Why is there anything at all?

[Feedmysheep]

There is no formula there is hundreds of years of research and discoveries of many scientists, 95%of all scientists today and every major academic university of the world supports the sciences of evolution

Ad populum argument? A large percentage also once thought metal could be turned into gold,
the earth was the center of the solar system, and electric shock could cure mental illness.

Do you commit definitely to the belief that the DNA molecule being an outcome of purposeless and random accidents? A Yes or a No I expect.

I commit to the design and function of the DNA molecule to requiring intelligent forethought and design from a Mind. "Somebody bigger than you and I."

There is no such thing as proof for the existence or nonexistence anywhere.

Tell me WHY do you think scientists are curious. That would be interesting

There is no such thing as mythical Creation of existing material in six days.

But as you just stated you have no proof of either.
You see, I have no problem admitting out the gate that I have a faith.
I know that I don't have absolute proof.

I do not harp incessantly on the six days because it seems not to be
a cardinal tenet of the Christian gospel. I am an unashamed evangelist attempting to
conform to the etiquette of this forum.

But the basics of salvation is not to believe in six days of Genesis but in calling
on the name of the resurrected Lord Jesus. Ie. Romans 10:8-11.

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of the faith which we proclaim,

That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

For with the heart there is believing unto righteousness, and with the mouth there is confession unto salvation.

For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes on Him shall not be put to shame.”

Like many things in the Bible you can put the six days in Genesis on the back burner until latter.
But to call upon the resurrected Son of God to be saved - that should be on the front burner.

Science does not consider anything in Nature accidental. All ranges of possible outcomes of cause and effect outcomes occur as a result of Natural Laws.

Richard Dawkins would disagree with you. And he's a popular atheist Evolutionist biologist.
"Biology is the study of complicated things which give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

What he is saying is enough time and accidents and biological life comes about.
And those forms give an appearance of having been intelligently designed.

That's a religion imo.

Computer Science is not science.

Yea, I heard that discussion too. "Where's the science in Computer Science?" in the 80s at Boston University.
Its arguable I suppose.

Regardless - I learned from, let's say, compiler design, that it is akin to the programming skill with
forethought, planning, look ahead, debugging, intelligence akin to any "program" of an evolutionary process.

You're saying there is no science in, let's say, AI development?

Misrepresenting Einstein. He did not support any form of Biblical Creation. He is a scientist that support a universe billions of years old.

I used Einstien to support a creating God not word for word agreement with Genesis 1 and 2.

And your website I don't need. The website that I lifted the quotes from had opposite
opinions as well which I read. I selected the ones with which I was more in agreement.

I have found "All the smart people are on OUR side" defense is not a convincing argument either way.
I simply selected quotes about a divine intelligent creator is probably on the right track.

And you pushed a Ad Populum argument which is a logical fallacy.
Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

Old and moldy. Does not represent today's science.

Time tested is not "old and moldy".
What stands the test of time is significant over fadish trends like what has gone "viral" today.

No, but you misrepresented most of the scientists above and by far most DO NOT the Genesis account of Creation nor Noah's Flood.

I did not argue these opions support all of Genesis. They do lean towards argreement that in the beginning God created . . . . They more lean towards that that than away from it. Sorry.

Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes

Science is about observation.
Show me in all human history where animal N gave birth to animal N+1 of a different kind.

Its never been observed. Don't waste your breath with finches with different beak sizes or fruit flies with
additional wings. Don't do a bait and switch maneuvor that any change is your macro evolution.

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

To me, the mind of God became to mortal and corrupt flesh in the Immaculate Conception when Mary said in 0 A.D., Latin for Ammo Dimini, the beginning of church time. “let it become to me you will” and through the Virgin Birth of the Christ, requiring no blood or boiler birth because His Soul pre-existing becoming the intelligence of creation in the transformed and transfigured flesh from the spirit through the flesh for the soul of the being, in logic and rationale and through the faith of Abraham.

