Proof of GOD, (without attacking Old Earth or evolution)

[Enoch2021]

 

Wasn't there a Band back in the day called the "5th Dimension" LOL

 

There are some "theories" that are Interesting but most of it is absolute speculation.  Most people have enough problems with just basic reality 

 

 

5th Dimension did songs about the Age of Aquarius.  listening to it right now....

 

I wouldn't call it absolute speculation, It's theoretical mathematics gone viral...    I have read that several of the people working on CERN were hoping to open a portal into a different dimension.....   don't know how that's working out.   Not sure they'd tell us if they did.          Probably rip a whole in space/time and some Antichrist come crawling out  LoL

 

 

===================================================================================

 

 

 

I wouldn't call it absolute speculation, It's theoretical mathematics gone viral

 

 

By definition, it's EXACTLY Speculation....

 

Theoretical: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theoretical

 

1 a :  relating to or having the character of theory :  abstract

 

   b :  confined to theory or speculation often in contrast to practical applications :  speculative

 

2    :  given to or skilled in theorizing

 

3    :  existing only in theory :  hypothetical

 

 

Probably rip a whole in space/time and some Antichrist come crawling out  LoL

 

Didn't Jack Parsons, Aleister Crowley, and L Ron Hubbard (all good buddies) do the same exact thing (minus CERN) in the desert of New Mexico in 1947?

 

Now that's a question!!!

[other one]

 

 

Wasn't there a Band back in the day called the "5th Dimension" LOL

 

There are some "theories" that are Interesting but most of it is absolute speculation.  Most people have enough problems with just basic reality 

 

 

5th Dimension did songs about the Age of Aquarius.  listening to it right now....

 

I wouldn't call it absolute speculation, It's theoretical mathematics gone viral...    I have read that several of the people working on CERN were hoping to open a portal into a different dimension.....   don't know how that's working out.   Not sure they'd tell us if they did.          Probably rip a whole in space/time and some Antichrist come crawling out  LoL

 

 

===================================================================================

 

 

 

I wouldn't call it absolute speculation, It's theoretical mathematics gone viral

 

 

By definition, it's EXACTLY Speculation....

 

Theoretical: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theoretical

 

1 a :  relating to or having the character of theory :  abstract

 

   b :  confined to theory or speculation often in contrast to practical applications :  speculative

 

2    :  given to or skilled in theorizing

 

3    :  existing only in theory :  hypothetical

 

 

Probably rip a whole in space/time and some Antichrist come crawling out  LoL

 

Didn't Jack Parsons, Aleister Crowley, and L Ron Hubbard (all good buddies) do the same exact thing (minus CERN) in the desert of New Mexico in 1947?

 

Now that's a question!!!

 

Well, Parsons did try...   I don't think Crowley was there, but knew of it....    I don't know if Ron was there or not....    They never said if they were successful or not...     was anyone born in 1948 that might be the Antichrist????

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

Wasn't there a Band back in the day called the "5th Dimension" LOL

 

There are some "theories" that are Interesting but most of it is absolute speculation.  Most people have enough problems with just basic reality 

 

 

5th Dimension did songs about the Age of Aquarius.  listening to it right now....

 

I wouldn't call it absolute speculation, It's theoretical mathematics gone viral...    I have read that several of the people working on CERN were hoping to open a portal into a different dimension.....   don't know how that's working out.   Not sure they'd tell us if they did.          Probably rip a whole in space/time and some Antichrist come crawling out  LoL

 

 

===================================================================================

 

 

 

I wouldn't call it absolute speculation, It's theoretical mathematics gone viral

 

 

By definition, it's EXACTLY Speculation....

 

Theoretical: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theoretical

 

1 a :  relating to or having the character of theory :  abstract

 

   b :  confined to theory or speculation often in contrast to practical applications :  speculative

 

2    :  given to or skilled in theorizing

 

3    :  existing only in theory :  hypothetical

 

 

Probably rip a whole in space/time and some Antichrist come crawling out  LoL

 

Didn't Jack Parsons, Aleister Crowley, and L Ron Hubbard (all good buddies) do the same exact thing (minus CERN) in the desert of New Mexico in 1947?

 

Now that's a question!!!

