centuries. blink.gif

Obviously, the molecular souls of these fanatic Materialists that study Protists or Protoctista will never endure a deep analysis. tongue.gif

Let us remember the soul-cell, the famous gelatinous Bathybius, a name given by Prof. Huxley to a gelatinous substance found in mud dredged from the Atlantic and preserved in alcohol. He supposed that it was free living protoplasm, covering a large part of the ocean bed. However, it is now known that such substance is of chemical, not of organic, origin, so, this famous gelatinous Bathybius some believe to be the substance from which all organic species emerged; but this is indeed just a good subject-matter for Moliere and his caricatures. cat.gif

What lies at the bottom of all of this subject-matter and what is behind all of these mechanist’s and evolutionist’s theories, is the impulse to combat the clergy. devil.gif

They are looking for a system that satisfies the mind and the heart in order to demolish the Hebraic Genesis. It is precisely a reaction against a misunderstanding of the biblical Adam and his famous Eve (who was made out of one of his ribs). disgust.gif

Therefore, this reaction against a misinterpretation of the biblical Adam and Eve is the source for the ignorant theories of Darwin, Hackel and their other accomplices. ph34r.gif

So, it is not right to originate so many hypotheses (that in themselves are deprived of any serious foundation) because of mechanical reactions against misapprehensions. wacko.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me_Again
aquatus1  Yesterday, 03:10 AM Post #115 

QUOTE

I personally vote No, because I see the disclaimers as an outright attempt by the creationist faction to undermine the credibility that science has through the underhanded and sly use of etiquette. I do not consider it an honest mistake or misunderstanding, or an innocent call for clarification; I consider it a deliberate attack on a system of verification that has, in the few hundred years that it has existed, garnered greater credibility and authority, as well as provided far more answers and progress, than all of subjective thought has accomplished in the millenia in which it was the undisputed ruler.

Bear in mind that the wonderful things you learn in your schools are the work of many generations. All this is put in your hands as your inheritance in order that you may receive it, honor it, add to it, and one day faithfully hand it on to your children. - Albert Einstein

See even Einstein said nothing wrong with adding to it, science is evolving - so add to it wink2.gif You know the supernatural part wink2.gifcool.gif . *Thanks previous and current scientists for their hard work original.gif

Please, if there is any doubt remaining in anyones mind, ask me specifically what it you wish to know, because I can't think of any more ways to put this.

How are you so sure that its the creationists involved with this? Don't be so paranoid laugh.gif just kidding - you know Me Again. Thanks aquatus1 and Loge, for your valuable insights. I do however, agree with Loge thumbsup.gif

Note: This is an opinion of Me_Agains' wub.gif

I learn something new everyday w00t.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
See even Einstein said nothing wrong with adding to it, science is evolving - so add to it wink2.gif You know the supernatural part wink2.gif cool.gif . *Thanks previous and current scientists for their hard work original.gif

And when an explanation for an event that is (or once was) thought to be supernatural, such as lighting, or earthquakes, is found, and it conforms to the pre-requisites of scientific methodology, as well as follows all the precepts of research including peer review and dissemination with full disclosure of data, and comes through the verification process as credible science, it is justly added to the cumulative scientific knowledge of the world. At this point, the phenomena ceases to be considered supernatural, and is from that point on considered natural.

So, as you can see, science does indeed consider the supernatural and, if it passes the rigorous standards it imposes, accepts it into itself. It has done it before, and it will do it again. But the theory for whatever supernatural phenomena you are explaining, be it lightning, pestilence, or god, must meet the exact same standards as absolutely every other theory in the scientific community. There are no exceptions. If creationism met the five pre-requisites, then it could be considered as an addition to science, however, it does not, and is therefore relegated to the world of pseudo-science.

How are you so sure that its the creationists involved with this? Don't be so paranoid laugh.gif

It isn't paranoia when they're really out to get you wink2.gif

Seriously, the only people, and I mean absolutely the only people ever, that do this sort of thing are creationists. And only judeo-christian ones at that. There aren't even organized protest from other creationist religions. Heck, if you go to some of the more prominet creationist web pages, they will tell you outright that you have to put scripture over science and evidence, regardless of how well-supported it is. Directly from Answers in Genesis:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loge
How are you so sure that its the creationists involved with this? Don't be so paranoid laugh. laugh.gif

Paranoia: a psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.

Psychotic – Psychosis: any severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted

So, we do not expect that the gentlemen of Materialistic Anthropology will accept that their "reality ' is distorted. blink.gif

Unquestionably, this will be something impossible since they believe that they know everything. Nevertheless, not only do they ignore these things, but worst of all they ignore that they ignore. huh.gif

Materialistic Anthropologists who are partisans of absurdity propose to attack the Biblical Genesis. Thus, with their anticlerical efforts, they have invented those speculations which are abundantly here, there and everywhere. wacko.gif

They do not even want to understand what the word ‘Eden’ signifies. Ed-en signifies Delight or ‘Voluptuousness’ - something that gives great pleasure or enjoyment, its etymology is explained based on a Greek basis. Therefore, Eden signifies voluptuousness.

wub.gif

Eden is sex itself. The whole Biblical Genesis is a work of Sexual Alchemy that literally has nothing to do with history.

Such an Eden (that in a fore time was situated in Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers) much later became the school for Chaldeans and Magis, the Alehim. Such an Eden seems to be related to the famous Adi-Varsha of ancient Lemurians and even to the Garden of Hesperides of the Atlantean continent.

The sin of Adam and Eve is nothing but an alchemical-symbolic reference, written in code by ancient sages, to a sexual misconduct of human beings who existed during the Mesozoic Epoch. devil.gif

Indeed, the true human beings of the Mesozoic Epoch reproduced themselves by means of Kriyashakti; this word signifies willpower and intelligence.idea.gif

So, Eden is sex itself, yet this will never be accepted by the Materialistic Anthropologists; because, if they do, they forcedly have to study the great sexual mysteries of ancient religions from Chaldea, India, Babylon, Mexico and Egypt.

rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.