B
Bandit
Guest
juantoo3 said:
Juan, we are in agreement with this & i can see what you are saying. it is worth a lot more than two cents as far as i am concerned.
i commend you.
Juan, we are in agreement with this & i can see what you are saying. it is worth a lot more than two cents as far as i am concerned.
i commend you.
![sara[h]ng](/community/data/avatars/m/2/2548.jpg?1425214557){kind=avatar}
On this site, as well, there is a significant amount of falsehood. Try this one out:Bandit said:
The first comment is based on an unknown assumption. How is energy created? Is it created at all? Could something like the Big Bang have been responsible? Could God have been? At this point, we can't know. In fact, we don't even know that there was ever any beginning at all. Isn't it possible that everything in the universe always was and always will be?
The third comment is simply bad logic, based on assumption.
Granted there is some stuff on the site that I couldn't debunk right away, and maybe it's good, I don't know. But, when a person gives me several arguments supporting an idea, and I can look at one of the arguments and recognize it to be poor (intentionally so or not) and based on either the speaker not knowing what he's talking about, or assuming that I don't know enough to see the holes in it, I tend to be wary of any other arguments presented.
I would like to continue this but I'm going out of town this afternoon and I guess that means that I should pack something. So, until Sunday.
- Sarah
B
Bandit
Guest
sara[h]ng said:
is that not what science is about? filling the holes?
you are entitled to your opinion & theories & so is he.
have fun til sunday
.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
So far this thread reminds me of the scene in `Life of Brian' where much discussion takes place regarding the forming of a committee to investigate whether it may, or may not, indeed be a good idea to rescue Brian from being crucified. So without further ado ...
I wanted to question whether anyone familiar with carbon dating technology, modern astronomy, and the scientific method in general (verification through repeated experimentation) could really maintain a sensible position regarding Creation Science?
Looking at Webster's definition of Creationism, I see that Creationists believe in the notion of something proceeding from nothing. This is patently absurd. It is not simply illogical; it is absurd. Think about what this suggests, for just a moment. Here in my hand, I have nothing. WRONG!!!
I challenge anyone breathing to show me nothing. Friend, you can't do it. Strictly speaking, you can't even imagine it! And I dare say Deity can't either. As philosophers love to put it, nothing doesn't exist! And yes, as a double negative, this is also a tautology simply stating that there is existence. But that's not the point, or rather, it's only the converse.
As Empedocles put it, ex nihilo, nihil fit. Out of nothing, nothing comes. To say, "Oh, but G-d is all-powerful and all-wise and He can do ANYTHING He wants," is childish and foolish. You've begged quite a few questions just by uttering such nonsense ... but what you have not done is increase my sense of awe & wonder one iota by appealing to such a meaningless utterance - an absurdity and an impossibility!
So back to Creationism, this very notion of all of existence springing up from nothing - is nonsense. How do we know it isn't true? Because prior to the ever-expanding Cosmos that has existed since a moment after the singularity - there was only ... THE SINGULARITY!!!
And what was that "mode" or "modification" of being like? Damned if I know. But I can tell you that - while it might be NOTHING LIKE our current mode of existence - it was sure as hell not true nothingness. I just LOVE to sit and watch people try to conceive of nothingness, because it's actually a nice little Zen exercise and it gets people away from such absurdities as, "G-d created the universe out of nothing."
Perhaps it appears I'm being a little heavy-handed in arguing my point? Then challenge me. Please, by all means, as a proponent of Creationism, argue rationally and appeal to my common sense in an effort to explain the creation of something from nothing ... even though, as we know, this happens nowhere in the physical world that we have ever observed. Not even in the world of mysterious quantum physics can we either destroy or create energy ... or matter. We only change the state of matter/energy.
I am not scientifically-minded, personally. I do not put much stock in Darwinian evolution ... certainly not in the notion that "a fortuitous occurrence of atoms" explains the least of our daily experiences - let alone the miracle of life, be that molecular, cellular or what-have-you. I don't even accept the findings of carbon-dating unquestioned ... since I believe that Humanity stretches back easily 5 million years on this planet, if not 18 million.
The Giza Pyramids and the Sphinx, as I've said in other posts, are more like 200,000+ years old - not 5 or 6 thousand. Even the work of Robert Schoch and John Anthony West proves geologically beyond a modicum of doubt that we're looking at 10 or 12 thousand years, due to the evidence of water erosion. This, alone, flies in the face of a supposed Biblical chronology going back only 6,000 years. But then, Egyptologists such as Zahi Hawass - and still the prejudiced majority - maintain (for the sake of their jobs and reputations) that the Giza structures are recent tombs ... and time will show that they are wrong on both counts. Interestingly, their mistaken chronology dovetails with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Hmmm ....