 

Well, Parsons did try...   I don't think Crowley was there, but knew of it....    I don't know if Ron was there or not....    They never said if they were successful or not...     was anyone born in 1948 that might be the Antichrist????

 

 

 

==============================================================================

 

 

 

They never said if they were successful or not...

 

You heard of Roswell and the particular "Incident" in 1947?   I don't think it was the antichrist in person.....just some of "his" buddies.   I'd say they had some success.

 

I don't think Crowley was there, but knew of it....    I don't know if Ron was there or not....

 

Well I dropped and burned all my "findings" some years ago, so just going by memory here..... I can specifically recall these two there.  If not physically there, they had a serious hand in the proceedings.

[Spock]

100% agree on this one. The universe has God's name written all over it. To even think chance created all of this is laughable to me. I guess atheists really do have GREAT FAITH, but unfortunately, not in God, but rather in chance.

[Guest]

100% agree on this one.

 

The universe has God's name written all over it.

 

To even think chance created all of this is laughable to me.

 

I guess atheists really do have GREAT FAITH, but unfortunately, not in God, but rather in chance.

 

 

Evolution.... In A Nut Case

 

How foolish can you be?

 

He is the Potter, and he is certainly greater than you, the clay!

 

Should the created thing say of the one who made it, "He didn't make me"?

 

Does a jar ever say, "The potter who made me is stupid"?  Isaiah 29:16 (NLT)

[jerryR34]

 

There are only 2 choices as to HOW we are here: Random Chance "nature" or Intelligent Design "GOD". 

 

As you mentioned earlier, we've been down this road before - this is a false dichotomy, and a very intellectually dishonest way to start a dialogue as you are telling anyone who is willing to discuss it with you that you have the only set of rules and will dictate the conversation. 

 

 

 

If you ascribe sentience and intelligence to the Universe

I don't do you?  If you ascribe those to the universe, you are saying trees, rocks, etc. are sentient and intelligent as the universe is all-encompassing?

 

 

1.)  Abiogenesis, the cornerstone/foundation of LIFE, is IMPOSSIBLE by any "natural" process... denoted via 1LOT/2LOT, the Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry, Laws of Information and Specific Complexity.  SEE: Law of Biogenesis

Please expand on how the laws of thermodynamics make abiogenesis impossible.  There is/was plenty of energy to start or sustain life on earth much less the universe.  This is regardless of whether that energy is constant or decreasing.

 

You have only three options:

 

1. The Universe has always existed (in Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics);

2. The Universe created itself (in Violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or

3. The Universe was Created by GOD.

 

Again, false dichotomy.  Current scientific consensus is that the universe came from a point of singularity, and the universe is expanding.  This makes this argument moot.

 

3.)  Information (DNA):  Since Matter (atoms/molecules) carry no Information intrinsically, You have to be able to explain "How Stupid Atoms Wrote Their Own Software?"

So this isn't a case where we "don't have the answers yet" we do and in "natures" case these barriers are Laughingly Insurmountable.

 

DNA is a 4-bit self replicating, error correcting/modifying Encrypted Code.  It's "Specific Complexity" is unrivaled in the known Universe.....

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

 

‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from?  ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows … ’.

Davies, P., Life force, New Scientist 163(2204):27–30, 18 September 1999.

 

CODE only comes from Intelligence.  Also, Information is Mass-less (atoms/molecules carry no information intrinsically)....

That also means that Information/Software (The Real You) being Mass-less is also TIMELESS or Eternal.    Now that's Profound!!

 

"The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink" -Roger Sperry (neurobiologist and Nobel laureate)

Saying well, "Atoms/Molecules created Life or the Information/Software"... would be Tantamount to ascribing authorship of War and Peace to Ink Molecules!

this from googling "Index of Creationist claims":

Response:

1. This question is based on some major misconceptions (addressed below). Its overriding logical error, however, is that it is an argument from ignorance. One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.

    

2. Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.

    

3. Nothing needs to assemble itself. Evolution and abiogenesis do not exclude outside influences; on the contrary, such outside influences are essential. In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth's interior. In evolution, information from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly via natural selection against varieties that do not do well in that environment.

Links:

Musgrave, Ian et al., 2003. Information theory and creationism.