Peace always,
Stephen

 

[shunyadragon]

Ad populum argument? A large percentage also once thought metal could be turned into gold,
the earth was the center of the solar system, and electric shock could cure mental illness.

Misuse and abuse of Ad populum argument. The argument is based on sound science and objective verifiable evidence,

Argument from popularity is based opinions not science by definition.

argument from popularity - Google Search

An argument from popularity, also known as the ad populum fallacy, is a logical fallacy that claims something is true because many people believe it. It's a common mistake in reasoning and argument that can be found in advertisements, political speeches, and everyday discussions.


Here are some examples of arguments from popularity:

• "The majority of our countrymen think we should have military operations overseas; therefore, it's the right thing to do".
  
  
  
• "This vaccine is unsafe, because most people working in health care seem to think so".
  
  
  
• • "Well everyone lies on their taxes. so if our unscrupulous Jason says yeah there was some income that I didn't declare on my taxes. but look everyone lies on their taxes".

The problem with arguments from popularity is that popularity doesn't necessarily mean something is true. In fact, following the prevailing opinion without examining the underlying reasons is irrational.

Do you commit definitely to the belief that the DNA molecule being an outcome of purposeless and random accidents? A Yes or a No I expect.

No not randomness, the DNA molecule is the result of predictable natural causes based on Natural Laws. The only thing random is timing of a natural event.

I commit to the design and function of the DNA molecule to requiring intelligent forethought and design from a Mind. "Somebody bigger than you and I."

Tell me WHY do you think scientists are curious. That would be interesting.

Why are they not curious? Curiosity and desire for new knowledge is part of the desire of scientists to research new knowledge.

But as you just stated you have no proof of either.

Yes, science does not prove anything, and cannot address the existence nor nonexistence of God.

You see, I have no problem admitting out the gate that I have a faith.
I know that I don't have absolute proof.

This is na improvement over some of your previous statements

I do not harp incessantly on the six days because it seems not to be

You did

a cardinal tenet of the Christian gospel. I am an unashamed evangelist attempting to
conform to the etiquette of this forum.

It would nice if this was the case, but it is not

But the basics of salvation is not to believe in six days of Genesis but in calling
on the name of the resurrected Lord Jesus. Ie. Romans 10:8-11.

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of the faith which we proclaim,

That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

For with the heart there is believing unto righteousness, and with the mouth there is confession unto salvation.

For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes on Him shall not be put to shame.”

Like many things in the Bible you can put the six days in Genesis on the back burner until latter.
But to call upon the resurrected Son of God to be saved - that should be on the front burner.


Richard Dawkins would disagree with you. And he's a popular atheist Evolutionist biologist.
"Biology is the study of complicated things which give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

What he is saying is enough time and accidents and biological life comes about.

No he is not

And those forms give an appearance of having been intelligently designed.

That's a religion imo.

Yea, I heard that discussion too. "Where's the science in Computer Science?" in the 80s at Boston University.
Its arguable I suppose.

Regardless - I learned from, let's say, compiler design, that it is akin to the programming skill with
forethought, planning, look ahead, debugging, intelligence akin to any "program" of an evolutionary process.

You're saying there is no science in, let's say, AI development?

I used Einstien to support a creating God not word for word agreement with Genesis 1 and 2.

That is an unethical and dishonest use of what Einstein believes concerning God.

And your website I don't need. The website that I lifted the quotes from had opposite
opinions as well which I read. I selected the ones with which I was more in agreement.

The majority did not believe in a Genesis Creation view. They re more a Theistic Evolutionist view like myself. Incomplet

I have found "All the smart people are on OUR side" defense is not a convincing argument either way.

Nothing to do with being smart either.

This reference reflects the universal acceptance of science as the foundation of Biology, Physics, Chemistry and Physics and 97% of all scientists in these fields. It makes your selective misrepresentation of a few scientists including Einstein.