If you think I think there are those with a vested interest in preserving such nonsense regarding human origins as those consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis in the Hebrew Pentateuch, you're right. While some such people are relatively harmless and not very influential, others have a considerably far-reaching power structure to maintain ... and thus have made enemies with the Truth and the true Spirit of G-d.
I like to smile, too, when people mention conspiracy theories, but if you think the American and British governments (as but two, current examples) are nice & honest and always have your well-being & peace-of-mind at heart, then man, get to whiffin' on that coffee. And if you can smile and nod, then why on earth (sic) do you suppose the `Church' would be exempt from the same foibles, vices, and appetites for power?!?
This really doesn't have to do with denominations, nor Xianity (churchianity) alone ... although I can't recall the last time a Tibetan Buddhist tried to convert me, and I really don't think Buddhists care whether you believe in Dipankara, Kasyapa & Shakyamuni or not. They would just hope that people recognize the value, importance, and vital need to "practice the Dharma" ... in the same way that Christ hoped beyond hope that we might, likewise, recognize the same Spirit of the Divine dwelling within the hearts of all beings - neighbors, enemies, as well as ourselves - just as some could respond & resonate to this Spirit in Christ Jesus. But alas, we have failed to act accordingly, and my 10-second analysis is that this is precisely because people insist on literal interpretations of the word and not the Spirit - of the Law of Love ... and because the negative in human nature has been emphasized (by would-be followers) rather than innate Human Goodness. Christ spoke at length and repeatedly of the latter; if you prefer to quibble then you only support my point.
Well I meant no diatribe, but why, I ask, can't thinking, reasonable people from "both camps," simply agree that the world is full of beauty and wonder, and thus accept that quite possibly if not also likely there is intelligent, loving design behind all of manifestation, evidenced ceaselessly and splendidly in this little blue planet we call Home. Because, perhaps (?) - science would like to close the door on religion and on the sense of mystery that any spiritually responsive person (of whatever faith, or of no creed at all) can attest to ... and because religious zealotry would jealously guard any & all secrets that once may have been known by the Initate(d) - and yet which have long since been lost in the violence & ignorance of the Dark Ages (and the very cycle called The Dark Age from which Humanity is but slowly seeking to emerge).
When certain recognitions - which are but round the corner, in Humanity's near future - have been made, and when larger numbers of people can verify with the naked (but increasingly sensitive) eye that there "is more to matter than we have been taught," then the Evolution/Creationism debate might finally be put to rest. If already we distinguish between inert matter and that which is ANIMAted by something that biology vaguely terms life ... then might we one day confirm this distinction by the same first-person powers of clear-seeing which some, gifted individuals can already utilize?
[`Anima,' by the way, means breath, soul or spirit, from the ancient Latin, Greek and Sanskrit. Science is full of terminology with which its wiser, more perceptive, and more spiritually-minded contributors have gifted it over the ages - and even in recent centuries with the trends toward materialism, she has never been without Divine Inspiration - as every other Human endeavor. Newton, Galileo, Jacob Boehme, Johannes Kepler, and Paracelsus have all helped to breathe the Divine Life into Science & scientific endeavor.]
So maybe that will help to get the ball rolling ...
I wanted to question whether anyone familiar with carbon dating technology, modern astronomy, and the scientific method in general (verification through repeated experimentation) could really maintain a sensible position regarding Creation Science?
Looking at Webster's definition of Creationism, I see that Creationists believe in the notion of something proceeding from nothing. This is patently absurd. It is not simply illogical; it is absurd. Think about what this suggests, for just a moment. Here in my hand, I have nothing. WRONG!!!
I challenge anyone breathing to show me nothing. Friend, you can't do it. Strictly speaking, you can't even imagine it! And I dare say Deity can't either. As philosophers love to put it, nothing doesn't exist! And yes, as a double negative, this is also a tautology simply stating that there is existence. But that's not the point, or rather, it's only the converse.
As Empedocles put it, ex nihilo, nihil fit. Out of nothing, nothing comes. To say, "Oh, but G-d is all-powerful and all-wise and He can do ANYTHING He wants," is childish and foolish. You've begged quite a few questions just by uttering such nonsense ... but what you have not done is increase my sense of awe & wonder one iota by appealing to such a meaningless utterance - an absurdity and an impossibility!