Further Reading:

Musgrave, Ian, 1998. Re: Abiogenesis (Post of the Month: April 1998)

 

 

 

The most Breath Taking of all Prophecies IMHO Daniel 9:25: The Angel Gabriel foretells...to the the EXACT DAY, 500 years beforehand, of Christ's Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem

 First we don't know what day Jesus died or what day he was born for that matter - how can you claim this level of accuracy.  This is all extra-biblical anlysis.  Second, the new testament was written after the old, and probably 1-2 centuries at least after the occurrences they describe.  That greatly diminishes prophecy.

 

I admire your faith, but it is faith, not science.  When you claim miracles and the supernatural - such as prophecy, your scientific arguments, by definition, can hold no water.

Edited February 24, 2014 by jerryR34

[Enoch2021]

 

 

There are only 2 choices as to HOW we are here: Random Chance "nature" or Intelligent Design "GOD". 

 

As you mentioned earlier, we've been down this road before - this is a false dichotomy, and a very intellectually dishonest way to start a dialogue as you are telling anyone who is willing to discuss it with you that you have the only set of rules and will dictate the conversation. 

 

 

 

If you ascribe sentience and intelligence to the Universe

I don't do you?  If you ascribe those to the universe, you are saying trees, rocks, etc. are sentient and intelligent as the universe is all-encompassing?

 

 

1.)  Abiogenesis, the cornerstone/foundation of LIFE, is IMPOSSIBLE by any "natural" process... denoted via 1LOT/2LOT, the Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry, Laws of Information and Specific Complexity.  SEE: Law of Biogenesis

Please expand on how the laws of thermodynamics make abiogenesis impossible.  There is/was plenty of energy to start or sustain life on earth much less the universe.  This is regardless of whether that energy is constant or decreasing.

 

You have only three options:

 

1. The Universe has always existed (in Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics);

2. The Universe created itself (in Violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or

3. The Universe was Created by GOD.

 

Again, false dichotomy.  Current scientific consensus is that the universe came from a point of singularity, and the universe is expanding.  This makes this argument moot.

 

3.)  Information (DNA):  Since Matter (atoms/molecules) carry no Information intrinsically, You have to be able to explain "How Stupid Atoms Wrote Their Own Software?"

So this isn't a case where we "don't have the answers yet" we do and in "natures" case these barriers are Laughingly Insurmountable.

 

DNA is a 4-bit self replicating, error correcting/modifying Encrypted Code.  It's "Specific Complexity" is unrivaled in the known Universe.....

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

 

‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from?  ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows … ’.

Davies, P., Life force, New Scientist 163(2204):27–30, 18 September 1999.

 

CODE only comes from Intelligence.  Also, Information is Mass-less (atoms/molecules carry no information intrinsically)....

That also means that Information/Software (The Real You) being Mass-less is also TIMELESS or Eternal.    Now that's Profound!!

 

"The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink" -Roger Sperry (neurobiologist and Nobel laureate)

Saying well, "Atoms/Molecules created Life or the Information/Software"... would be Tantamount to ascribing authorship of War and Peace to Ink Molecules!

this from googling "Index of Creationist claims":

Response:

1. This question is based on some major misconceptions (addressed below). Its overriding logical error, however, is that it is an argument from ignorance. One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.

    

2. Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.

    

3. Nothing needs to assemble itself. Evolution and abiogenesis do not exclude outside influences; on the contrary, such outside influences are essential. In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth's interior. In evolution, information from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly via natural selection against varieties that do not do well in that environment.

Links:

Musgrave, Ian et al., 2003. Information theory and creationism.

Further Reading:

Musgrave, Ian, 1998. Re: Abiogenesis (Post of the Month: April 1998)

 

 

 

The most Breath Taking of all Prophecies IMHO Daniel 9:25: The Angel Gabriel foretells...to the the EXACT DAY, 500 years beforehand, of Christ's Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem

 First we don't know what day Jesus died or what day he was born for that matter - how can you claim this level of accuracy.  This is all extra-biblical anlysis.  Second, the new testament was written after the old, and probably 1-2 centuries at least after the occurrences they describe.  That greatly diminishes prophecy.

 

I admire your faith, but it is faith, not science.  When you claim miracles and the supernatural - such as prophecy, your scientific arguments, by definition, can hold no water.

 

 

 

==========================================================================================

 

Hey Jerry

 

It took you 5 days to come up with this?  Lets have a look see.....