Blind following ancient mythology of ancient religions as history of humanity and our physical existence is rational intelligent 'belief.

I simply selected quotes about a divine intelligent creator is probably on the right track.

Again . . . almost all of them support a Theistic Evolution belief supporting science as I do.

And you pushed a Ad Populum argument which is a logical fallacy.

Again . . . you are dishonestly misrepresenting the Ad populum. It is fallacy specifically for the "opinions of people" and does not apply to science.

Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

Again, you were unethical and dishonest about the beliefs of Einstein

Time tested is not "old and moldy".

The views of Luis Pasteur on evolution are MOT time tested.

What stands the test of time is significant over fadish trends like what has gone "viral" today.

Confusing worded, but no ancient worldviews of science are not time tested. They change as new research and discoveries reveal new knowledge.

I did not argue these opions support all of Genesis. They do lean towards argreement that in the beginning God created . . . . They more lean towards that that than away from it. Sorry.

They are scientists and by far support the sciences of evolution as I do as Theistic Evolution which ism the issue here

Science is about observation.
Show me in all human history where animal N gave birth to animal N+1 of a different kind.

Grose mis use of the sciences of evolution demanding your selective demands to fit what you believe based on an ancient world view.

There are many examples of new species currently evolving over time. Your unethical demands on what would be a kind in the the life forms does not consider evolution over billions of years.

Its never been observed. Don't waste your breath with finches with different beak sizes or fruit flies with
additional wings. Don't do a bait and switch maneuvor that any change is your macro evolution.

I will not waste your time when you cling to a unethical biased ancient view that will not consider evolution takes place over a period of billions of years. You actually likely will not accept the existence of life and our universe billions of years old.

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

Why is there anything at all?

OK everybody I think I got this now. What do you think?

In logic, the new DNA will not consist of choice, consisting of no chance of failure. What will be removed is any fallibility from choice and any chance of failure. What can only become from the “RI” real intelligence of creation is the spirit choice to love only through the DNA intelligence delivered in The New Eve through the power of the Holy Spirit fulfilled eternally for transfigured creation.

In true logic to me and all rationale that can be never explained through the finite disciplines of earth we are Created from the person of the Father, transformed by the person of the Son and transfigured by the person of the Holy Spirit each separate and each God and equal and power as God of Creation and Transformation and Glorification and Transfiguration becoming in union as one God in being together through the Father of Faith, Abraham.

Peace always,
Stephen

 

[RabbiO]

To me in logic, What manifests is the intelligence from the spirit through the flesh for the soul of the being from created to transformed to again transfigured, I think.

I’ll wait for an English translation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Peace to all,

Ok, I think I have this together now, people, ready? Ok.

To me in logic, What manifests is the intelligence from the spirit through the flesh for the soul of the being from created to transformed to again transfigured, I think.

Peace always,
Stephen

Logic does not manifest.

Careful, do not think to hard.

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

Thanks and correct as you are Shunyadragon, but how can the finite sciences or any of the finite mortal disciplines explain manifestation from the spirit through the flesh for the soul of the body and the being becoming the new being. Therefore I use logic in the understanding from created mortal and corrupt, becoming transformed immortal and incorruptible and transfigured glorified into the image of the creator of God for the Father in logic through faith. I’ve been working on this logic for a lifetime and recently have not been able to put it together completely till about three weeks ago and this is what I’ve come up with and need help. Thanks. For listening. The child mistic that explain the Trinity to St. Thomas Aquinas at the beach has the right idea with using a seashell, the ocean and the sand. become to understand the trinity and the persons in the trinity and the God of the Trinity from the story in logic. To me what in truth is what’s in logical truth that never changes and that science and the finite disciplines can never explain. Using the finite disciplines, to me one cannot explain how the intelligence of creation can become to the flesh of man to become again into the image of creation, unless we use logic to explain. This is what I’m thinking rationally and also in the logical truth that follows through the faith of Abraham. To me logically, We become united divinely in the new being becoming again truthfully.

