Science Proves Nature Was Created

[Guy Threepwood]

Thanks for clarifying. I do and have already agreed to this. Like I said a couple posts ago, the charts are just models that best represent the extensive genealogical evidence that support them. The charts don't prove anything. They are graphics cards. The extensive genealogical evidence does support them. Genetics has proven a far more effective means for taxonomy than matching up things that look alike. But, the fact that things look like in any way reflects their common descent, and/or different populations acquiring a trait on their own due to similar environmental conditions. For intensive purposes, the picture is really all that important as the species and the listed date for each fossil, is accurate and be corroborated with what rare genetic evidence is available. Exp: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38521/title/Oldest-Hominin-DNA-Ever-Sequenced/

I appreciate your thoughtful responses. I think we have a little common ground here then- I accept decent, natural history to the extent we can dig it up..

But what you say above this highlights a 'balloon' argument of evolution I have run into often here, squeeze one end and it deflates but the other pops up..
i.e. point out that the fossil record is incomplete, inconclusive, lacking the key transitionals the theory predicted - it doesn't matter because genetics offers better evidence
But point out that DNA decays far to fast to study anything but the state of life as is, not how it evolved- that doesn't matter because we have the fossil record for that..

This implies the God the universe is subject to the experiences of an IT professional. A great indication that God is created in the image of his followers. We aren't talking about dudes who are writing Excel updates. We are talking about a supposedly all powerful being. Why would this guy need any time or any conditions to create any reality he so chose. Was God like, I'm lonely, let's create Adam and Eve, and dang, looks like I got to spend the next 70 eons coding a universe into existence. Ah, shoot a bug, look at these horrible things. Need to erase 90% of the species on this planet and start over.

I take your point- we have to try to resist anthropomorphic assumptions, but whether we're talking 1s and 0s in code, or 1s and 0s in the values of subatomic physics, we are talking the objective phenomena of information processing- the singularity was literally a self extracting archive of information that ultimately unzipped itself into it's own consciousness to contemplate itself with.. that's a pretty interesting result for a randomly composed packet of data. It's certainly nothing we can replicate on purpose ourselves, not a simple straightforward task, it would require the best engineering tools we have and far beyond..

Using randomization and fitness functions to realize a design goal is not a bug, it's the most elegant system we know. it's a form of random trial and error yes, but requires ID to define what exactly the goal is. i.e. it's not the design or designer that's imperfect- it's the build process that utilizes imperfection intentionally. A little like a sculptor simply removing everything that doesn't look like what he wants, imperfection has to be recognized, dealt with, for perfection to emerge. Just a different way to look at this.. I don't think there is any slam dunk argument in any of this.

relating to mass extinctions though.. it is perhaps yet one more 'very lucky coincidence' that our arrival was delayed/predated by physically rather than mentally dominant species- for millions of years while biomass was accrued- to be almost surgically removed by a perfectly aimed,weighted strike.. leaving us a rich fully grown garden of vast resources, enabling us to create advanced technological civilization- launch Hubble, walk on the moon, explore the sea floor, investigate and become aware of the universe as we have.. none of this would have been possible otherwise. Bad design? I'm not so sure it would be.

To problem being that it's not really analogous to the universe. By the way, I don't know that existence of the universe itself came to be. I have no idea how that happened. A different issue than living things and evolution.

Yes, and I think it's difficult to separate the two. i.e. if the universe was simply a product of infinite random variations of possible universes- then sure, perhaps there is no reason to suspect ID within
But if not, if it was designed from the get go, it would be a very odd assumption that the development of life was an unintended consequence.

 

[leibowde84]

How you measure is on thing.
WHAT you measure is something else.

Time is a quotient.
Distance ( a measure) is divided by time( another measure).

Distance is something we made up to better know the geometry of our surroundings.
Time is an interval of motion.(orbits, revolutions, dripping water)

measure is all in your head and makes appearance in our 'reality' as a quotient on a chalkboard.

I mean, all words represent reality in this way, so it is irrelevant. Are you saying that time does not exist apart from our understanding of it?

 

[Thief]

I mean, all words represent reality in this way, so it is irrelevant. Are you saying that time does not exist apart from our understanding of it?

not a substance or a force.....no existence.
Time does not exist.