 

As you mentioned earlier, we've been down this road before - this is a false dichotomy, and a very intellectually dishonest way to start a dialogue as you are telling anyone who is willing to discuss it with you that you have the only set of rules and will dictate the conversation.

 

See full rebuttal of your Erroneous False Dichotomy Here: 

 

 

I don't do you?  If you ascribe those to the universe, you are saying trees, rocks, etc. are sentient and intelligent as the universe is all-encompassing?

 

If you don't believe there's a GOD (Intelligent Design) Jerry, then you must believe in "nature" having sentience and intelligence.  And NO, it's Preposterous...I believe in GOD THE ALMIGHTY!!!!!

 

 

Please expand on how the laws of thermodynamics make abiogenesis impossible.  There is/was plenty of energy to start or sustain life on earth much less the universe.  This is regardless of whether that energy is constant or decreasing.

 

Sure No Problem.....

 

The only way to Form "Specific Complexity"------Biologic Systems, is to have the SPECIFIC: INGESTION- STORAGE- ENERGY CONVERTER AND INFORMATION PROGRAM (DNA) ALREADY EXISTING IN TOTO.....FIRST. That is to say---- The Mitochondria/Chloroplast, and respective DNA have to BE, before the Cell (Plant or Animal) can build Specific Complexity.....Follow? If not, your gonna have yourself a Football Bat, Biochemically speaking.

Lets use the chance for animal cell (SPONTANEOUS) generation from "Building Blocks" for focus. Same concept for plant cells. Hypothetically, lets say there is no life and you have a pool of water and we dump all the essential amino acids x 1000 (or whatever you want) in there. For them to polymerize, to build larger molecules, they have to overcome (2LOT) because in nature, things only go one way....Increase Entropy or Disorder. The sun's energy is not gonna help, (you don't have the energy converter or the Information Program yet, correct?) it'll break them down....NATURAL SUNLIGHT DESTROYS AMINO AND NUCLEIC ACIDS. Water will break them down when they form (hydrolysis) see also: Brownian Motion. Oxygen will Oxidize...break them down.

 

If you're not a believer in the Specific Energy Converter; I have a Hands on Experiment  that will settle the matter....

 

Stop eating for 1 week. Strip down to your "skivvies" and each day lay out in the Sun from 9am-5pm without sun-screen (you may drink water we don't want you to vapor lock ). At the end of the week, have you and your skin Increased or Decreased in Entropy?

 

I'd bet you'd be a believer in that Specific Energy Converter after that week is up, eh?

 

Also, If random Energy is all you need to "Build" Things, well,

 

We added a Boatload of "Energy" to Nagasaki during WW II...Did that Increase or Decrease it's Entropy?

 

It's like a Bull in a China Shop Jerry....you need the SPECIFIC: INGESTION- STORAGE- ENERGY CONVERTER AND INFORMATION PROGRAM ALREADY EXISTING IN TOTO.....FIRST.

 

Good?

 

Again, false dichotomy.  Current scientific consensus is that the universe came from a point of singularity, and the universe is expanding.  This makes this argument moot.

 

You should have Said "False TRI-Chotomy", because there were three choices.  But it's neither and that's moot.  This is just basic Physics Jerry.

 

 

 

this from googling "Index of Creationist claims":  {Information}

 

Oh NO, another "GOOGLE" Scientist.  Jerry Jerry LOL.   Can you Put Information in a Jar and Paint it Red?  I'll just take a couple and use DNA as the Template.....

 

 

Its overriding logical error, however, is that it is an argument from ignorance. One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.

 

What in the World is This?? 

 

 

"Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function."

 

Are you saying that DNA's ENCRYPTED CODE doesn't have any special Structure or Function?

 

 

"In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth's interior."

 

:24:

 

Jerry, this is what you get from GOOGLE......This is Exponential Ludicrous Preposterousness.  Please Show Life from Non-Life?

 

Better Yet, Please show ONE DNA/RNA/ or "Functional Protein" Spontaneously Form?  Good Luck with that!!

 

"First we don't know what day Jesus died or what day he was born for that matter - how can you claim this level of accuracy.  This is all extra-biblical anlysis.  Second, the new testament was written after the old, and probably 1-2 centuries at least after the occurrences they describe.  That greatly diminishes prophecy."