Peace always,
Stephen

 

[shunyadragon]

to all,

Thanks and correct as you are Shunyadragon, but how can the finite sciences or any of the finite mortal disciplines explain manifestation,

You are using manifestation in terms of a religious perspective and claim, and science cannot address this because of the lack of objective evidence to support it.

therefore I use logic in the understanding from created mortal and corrupt, becoming transformed immortal and incorruptible and transfigured glorified into the image of the creator of God for the Father in logic through faith. To me what in truth is what’s in logical truth that never changes and that science and the finite disciplines can never explain. Using the finite disciplines, to me one cannot explain how the intelligence of creation can become to the flesh of man to become again into the image of creation, unless we use logic to explain. This is what I’m thinking rationally and also through the faith of Abraham.

Peace always,
Stephen

Therefore . . . you make religious claims based on belief, and science cannot address these claims.

There is a problem with using logic to justify what on believes without skeptical considerations of the subjective nature of 'belief.'

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

I tell the story 11 times a day five people don’t wanna hear it. Five people don’t understand it, but only one person gets it. Shunyadragon if you decide to accept, please help me in the logic that explains the intelligence of creation becoming to mankind. If I am wrong, logically you will be my help in the proof. to me, this is big news, and it never has been explained on earth logically before by any person. From created mortal to transformed immortal and incorruptible to becoming glorified and transfigured is the Trinity of the body applied from the trinity of the Godhead from the persons each separate and equal in power and together united as one God in being,

To me this logic is not hard for my IQ is not high. It is average between 105 and 109 not anything extreme by any means average but hard-working and like you see to be, and I am not referring to IQ, just the hard working parts, I can even read what you are working on with others, and that's not the logic I can even see and I mean it in a good way.

To me, there is no greater story ever told presenting teh login and rationale that I can get and pass on but only about 1 in 11. And no greater truth with it I walk around and in disbelief with the power in understanding this completely and fully why is it me that understands the full logic of the intelligence of creation becoming to man. And over and over the story repeats in the fulfillment of creation in the logic through Him.


What is so amazing to me is this story never changes since about three weeks ago I’ve got it perfected from the power and the story never changes.

Peace always,
Stephen

 

[shunyadragon]

Peace to all,

I tell the story 11 times a day five people don’t wanna hear it. Five people don’t understand it, but only one person gets it. Shunyadragon if you decide to accept, please help me in the logic that explains the intelligence of creation becoming to mankind.

It is not logic that explains the intelligence of Creation coming to humanity. Logic is a tool of reasoning and does not explain anything.

Science is the tool box. and yes logic, demonstrated not only physical evolution, but the evolution of consciousness and intelligence in its simplist primitive forms in early animals with nervous systems is based on Methodological Naturalism.

I fully realize you do not accept science, therefore you reasoning through the circular self justification of what you believe. That is not how logic should be used.

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

True, Methodological naturalism is a philosophical doctrine that states that science can only be considered scientific if it doesn't refer to divine activity or God's creative activity. This means that science is religiously neutral and that theology cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification.

Peace always,
Stephen

 

[shunyadragon]

Peace to all,

True, Methodological naturalism is a philosophical doctrine that states that science can only be considered scientific if it doesn't refer to divine activity or God's creative activity. This means that science is religiously neutral and that theology cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification.

Peace always,
Stephen

True, but Methodological Naturalism is not a doctrine by definition.. There are many diverse conflicting religious claims and interpretations of the nature and history of our physical existence and humanity. With Science there is only one Naturalist explanation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

To me in logic and rationality the beginning of church time is ..

Your logic and rationality is different from that of atheists.

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

Thanks Shunyadragon, what can be seen by you as are you seeing "With Science there is only one Naturalist explanation." and, please for all, how can this explaination help in understanding. Thanks again, Shunyadragon, with your energy we see, I see. Thanks again in advance.

