The creator did it.

[Ben Dhyan]

So there it is . . . does not respond to the complete answer of origins.

The Quantum World of Quantum Mechanics is the source of everything as far as the objective verifiable evidence demonstrates. It has no other objective verifiable evidence to demonstrate a 'Source' beyond our physical existence. The evidence does not demonstrate that there is any other source.

The may be a 'Source' some call God(s) beyond the Quantum World, but this a question of faith and belief, and not the objective verifiable evidence.

The Quantum World of Quantum Mechanics is a human derived theoretical conceptual aspect of the Cosmos, the Cosmos as understood to be the sum total of everything..https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/cosmos

 

[shunyadragon]

The Quantum World of Quantum Mechanics is a human derived theoretical conceptual aspect of the Cosmos, the Cosmos as understood to be the sum total of everything..https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/cosmos

True, based on the best available objective verifiable evidence. Science by its nature is descriptive of our physical existence. Yes Quantum World (Cosmos?) is the 'sum total of everything with no known beginning that can be objectively verified. It is possible that the Quantum World is eternal and infinite with no beginning.

 

[gnostic]

The Quantum World of Quantum Mechanics is a human derived theoretical conceptual aspect of the Cosmos, the Cosmos as understood to be the sum total of everything..https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/cosmos

I believe that shunyadragon is saying there are no evidences to support the “Source”, whether that Source be the God, Creator, Designer, Spirit, Consciousness, Brahman, etc, as the source of universe’s creation.

Some parts of Quantum Mechanics have been verified and validated by evidences, but other parts remained theoretical.

Those possible sources that I have mentioned, have no evidences to support these beliefs, none of them are even theoretical; the sources be they be deities, spirits or Consciousness, are all merely faith-based beliefs and pseudoscience. No evidences support their existence as the basis of creation of the “Cosmos” as you call them.

 

[gnostic]

True, based on the best available objective verifiable evidence. Science by its nature is descriptive of our physical existence. Yes Quantum World (Cosmos?) is the 'sum total of everything with no known beginning that can be objectively verified. It is possible that the Quantum World is eternal and infinite with no beginning.

That may we’ll be true.

But I don’t think anyone should confuse the quantum world with God, Spirit or Consciousness to be eternal.

I believed that from my past experiences with ben (if I remember it correctly), that he favored the Transcendent Consciousness, being ultimate and eternal force, eg Brahman. If not Brahman than something else.

That to me, is still faith-based belief than science. There are no evidences his supposition in either cases.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I believe that shunyadragon is saying there are no evidences to support the “Source”, whether that Source be the God, Creator, Designer, Spirit, Consciousness, Brahman, etc, as the source of universe’s creation.

Some parts of Quantum Mechanics have been verified and validated by evidences, but other parts remained theoretical.

Those possible sources that I have mentioned, have no evidences to support these beliefs, none of them are even theoretical; the sources be they be deities, spirits or Consciousness, are all merely faith-based beliefs and pseudoscience. No evidences support their existence as the basis of creation of the “Cosmos” as you call them.

If you agree that the Cosmos is the sum total of what constitutes the universe, that includes the yet unknown to the human mind. You do accept I take it, that the 95% of the mass of the universe beyond detailed human scientific knowledge contains a lot of unknowns. All manifestations of the universe are undergoing change, destruction and creation never stop, so new forms, whether it be a new child or a new star, can in my language be said to have as their ultimate source of existence, the Cosmos or Universe if you like. The phrase, the universe gives birth to.... is part of an ongoing creative process, no need to eschew the use of the term creation because you as an atheist feel it implies a creator God,

 

[gnostic]

If you agree that the Cosmos is the sum total of what constitutes the universe, that includes the yet unknown to the human mind. You do accept I take it, that the 95% of the mass of the universe beyond detailed human scientific knowledge contains a lot of unknowns. All manifestations of the universe are undergoing change, destruction and creation never stop, so new forms, whether it be a new child or a new star, can in my language be said to have as their ultimate source of existence, the Cosmos or Universe if you like. The phrase, the universe gives birth to.... is part of an ongoing creative process, no need to eschew the use of the term creation because you as an atheist feel it implies a creator God,

This topic is about the “Creator” isn’t it?

If you are not interested in debating it, for or against it, then should you even be here?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This topic is about the “Creator” isn’t it?

If you are not interested in debating it, for or against it, then should you even be here?