Thinking about something doesn't make it real.

Oh! I know.....let's digress unto God!

yeah right....cause and effect are to stiff.

 

[leibowde84]

not a substance or a force.....no existence.
Time does not exist.

Thinking about something doesn't make it real.

Oh! I know.....let's digress unto God!

yeah right....cause and effect are to stiff.

Then how does gravity (in reality, not just theoretically) effect time if it doesn't exist? That seems absurd, but please explain.

 

[Thief]

Then how does gravity (in reality, not just theoretically) effect time if it doesn't exist? That seems absurd, but please explain.

Speed has an effect on mass.
Mass has effect on gravity.

Time is a computation of distance compared to measured intervals.

are you surprised?

I've heard, your mass will increase to infinity if you could achieve the speed of light.
Passing a large black hole might prove a trick!

and I've heard on theoretical physicist with explanation that you can't fall into a black hole.
the calculation leans to the idea you end up stuck....at the event horizon!

Quite frankly....I like listening to all those science documentaries.
All that supposition leading to fantastic notions.

Too bad the experiment won't fight in the petri dish.

 

[leibowde84]

Speed has an effect on mass.
Mass has effect on gravity.

Time is a computation of distance compared to measured intervals.

are you surprised?

I've heard, your mass will increase to infinity if you could achieve the speed of light.
Passing a large black hole might prove a trick!

and I've heard on theoretical physicist with explanation that you can't fall into a black hole.
the calculation leans to the idea you end up stuck....at the event horizon!

Quite frankly....I like listening to all those science documentaries.
All that supposition leading to fantastic notions.

Too bad the experiment won't fight in the petri dish.

This means that you disagree with the theory of relativity.

 

[Thief]

This means that you disagree with the theory of relativity.

I know Albert wasn't sure.
He put that equation on the shelf for two years....so the documentary said.
He jumped when he heard someone else was working on a similar note.

and in the last of his efforts, someone stopped to ask what he might be working on....
'I'm trying to catch God in the act.'

but as we already know..
there won't be an equation.

 

[Thief]

This means that you disagree with the theory of relativity.

as for the theory itself.

photos of our sun in eclipse show a 'shift in the position' of constellations in the background of the shot.
it took years and risk, trying to be in the best location to photograph.

the pictures were accepted as proof, for the prediction of Albert's work were confirmed.

but to be really sure.....
all we need do is gain the speed of light.

and I think we can.....right after our last breath.

 

[Etritonakin]

The personality is our persona, or mask, its no who we truly are, to reducing the Source to a personality is just silly, a personality is made through conditioning, the Source is not conditioned by anyone, even though many religions try to do so. .

That is incorrect. Even a human personality self-conditions in response to conditions.

The source caused all conditions -including the conditions to which we respond.

The source is conditioned by the source -the source self-conditions -and has declared it to men.... and also that the source will condition the personalities of men and make them perfect, also.

Isa 33:10 Now will I rise, saith the LORD; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself.

You can deny it now -or not be aware -but the in the end the following will be the case -The source will cause the conditions which bring this about -it is not arrogance -it will benefit us....

Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
Isa 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
Isa 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Isa 45:24 Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

...and since you mentioned a mask.....
it may appear that we make God in our image, but that it not the case. God is the ONE that -and that which -caused our image -and caused us to be in his image....
The source is responsible for making us capable of understanding the very concept -we did not conceive of the source.

 

[leibowde84]

I know Albert wasn't sure.
He put that equation on the shelf for two years....so the documentary said.
He jumped when he heard someone else was working on a similar note.

and in the last of his efforts, someone stopped to ask what he might be working on....
'I'm trying to catch God in the act.'

but as we already know..
there won't be an equation.

How is that relevant to my question? Are you saying that the theory is incorrect? Beyond speculation as to Einstein's doubts, do you have any reason to think this scientifically?

 

[leibowde84]

as for the theory itself.

photos of our sun in eclipse show a 'shift in the position' of constellations in the background of the shot.
it took years and risk, trying to be in the best location to photograph.

the pictures were accepted as proof, for the prediction of Albert's work were confirmed.

but to be really sure.....
all we need do is gain the speed of light.

and I think we can.....right after our last breath.