Thanks Aupmanyav, please help me see the logic properly, this has to be so close, what am I missing. To me the logic is so clear in the understanding of the intelligence of Creation becoming to all mankind, what do you think? Thanks in advance, Aupmanyav. I know athiests believe in miracles just as all, we are one in logic and also faithfully. To me through the becoming again in logical understanding the finite disciplines fail explaining Creation even before trying to comprehend. Some may ask, how can an ant build a bridge not using a pencil, in logic? To me in logic, explaining creation to the finite mind using the finite disciplines known to man is like teaching 4th Order Differential Equations to ants. OK, Ants, now please pick up your pencil, pencil,? p-e-n.., letter? Ants...Come on,,,, Huh? So I see the answers in understanding using logic. We all know we can't train ants to understand calculus but we know they can build bridges through intelligence without even simple math, and how. What do you see as perhaps missing from the logic I am seeing? missing? Thanks in advance, Aupmanyav.

Thanks for reading and as I have said, I tell this story 11 times a day, 5 people do not want to hear the greatest story of logic ever told on earth, and 5 people do not understand the logic and only one person gets The Logic of the Kingdom of the Divine Will of Creation from the logic I have presented. To me everyday becomes like the "Groundhog Day" movie for me in logic story telling truth daily. Fiat is Latin for, "Let the control become to the Will of the one in power". To me the logic follows, The Fiat Power of Creation is the Word that becomes Flesh through the Power of the Holy Spirit Person and God in being and is the intelligence of Creation and The Mind of the One God in being becoming into the flesh of humans to become again, and coming from the spirit to the finite world of finite only disciplines of understanding to becoming the infinite world of un-understandable unknown infinite disciplines through the failed and corrupt finite and defiled spirit minds and mortal flesh of men, transformed immortal and incorruptible and becoming again, glorified and transfigured.

To me in logic, what the logic of The Methodological Naturalism doctrine is by definition using Logic is what is used to understand the un-understandable and science cannot be used to understand the un-understandable. This means to me logically and rationally that science is religiously neutral in understanding and that theology cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification and only logic can be used to understand finitely on earth the infinite un-understandable sciences and disciplines.

What in logic we are saying here is, we cannot use science to solve what science knows only to the finite world of man to explain the divine in science unknown to man in the finite sciences of man for in the infinity understanding. We can use only logic from the finite world to explain the infinite world for understanding.

To me truth in Logic and through faith becomes to all.
John 3:8: "The wind blows the first spirit wherever it pleases. You hear the spirits sound, through choice, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where the "Old Spirit" is going. So it is with everyone born of the "Holy" Spirit. To me in logic, the Intelligence of Creation is what would Jesus do in all cases of fulfilled faith and morality, logically.
In logic and faith, The "Holy Spirit" comes from and returns to Heaven, through choice, to love or not to love.
In logic and rationale and through the Faith of Abraham we are created from one of many stable "spirit" states and then become transformed to become through one stable "spirit" state of immortal and incorruptible through the "Holy Spirit" state and become again in the confirmed "Holy Spirit" state glorified and transfigured in fulfilled Creation through His Passion, fulfilled Love.

To me the proof that Jesus is God is in the logic and is in the proof through truth of the Story never changing from mortal and corrupt becoming transformed immortal and incorruptible and gloriously transfigured in logic and in all rationale and through the Faith of Abraham and all of the descendants becoming again.

Logically the finite disciplines can never explain how we are created mortal and corrupt, to become transformed immortal and incorruptible only to become again gloriously transfigured into the image of The Creator God for the Father. Science can never explain the becomings but using logic we can see God with New Eyes and a New Body transfigured becoming the image as The Creator God through the infinite power of The Holy Spirit Person in being to be able to see God, and the same God in logic and faith to see together in union as one in being through the Son and God, fro The Father and God.

Peace always,
Stephen

 

[Aupmanyav]

Logically the finite disciplines can never explain how we are created mortal and corrupt, to become transformed immortal and incorruptible only to become again gloriously transfigured into the image of The Creator God for the Father.