Well what I am saying is that the Cosmos is the source of creation....and destruction, but in its creation aspect, the Cosmos can be said to be the ultimate Creator. Now fwiw, in pantheism, Brahman/God Supreme is the Cosmos. If there is nothing triggering in this, then you and I don't have anything to debate.

 

[Milton Platt]

Both are correct answers, one from the point of religion and other from the point of science. I don't see any contradiction in them. Right, please?
One confirms my view point in a way.Right, please?

Regards

How did you determine that "god did it" was correct?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What in the bloody hell are you talking about?

Are you talking about “biological evolution” or are you talking about “human behaviors”?

Because they are not the same things.

...

So genes are not connected to human behavior and culture and technology doesn't take place within nature.
Just as the replication of the fittest genes can change over time a species, how humans behave take place within nature.
Here is language and human behavior view through evolution.
What humans do could be Ex Nihilo and not connected to genes, i.e. that humans can learn is the result of genes. Further human behavior is tested for fittest over time just as the fittest genes in the how reason, logic, emotions and so on play out, are from genes and the behavior of the individual is tested against the behavior of other humans and all behavior rest on directly or indirectly on the 4 F in biology and our brains as animals still show that. If you like different forms of pleasure, fear, anger and so on are all from the genes and can be altered using drugs.

In short the objective parts (physical and so on) causes the subjective behaviors. One thing requires another thing and while not the same thing without the one thing nature as such there wouldn't be human behavior.

 

[gnostic]

So genes are not connected to human behavior and culture and technology doesn't take place within nature.

Genes are biological matters. It is part of the physical body.

You could inherit your genes partly from your father and partly from your mother. Their genetic traits may be yours, like inheriting eye color, hair color, short or long nose, height, weight.

You might inherit one of your parents’ health problems, such as diabetic, low or high blood pressure, so on.

Surely you heard of genetics, haven’t you?

These are are all natural. Part of nature.

Cultures are of human construct, you don’t inherit cultures through genetics.

Culture relates to customs of people, societies and people’s social behaviors. For instances, the music you listen, the food you eat, the types of arts you do, the sports you traditionally played. None of these involve genetics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Genes are biological matters. It is part of the physical body.

You could inherit your genes partly from your father and partly from your mother. Their genetic traits may be yours, like inheriting eye color, hair color, short or long nose, height, weight.

You might inherit one of your parents’ health problems, such as diabetic, low or high blood pressure, so on.

Surely you heard of genetics, haven’t you?

These are are all natural. Part of nature.

Cultures are of human construct, you don’t inherit cultures through genetics.

Culture relates to customs of people, societies and people’s social behaviors. For instances, the music you listen, the food you eat, the types of arts you do, the sports you traditionally played. None of these involve genetics.

Look at the thread: God did it. I will answer there.

 

[usfan]

Can you fuse 2 pair of chromosomes from a human and produce an ape, with completely different genes, chromosomal makeup, and architecture? No. If they were the same, genetically, there might be some credence for a chromosome fusion theory. Merely counting chromosome pairs does not make an ape into a man, or vice versa.
A sable antelope has 23 chromosome pairs.. did it come from the ape, too?
A potato has 24 pairs. Did man descend from a potato?

..and i don't mean the potato headed posters on this forum, who blindly follow their beliefs, claiming 'Science!', but are clueless about scientific methodology.

 

[shunyadragon]

That may we’ll be true.

But I don’t think anyone should confuse the quantum world with God, Spirit or Consciousness to be eternal.

The Baha'i view is God is the 'Source' and not 'confusing' the Quantum World with God.

I believed that from my past experiences with ben (if I remember it correctly), that he favored the Transcendent Consciousness, being ultimate and eternal force, eg Brahman. If not Brahman than something else.

That to me, is still faith-based belief than science. There are no evidences his supposition in either cases.

Yes, the Baha'i Faith believes in God as the Transcendental consciousness, being the ultimate and eternal 'Source.' Brahman from the perspective of many Hindus.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you fuse 2 pair of chromosomes from a human and produce an ape, with completely different genes, chromosomal makeup, and architecture? No. If they were the same, genetically, there might be some credence for a chromosome fusion theory. Merely counting chromosome pairs does not make an ape into a man, or vice versa.
A sable antelope has 23 chromosome pairs.. did it come from the ape, too?
A potato has 24 pairs. Did man descend from a potato?

