Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[Polymath257]

No. Why would that matter?

Because actual scientists work a LOT harder trying to figure out how things work than you seem to think.

They only 'make things up' when either a previously verified theory points to them or when the data forces them to.

 

[janesix]

My point is that the question itself is nonsense. it asks for something that negates the properties of what it is asking about.

That makes absolutely no sense. You are beating around the bush. Either come up with a real answer or admit you have no idea where the laws of nature came from. It is a simple question.

 

[Skywalker]

If you cannot figure out the difference any better than that its no wonder Ron Wyatt fooled yiu so easily.

Try a little harder?

A crystal itself forms in nature but what it forms from is not self existing.

 

[janesix]

Which are not actual dogs.

Convergent evolution anyone?

My point exactly. They are NOT dogs. They resemble dogs to a high degree. EXPLAIN convergent evolution.

 

[Polymath257]

That makes absolutely no sense. You are beating around the bush. Either come up with a real answer or admit you have no idea where the laws of nature came from. It is a simple question.

I don't think it is a sensible question. Natural laws describe how things form, so they cannot 'come from' anything.

In other words, whenever there has been time, matter, and energy, there have been physical laws.

 

[Polymath257]

My point exactly. They are NOT dogs. They resemble dogs to a high degree. EXPLAIN convergent evolution.

It has been explained. Similar environmental constraints, similar physical constraints, etc. So the environment pushes the general form to an optimum, which means towards a relatively few basic forms.

 

[janesix]

Hmm. I was hoping for Cambrian pottery but ok. "Marsupial dog".

There are and have been lots of examples of what's called parallel evolution. The south American and Australian marsupial sabre tooth.

The ichthyosaur and dolphin. Lots of such.

How does the Thylacine do anything to
show ToE is false?

It shows that there is a model, or ideal, or template. That they didn't evolve randomly through Darwinian evolution

 

[Polymath257]

That makes absolutely no sense. You are beating around the bush. Either come up with a real answer or admit you have no idea where the laws of nature came from. It is a simple question.

You are essentially asking what causes causality. That makes no sense.

 

[janesix]

Because actual scientists work a LOT harder trying to figure out how things work than you seem to think.

They only 'make things up' when either a previously verified theory points to them or when the data forces them to.

Scientists work hard to keep within their box, so they can keep getting grants.

 

[Audie]

A crystal itself forms in nature but what it forms from is not self existing.

Whatever that means.

It grows with nobody directing it.

Waterfalls don't need a designer.

This is real simple, you are trying to make it weird.

 

[janesix]

I don't think it is a sensible question. Natural laws describe how things form, so they cannot 'come from' anything.

In other words, whenever there has been time, matter, and energy, there have been physical laws.

That is because you are not thinking deeply enough.

 

[Polymath257]

That is because you are not thinking deeply enough.

I'm pretty sure I have thought more and deeper about these things than you ever will.

The question 'what causes the laws of causality' is meaningless.

 

[Valjean]

Transitional forms are not fully formed because they are intermediates.

Huh?
All species not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium are evolving. Every step is transitional; every species intermediate.
You are transitional. Each step, each organism, is fully formed.

How would one distinguish a "fully formed" organism from a not-fully-formed one, my intermediate friend?

 

[janesix]

It has been explained. Similar environmental constraints, similar physical constraints, etc. So the environment pushes the general form to an optimum, which means towards a relatively few basic forms.

Not good enough. And it hasn't been proven at all. Where is the proof for that? Sounds like a made up story.

 

[Polymath257]

Scientists work hard to keep within their box, so they can keep getting grants.

Actually, if they can show good data that the box is too small, that can make a career. Or, if they can give good, theoretical justification for a position, that can help them greatly.

The nature of the profession encourages people to think outside the box *as long as it is supported by evidence*.

 

[Valjean]

Canonical numbers are the sets of numbers that are used to create our balanced, harmonic universe. They are embedded into the geometry of the universe. The "surface" numbers, those which are the most obvious, come in two sets that interact. The first, nearly unnoticeable, is the "twos" or doubling, with 12 being the most important. Then there are the "threes", starting with the cubed three, or 27. This number is then doubled in a progression, 27, 54, 108, 216, 432, 864 and beyond. These most obvious numbers are embedded in geometry, the solar system, etc. They are found in the platonic solids (example, the total number of angles in the cube is 2160) and the same number is found in the diameter of the moon(2160 miles). Also in the nautical miles of the Earth's circumference (216, 000) And again in an age of precession of the equinoxes (2160 years). These numbers are found in holy texts, beliefs and rituals, showing the ancients had at least some knowledge of the holy canon.

Then it gets deeper and more complicated, with special numbers like the square roots of 2, 3 and 5, phi, pi, and the trinity of 33-153-273. These numbers begin to show how they relate to life. If you want more, I will go on.

What does all this have to do with canon? The geometry of the universe is physics.

 

[Polymath257]

Not good enough. And it hasn't been proven at all. Where is the proof for that? Sounds like a made up story.

Not at all. For example, to move through water efficiently requires a particular body form. So those animals that live in the water and have to move efficiently will tend to have that body form. We see such in sharks, dolphins, icthyosaurs, etc.

We can predict the forms by the constraints of the environment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like when? (one example is enough, and it would be best if you can show the worst for the Bible)

How do you treat the Bible? The obvious one if you read it at all literally is that there never was a worldwide flood. Or do you believe in a lying god?

 

[Valjean]

I often test my hypotheses. For instance, I thought that other star systems, since they were also created by God, would have some sort of basic geometric relationship with ours.
Turns out I was correct, and there are basic geometric relationships, such as the square root of 2 and the canonical number progression.

Yes, but not because of God. Not because of intentional manipulation. This is a special pleading. No intentionality is needed, just basic physics.

 

[Skywalker]

Whatever that means.

It grows with nobody directing it.

Waterfalls don't need a designer.

This is real simple, yiu are trying to make its weird.

Waterfalls and crystals came form materials that either came from God, or the singularity. Even believers in the big bang doubt that a singularity is what created everything.