It is extensively explained by science and by 10th standard biology, it should be clear to all, except those who consciously refuse science.
You are an idolater. Atheist do not agree that the world was created by any God. Nor that any ghostly spirit impregnated Mary.

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

Good point and we sometimes hear what He can't do and what He isn't. And what we don't agree on sometimes and what is refused and what could not be done in some cases. And how everything sometimes does not work and we try to explaining but can't and there is some logic that I have trouble to see.

Some ask, what do atheist agree on, what is it that we agree in general on and thanks in advance, and I often ask, how does the intelligence of Creation become to man. To me in logic, we have to know what the logic may want?
I have always wanted to know logically How does science can prove the universe.

In logic, the intelligence is the failed logic which includes choice to accept or not the true intelligence to become to the being for immortality. And to me in logic no finite science can prove to me infinite understanding because the intelligence of the divine is not in the range nor domain of understanding for the finite minds of men.

To me in logic and rationale, one can understand logic as power and still be an atheist.

To me in logic, conscience is the manifested power from the spirit for the soul of the being for angels. The souls of angels can choose logically the state of the spirit through choice in the failed creation. But mankind is different than angels in logic. Mankind's spirit is manifested from the spirit through the flesh for the souls of the beings in the Body. To me through logic, The angels know of the becoming power of flesh in Heaven and through flesh, mankind will restore the new kingdom through the Christ, through the intelligence of Creation brought to earth through the Mother, Mary, by the Power of the Holy Spirit and is logically the mind of the creator God in the flesh of a human becoming the delivered logical Christ in all mankind from the spirit manifesting through the flesh for the souls of all becoming again in the fulfilled faith and morality reimaging of all mankind, logically and rationally.

80. In the Hypostatic Union each of the two natures of Christ continues unimpaired, untransformed and unmixed with the other. 81. Each of the two natures in Christ possesses its own natural will and its own natural mode of operation. 82. The Hypostatic Union of Christ’s human nature with the Divine Logos took place at the moment of conception. 83. The Hypostatic Union will never cease. 84. The Hypostatic Union was effected by the Three Divine Persons acting in common. 85. Only the Second Divine Person became Man. 86. Not only as God but also as man Jesus Christ is the natural Son of God. 87. The God-Man Jesus Christ is to be venerated with one single mode of Worship, the absolute Worship of Latria which is due to God alone. 88. Christ’s Divine and Human characteristics and activities are to be predicated of the one Word Incarnate. 28. By reason of His endowment with the fullness of created habitual grace, Christ’s soul is also accidentally holy.

To me in logic, the question becomes what would the name of the finite discipline be called that can explain creation because what is called science cannot to me in logic explain creation no matter how hard we try.

In logic to me, the fulfilled creation becomes from dynamic through the choice including the chance to fail. And becomes to the static unfailing fulfilled creation in unfailing logic with only having the will to not fail. And static creation intelligence is the same logic that becomes as having no chance of failure including no choice but to accept, to love. And only to be fulfilled in the intelligence of Creation that cannot even fail in the fulfilled intelligence logically in the new existence.

Peace always,
Stephen

 

[wellwisher]

Logic is only as good as the premises and the data you use. As an example, say we assumed the earth was flat, then logically if one kept traveling in any direction, you would reach the edge of the map, and fall off the edge of the earth. That is a sound logical conclusion based on a false premise. Logic does not care, whether your data is good or your premises are real, since logic is a thought process, applied the same way to all situations. The key is making sure you have sound premises; solid conceptual foundation, and good data.

If I saw someone leave my neighbor's house, and later that day my neighbor tells me he was robbed, I may conclude, based on my own solid witnessed data, I saw the thief. However, it turns out the person I saw, was his cousin and the robbery occurred the day before. Logic is fine but you need to have all the facts, and not just some of the facts, and take things out of context; poor conceptual foundation.