This makes no sense. The theory states that nothing besides light can reach the speed of light. So, what you are asking for would disprove the theory. But all evidence points to it being accurate. In other words, where is your evidence to support that the theory is wrong? Or are you basing it on mere speculation?

 

[God lover]

I mentioned earlier ...your signature seems contray to this post
.
You quoted someone who speaks of a man whose spirit cannot be 'killed'.

If the spirit of a man cannot be destroyed, then He....that Man....is a person eternal.

God would be a spirit....eternal.

I believe the cosmos is creation by God.
That God has gained a sense of Person in so doing (I AM!)....doesn't surprise me.

but then your post above dismisses God a s a person.....and...
promotes the perspective the creation ( cosmos) is the greater portion.

?????

If I may jump in from a biblical Christian perspective...

Sprit cannot be killed by the death of the body. But the "second death" after God's judgement is the destruction of the being completely beyond recall. Thrown into the lake of fire. (Not the same as the view of eternal hell that crept into Christian theology from a other earlier religions of europe).

The second death is that final destruction/un-making of a being by God. A key point is that it is God's choice who he un-makes and it is only by God's power (not the devil's, who will also be thrown into "the lake of fire" aka. 2nd death)

"Death though shalt die"
- famous engliah poet (can't remember name)

That is the Christian viewpoint as best as I understand it thus far.

I should add that the bible says God takes no joy in the death or suffering of His creation. Just to make sure God's love and justice (judgement) are seen in the propper balance.

Biblically it is clear that God's purpose in creation and more specifically in the creation of us (people), is that we grow towards him for eternity and in wholeness like Him. He has good things planned for us. If we continue to rebel and fight him eventually He will, with great sadness, un-make us.

Again, that's the bibles claim as far as I know it. I also believe it because of may day to day relationship with the Holy Spirit, made possible by Jesus Christ, as planned by the Father. I really do believe. This experience seems very real to me thus far.

But even if we disagree, we are naighbors on this earth and let's keep growing.

 

[viole]

If I may jump in from a biblical Christian perspective...

Sprit cannot be killed by the death of the body. But the "second death" after God's judgement is the destruction of the being completely beyond recall. Thrown into the lake of fire. (Not the same as the view of eternal hell that crept into Christian theology from a other earlier religions of europe).

The second death is that final destruction/un-making of a being by God. A key point is that it is God's choice who he un-makes and it is only by God's power (not the devil's, who will also be thrown into "the lake of fire" aka. 2nd death)

"Death though shalt die"
- famous engliah poet (can't remember name)

That is the Christian viewpoint as best as I understand it thus far.

What is the reason of termination by "throwing into the lake of fire"? Why not just keep the dead, simply ... dead?

Does God feel the need to formally execute souls, spirits, or,... whatever?

Ciao

- viole

 

[God lover]

If I may jump in from a biblical Christian perspective...

Sprit cannot be killed by the death of the body. But the "second death" after God's judgement is the destruction of the being completely beyond recall. Thrown into the lake of fire. (Not the same as the view of eternal hell that crept into Christian theology from a other earlier religions of europe).

The second death is that final destruction/un-making of a being by God. A key point is that it is God's choice who he un-makes and it is only by God's power (not the devil's, who will also be thrown into "the lake of fire" aka. 2nd death)

"Death though shalt die"
- famous engliah poet (can't remember name)

That is the Christian viewpoint as best as I understand it thus far.

What is the reason of termination by "throwing into the lake of fire"? Why not just keep the dead, simply ... dead?

Does God feel the need to formally execute souls, spirits, or,... whatever?

Ciao

- viole

I see your concern. This is a very thoughtful concern and you are a loving person.

The context is that the dead aren't actually dead. The bodies are dead. The conscious beings remain. The biblical view is that we are spiritual beings in a body. Our conscious self is strangely linked to our body but our body in this Universe is not the extent of who we are.

Therefor the bible tells us not to fear the first death. Like a catepiller should not fear the cacoon. But if an individual being wants/chooses to rage against God and refuses to partake in heaven by God's way. God will "sadly, with no joy" un-make that being. Can't have more devil's running around, it wouldn't be a great eternity. God has his boundaries, as any healthy being should.