..and i don't mean the potato headed posters on this forum, who blindly follow their beliefs, claiming 'Science!', but are clueless about scientific methodology.

Still self-imposed ignorance as to the nature of the science of evolution, nor what science can and cannot do.

Humans (homo sapiens) DO NOT have completely different genes from other primates, Antelopes did not come from apes, and this is more self-imposed ignorance and a lack of knowledge in the fundamentals of genetics, and the science of evolution.

Your foolishness convicts your own self-imposed ignorance of science.

What scientific education do you have to make you remotely qualified to make judgments of scientists concerning 'scientific methodology?

 

[usfan]

Still self-imposed ignorance as to the nature of the science of evolution, nor what science can and cannot do.

Humans (homo sapiens) DO NOT have completely different genes from other primates, Antelopes did not come from apes, and this is more self-imposed ignorance and a lack of knowledge in the fundamentals of genetics, and the science of evolution.

Your foolishness convicts your own self-imposed ignorance of science.

What scientific education do you have to make you remotely qualified to make judgments of scientists concerning 'scientific methodology?

Deflecting with ad hom and personal berating only deflects from the point. Pretended outrage over projected ignorance is a fallacy and exposes rational impotence.

You ignore the question:

HOW did/does alleged fusing or splitting of dissimilar chromosomes, with dissimilar genes, 'create!' a new species? This cannot be demonstrated, or observed. It is a belief, with no scientific evidence.

Railing on about 'science!', 'ignorance!', and affected righteous indignation is not a scientific rebuttal or explanation..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you fuse 2 pair of chromosomes from a human and produce an ape, with completely different genes, chromosomal makeup, and architecture? No. If they were the same, genetically, there might be some credence for a chromosome fusion theory. Merely counting chromosome pairs does not make an ape into a man, or vice versa.
A sable antelope has 23 chromosome pairs.. did it come from the ape, too?
A potato has 24 pairs. Did man descend from a potato?

..and i don't mean the potato headed posters on this forum, who blindly follow their beliefs, claiming 'Science!', but are clueless about scientific methodology.

Those questions put your knowledge of genetics at about the fifth grade level. At best.

Tell me, why are angry that you are an ape?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Deflecting with ad hom and personal berating only deflects from the point. Pretended outrage over projected ignorance is a fallacy and exposes rational impotence.

You ignore the question:

HOW did/does alleged fusing or splitting of dissimilar chromosomes, with dissimilar genes, 'create!' a new species? This cannot be demonstrated, or observed. It is a belief, with no scientific evidence.

Railing on about 'science!', 'ignorance!', and affected righteous indignation is not a scientific rebuttal or explanation..

No one claimed that it does. Your questions are amazingly ignorant and that is not an ad hom.

 

[shunyadragon]

HOW did/does alleged fusing or splitting of dissimilar chromosomes, with dissimilar genes, 'create!' a new species? This cannot be demonstrated, or observed. It is a belief, with no scientific evidence.

Science of evolution does not propose that fusing or splitting of dissimilar chromosomes, with dissimilar genes, 'create!' a new species.

Your self-imposed ignorance and lack of education is revealed in your agenda with a religious worldview.

Railing on about 'science!', 'ignorance!', and affected righteous indignation is not a scientific rebuttal or explanation..

This is your problem.

 

[usfan]

ROFL!!

These are great, typical replies.. laden, as usual, with compelling scientific evidence..

Seriously? You really think that these ad hom streams are 'rational!, scientific!' Replies?


Ignore the question all you want. You only expose yourselves as propagandists, not scientific minded debaters..

HOW did/does alleged fusing or splitting of dissimilar chromosomes, with dissimilar genes, 'create!' a new species? This cannot be demonstrated, or observed. It is a belief, with no scientific evidence.

This is what you believe, allegedly, about the origin of man.. a split chromosome from an ape/man ancestor, that branched into the 2 species today. How? Demonstrate it. Observe it. Else you merely promote a religious belief as 'science!' AKA, 'pseudo science.'

 

[usfan]

Those questions put your knowledge of genetics at about the fifth grade level. At best.
Tell me, why are angry that you are an ape?

Your questions are amazingly ignorant and that is not an ad hom.

Your self-imposed ignorance and lack of education is revealed in your agenda with a religious worldview.

..these are too funny..

It's kind of tragic, though, that these are considered 'scientific rebuttals!', here in Progresso World.
/shakes head/