A religious person also uses logic, based on the data and premises within Holy Books. If the conclusions do not agree with science, it is not due to logic, but due to the premises and data base used. I used to live in the Southern USA, in the heart of the Bible Belt, due to a science job. There, many people discussed the Bible, using the Bible, like a reference book. The Bible was their data base, and they applied logic backed by quotes; data. If your ideas were not within just that data set, they would assume your ideas were illogical. I went along, used just their preferred data set, and drew other conclusions. Logic can be applied in many ways.

I tend to target the conceptual foundation of obsolete science theory, to make sure the logic is not biased with outdated assumptions or premises. That is not being unscientific or a creationist, but more like being pro-active. The dice and card approach to evolution is a conceptual foundation, that leads logic to a self fulfilling prophesy, of dice and cards outcomes. There are few medicines that do not have side effects along with usefulness. This is an artifact of the illogical random premise; crap in, means, crap out. Logic alone cannot tell the difference. It is all about the conceptual foundations used by logic.

Logical people seem to have no clue, if asked to update their core assumptions. They do not seem to grasp the idea of a conceptual foundation for their logic and how that will steer their logic like auto-pilot; consensus of thought.

If we look at DNA, DNA does not work in any solvent besides water. That is a fact. DNA evolved in water and therefore, and since it does not work in any other solvents, one might conclude that DNA evolved in water, via natural selection by water, due to water being the nano-scale chemical environment. This was not random, anymore than polar bears evolving in the Arctic. The chemical environment of water led to DNA being selected over other alternatives. You would not find DNA selected in other chemical environments. Something other than DNA would be selected. I extrapolated Darwin's theory to the nano-scale and junked nano-scale dice and cards; better conceptual foundation.

Evolution is about natural selection both at the macro and micro scale. The micro is not dice and cards, anymore than is the macro. If we got rid of the dice and cards premises in evolution, would it still work, as defined? Or is that magical black box premise needed to steer?

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

To me and logic evolution is part of the failed spirit And evolution or any change will not exist in the new heaven. Evolution is part of the failed spirit, but the driving force is the selection of the spirit to manifest for the becoming.

To me and logic, and rationale, DNA of the failed spirit consist of choice or defilement and what is referred to as internal temptation, giving the freedom to choose to love or not logically and rationally, and through the faith of Abraham.

In logic, Born immortal and incorruptible through the Immaculate Conception in the Virgin Birth of the Christ, Jesus’s DNA intelligence consists not of the chance to fail and only to love.

The logic in The pattern of infallibility was left behind from the cross from the Holy Spirit person shared in union with all mankind as one in being together in the advocate left behind for all at the death and resurrection of the Christ, the firstborn of all creation to become united as one and being together in union with all mankind in the intelligence of creation.

Logically, faithfully and rationally, Peace always,
Stephen

 

[Feedmysheep]

Misuse and abuse of Ad populum argument. The argument is based on sound science and objective verifiable evidence,

Verfiable evidence for example ameoba gradually became a carrot, a pine tree, a lizard, a whale, a man . . .
has not been observed. And it is not repeatable in a lab. If you say "We don't hav enough time" that's
the problem with "verifiable evidence." You have a theory. And for many it has become a religion.

An argument from popularity, also known as the ad populum fallacy, is a logical fallacy that claims something is true because many people believe it. It's a common mistake in reasoning and argument that can be found in advertisements, political speeches, and everyday discussions.

And it can be found in discussions creation. I'll give it to you that you only implied most believe such and such. I'll concede that you did not say that was why something other than Genesis has to be true.

No not randomness, the DNA molecule is the result of predictable natural causes based on Natural Laws. The only thing random is timing of a natural event.

Some mathematicians as well as creationists have said there is not enough TIME in the whole history of the universe to accomplish this.

Why are they not curious?

I didn't ask that. I asked why ARE they curious.