Lake of fire sounds harsh. It is a visual representing of a spiritual reality. If you read or watched, " the lord of the rings" . In the end the ring (temptation and sin) was thrown into the lava at Mount doom. It was the only place that could un-make the ring. Frodo couldn't even do it himself... gollum grabbed it and was taken into the fire as well.

Sorry if you don't know the story... read the books!! They are much better but the movies are well done... JRR Tolkien, was the author and a devote Christian.

Short answer. Second death is to ensure a healthy eternity with everyone on the same page. God's hope is that no one refuses this option.

Make sense.. God is loving and has justice in store. We must hold the two aspects of God in tension to see the whole person of God.

My opinion as a Christian from what I know of the bible thus far.

Love and peace to you sister

 

[Thief]

If I may jump in from a biblical Christian perspective...

Sprit cannot be killed by the death of the body. But the "second death" after God's judgement is the destruction of the being completely beyond recall. Thrown into the lake of fire. (Not the same as the view of eternal hell that crept into Christian theology from a other earlier religions of europe).

The second death is that final destruction/un-making of a being by God. A key point is that it is God's choice who he un-makes and it is only by God's power (not the devil's, who will also be thrown into "the lake of fire" aka. 2nd death)

"Death though shalt die"
- famous engliah poet (can't remember name)

That is the Christian viewpoint as best as I understand it thus far.

I should add that the bible says God takes no joy in the death or suffering of His creation. Just to make sure God's love and justice (judgement) are seen in the propper balance.

Biblically it is clear that God's purpose in creation and more specifically in the creation of us (people), is that we grow towards him for eternity and in wholeness like Him. He has good things planned for us. If we continue to rebel and fight him eventually He will, with great sadness, un-make us.

Again, that's the bibles claim as far as I know it. I also believe it because of may day to day relationship with the Holy Spirit, made possible by Jesus Christ, as planned by the Father. I really do believe. This experience seems very real to me thus far.

But even if we disagree, we are naighbors on this earth and let's keep growing.

Your view is similar to mine.
I was questioning someone else about an apparent contrariness.

yeah...fear not anyone that would harm the flesh....
Fear instead, He who is able to rend the soul.

 

[Thief]

What is the reason of termination by "throwing into the lake of fire"? Why not just keep the dead, simply ... dead?

Does God feel the need to formally execute souls, spirits, or,... whatever?

Ciao

- viole

I believe the peace of heaven is guarded.
Angels have been displayed with sword in hand for centuries.

 

[Thief]

This makes no sense. The theory states that nothing besides light can reach the speed of light. So, what you are asking for would disprove the theory. But all evidence points to it being accurate. In other words, where is your evidence to support that the theory is wrong? Or are you basing it on mere speculation?

The work continues.
Albert was seeking an equation to define ALL things.
he doubted his own handiwork.

why shouldn't you?

and an equation unto God....seems unlikely

 

[psychoslice]

I mentioned earlier ...your signature seems contray to this post
.
You quoted someone who speaks of a man whose spirit cannot be 'killed'.

If the spirit of a man cannot be destroyed, then He....that Man....is a person eternal.

God would be a spirit....eternal.

I believe the cosmos is creation by God.
That God has gained a sense of Person in so doing (I AM!)....doesn't surprise me.

but then your post above dismisses God a s a person.....and...
promotes the perspective the creation ( cosmos) is the greater portion.

?????

Yes for me god certainly isn't a person, also we never are born and we can never die, when I say we, I am talking about our true self, that is Consciousness, all arises from Consciousness and all goes back to Consciousness, its simple the way of life, its existence, not some magical god in the sky.

 

[Thief]

Yes for me god certainly isn't a person, also we never are born and we can never die, when I say we, I am talking about our true self, that is Consciousness, all arises from Consciousness and all goes back to Consciousness, its simple the way of life, its existence, not some magical god in the sky.

no Person.....greater than yourself?

I see hierarchy in this life.
I suspect the same again in the next life.
and to a far greater ability than ours.

 

[psychoslice]

no Person.....greater than yourself?

I see hierarchy in this life.
I suspect the same again in the next life.
and to a far greater ability than ours.

That's fine if you want to go through life groping for some god to give you a better life and to stand over you, for me I am free, I am one with all there IS.