 

You're guessing quite incoherently here Jerry.  We know the day he rode in on the Donkey or Triumphal Entry and Declared HIS KINGSHIP and we know the Day The Decree to "Build and Restore Jerusalem".  It's just simple Math and attention to detail.  Yes we get those dates from Historical Science.

 

Yes I know the NT was written after the OT.  The NT was well established by the Early Church with Letters (Pauline) 50-60 AD.... the council @ Nicea just codified these.   Most importantly, this has nothing to do with the Specific Prophecy in Daniel spoken above.

 

And your "This greatly diminishes prophecy" is Non-Sequitur.

 

Have to go for a while.  If you want me to show you the Daniel Prophecy Specifically, ask in a separate post.  This ones a bit long

 

** Your last few quotes in Green....reached my "Quote Box Limit"

 

Thanks

[jerryR34]

"It took you 5 days to come up with this?  Lets have a look see....."  No it took about 10 minutes.  thanks for your reply.  I don't feel like you answered my questions or came close to changing my mind on anything, but thanks for the response.  By the way, can you cite your sources for "Specific Complexity"?

 

 

 

"See full rebuttal of your Erroneous False Dichotomy Here:  " -

 

you didn't rebutt it then, and you haven't now.  Your words are a perfect example of the fallacy.

 

You laugh at what I posted from Google, but please note, I also cited sources.  Maybe you should investigate them before you rofl.

Edited February 24, 2014 by jerryR34

[Enoch2021]

"It took you 5 days to come up with this?  Lets have a look see....."  No it took about 10 minutes.  thanks for your reply.  I don't feel like you answered my questions or came close to changing my mind on anything, but thanks for the response.  By the way, can you cite your sources for "Specific Complexity"?

 

 

 

"See full rebuttal of your Erroneous False Dichotomy Here:  " -

 

you didn't rebutt it then, and you haven't now.  Your words are a perfect example of the fallacy.

 

You laugh at what I posted from Google, but please note, I also cited sources.  Maybe you should investigate them before you rofl.

 

 

=====================================================================================

 

 

"It took you 5 days to come up with this?  Lets have a look see....."  No it took about 10 minutes.  thanks for your reply.

 

Jerry after I posted this same rebuttal (The OP) Topic on a different Thread (as an explanation to you), I then decided to post it as a New Topic.  Every time I loaded the site for the past 5 days whether I was on the Faith vs. Science Thread or on the Main Page, I would see your name.  When I was bored, I would just hover my mouse over your name....it tells me what Thread you're viewing.

 

Each and Every Time I did that...... you were on this Thread sometimes for hours......so, NICE TRY! 

 

 

I don't feel like you answered my questions or came close to changing my mind on anything,

 

What Specifically?

 

By the way, can you cite your sources for "Specific Complexity"?

 

Yes, it's me.  It's in my head....here's the jist:

 

"order" and "Specific Complexity"

"Order" is or can be:   abcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcd.    "Sand Dune".........   Nature Construct.

"Specific Complexity":  The Declaration of Independence.  "Sand Castle"....... Intelligent Design Construct.

Seti: This search would be pointless and quite Nonsensical if they weren't able to tell the difference in random noises "order" from "NATURE" and "Specific Complex" communication "INTELLIGENT DESIGN".

"Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity."

L. Orgel PhD Chemistry, The Origins of Life (New York: John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.

 

you didn't rebutt it then, and you haven't now.  Your words are a perfect example of the fallacy.

 

Look up "Obtuse".  You know that other people will come by a click on that?  You are aware of that, right?

 

You laugh at what I posted from Google, but please note, I also cited sources.

 

You did a good job with citing a source Jerry; However,  that doesn't automatically validate or provide any veracity to the INFORMATION thereof, which was quite hilarious if I may add.

[jerryR34]

"Yes, it's me.  It's in my head....here's the jist:"

 

That's the point.  Your "science" is so unsatisfying, does not answer questions, is unfalsifiable, and offers no predictive capabilites.  It reminds me of what I've read from Walt Brown which has been thoroughly debunked (such as the hydroplate theory whose energy release would have destroyed the earth).  In spite of it being debunked, YE creationists keep putting it forward...that astounds me.