Curiosity and desire for new knowledge is part of the desire of scientists to research new knowledge.

I think eventually the aim is how to channel these laws of the mechanics of the univese
to better our human lot, improve our living, and master knowledge to extend human life to
indestructibility. I'm serious.

You consider a Dyson Sphere (a megastructure) around the sun of impossibly huge proportions.
That's what some envision a ultilmate level civilization to accomplish to harness infinite power.

The curiosity of science eventually leads to the longing for immortality of humans.
Sure it does. It appears to me that the end all of technology is achieving something like
everlasting human life, well being, health.

Did you ever consider all man's technology is a competition with God's will independent from Him?

I'd ask you this way: If we had a world of inexhaustible plenty, overflowing mutual love, righteousness,
and harmony with at our command to expand throughout the cosmos expanding infinetly this
human well being would we still have this curiosity.

I believe this is the will of God and the kingdom. And Jesus said seek FIRST God's kingdom and righteousness and ALL other necessary things would be added.

"For all these things the Gentiles are anxiously seeking. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." (Matt. 6:33)

Yes, science does not prove anything, and cannot address the existence nor nonexistence of God.

It cannot even prove that the scientific method leads to truth.
Science is based on a assumption (which we could call something like a faith) that the method
will lead to truth.

I believe that there are two indespensible engredients to abtaining reality.
1.) The faith of God's creature.
2.) The faithfulness of God.

If God is not FAITHFUL our faith means nothing. It is His faithfulness in response to our faith that
secures the truth.

Now I don't have anymore faith in myself than anyone else. But I know where to go to get faith.
The word of God will produce faith. If you don't want faith keep your Bible closed and don't go there.
I think faith is mysteriously produced by His word in our hearts.
Then His faithfulness in response to true faith assures the man that he is on the right track.

So I don't ever consider my faith as a poor step child of science.
I like that up front and right out of the gate the Apostle John says he
wrote his gospel so that we might BELIEVE and have [ZOE - divine] life in Christ's name.

Moreover indeed many other signs also Jesus did before His disciples, which are not written in this book. But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His name. (John 20:30,31)

That is an unethical and dishonest use of what Einstein believes concerning God.

I did not unethecially or dishonestly use any quotation.
You don't like what they said so your recourse is to attack my character for quoting them.

The majority did not believe in a Genesis Creation view.

I told you that quoted scientists were not evangelical Christians and that some like Einstien
did not believe in a personal God. I told you there was no need for you to harp on that as you
are now arguing that they were not vouching for Genesis per se.

That's ok with me. All the quotes admitted to a superior intelligence being the source of
the world and its laws. I am pretty sure of that. And that belief agrees with Genesis 1:1.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The astounding Fine Tuning of the universe for human existence is also very convincing
evidence that God designed the universe intelligently and purposely.

Blind following ancient mythology of ancient religions as history of humanity and our physical existence is rational intelligent 'belief.

We're full of sight to believe Genesis. The ones who are the blind leading the blind are those groping
around for an impossible gradualism.

There are many examples of new species currently evolving over time.

Many example of which you have sited NONE.

Your unethical demands on what would be a kind in the the life forms does not consider evolution over billions of years.

Your supposedly superior ethics had not the courage to admit that you have no examples
of this macro evolution. Demonstrate you superior ethics now and site in human history
humans observing one living creature being the parent of another living creature of a different kind.

You next post should vindicate your superior ethics to my alledged inferior ethics.

I will not waste your time when you cling to a unethical biased ancient view that will not consider evolution takes place over a period of billions of years. You actually likely will not accept the existence of life and our universe billions of years old.

I am not a Young Earth Creationist. I can surmise life and the physical planet are older than 6,000 years.
And I'll run with Genesis for sure with a understanding of exactly what is being said and what seems
to be the intent of it.

What's wrong with "clinging" to God creating a environment for man created in His image in an orderly,
purposeful, meaningful way? Sure, I'll "cling" to that.