So back to Creationism, this very notion of all of existence springing up from nothing - is nonsense. How do we know it isn't true? Because prior to the ever-expanding Cosmos that has existed since a moment after the singularity - there was only ... THE SINGULARITY!!!
And what was that "mode" or "modification" of being like? Damned if I know. But I can tell you that - while it might be NOTHING LIKE our current mode of existence - it was sure as hell not true nothingness. I just LOVE to sit and watch people try to conceive of nothingness, because it's actually a nice little Zen exercise and it gets people away from such absurdities as, "G-d created the universe out of nothing."
Perhaps it appears I'm being a little heavy-handed in arguing my point? Then challenge me. Please, by all means, as a proponent of Creationism, argue rationally and appeal to my common sense in an effort to explain the creation of something from nothing ... even though, as we know, this happens nowhere in the physical world that we have ever observed. Not even in the world of mysterious quantum physics can we either destroy or create energy ... or matter. We only change the state of matter/energy.
I am not scientifically-minded, personally. I do not put much stock in Darwinian evolution ... certainly not in the notion that "a fortuitous occurrence of atoms" explains the least of our daily experiences - let alone the miracle of life, be that molecular, cellular or what-have-you. I don't even accept the findings of carbon-dating unquestioned ... since I believe that Humanity stretches back easily 5 million years on this planet, if not 18 million.
The Giza Pyramids and the Sphinx, as I've said in other posts, are more like 200,000+ years old - not 5 or 6 thousand. Even the work of Robert Schoch and John Anthony West proves geologically beyond a modicum of doubt that we're looking at 10 or 12 thousand years, due to the evidence of water erosion. This, alone, flies in the face of a supposed Biblical chronology going back only 6,000 years. But then, Egyptologists such as Zahi Hawass - and still the prejudiced majority - maintain (for the sake of their jobs and reputations) that the Giza structures are recent tombs ... and time will show that they are wrong on both counts. Interestingly, their mistaken chronology dovetails with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Hmmm ....
If you think I think there are those with a vested interest in preserving such nonsense regarding human origins as those consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis in the Hebrew Pentateuch, you're right. While some such people are relatively harmless and not very influential, others have a considerably far-reaching power structure to maintain ... and thus have made enemies with the Truth and the true Spirit of G-d.
I like to smile, too, when people mention conspiracy theories, but if you think the American and British governments (as but two, current examples) are nice & honest and always have your well-being & peace-of-mind at heart, then man, get to whiffin' on that coffee. And if you can smile and nod, then why on earth (sic) do you suppose the `Church' would be exempt from the same foibles, vices, and appetites for power?!?
This really doesn't have to do with denominations, nor Xianity (churchianity) alone ... although I can't recall the last time a Tibetan Buddhist tried to convert me, and I really don't think Buddhists care whether you believe in Dipankara, Kasyapa & Shakyamuni or not. They would just hope that people recognize the value, importance, and vital need to "practice the Dharma" ... in the same way that Christ hoped beyond hope that we might, likewise, recognize the same Spirit of the Divine dwelling within the hearts of all beings - neighbors, enemies, as well as ourselves - just as some could respond & resonate to this Spirit in Christ Jesus. But alas, we have failed to act accordingly, and my 10-second analysis is that this is precisely because people insist on literal interpretations of the word and not the Spirit - of the Law of Love ... and because the negative in human nature has been emphasized (by would-be followers) rather than innate Human Goodness. Christ spoke at length and repeatedly of the latter; if you prefer to quibble then you only support my point.
Well I meant no diatribe, but why, I ask, can't thinking, reasonable people from "both camps," simply agree that the world is full of beauty and wonder, and thus accept that quite possibly if not also likely there is intelligent, loving design behind all of manifestation, evidenced ceaselessly and splendidly in this little blue planet we call Home. Because, perhaps (?) - science would like to close the door on religion and on the sense of mystery that any spiritually responsive person (of whatever faith, or of no creed at all) can attest to ... and because religious zealotry would jealously guard any & all secrets that once may have been known by the Initate(d) - and yet which have long since been lost in the violence & ignorance of the Dark Ages (and the very cycle called The Dark Age from which Humanity is but slowly seeking to emerge).
When certain recognitions - which are but round the corner, in Humanity's near future - have been made, and when larger numbers of people can verify with the naked (but increasingly sensitive) eye that there "is more to matter than we have been taught," then the Evolution/Creationism debate might finally be put to rest. If already we distinguish between inert matter and that which is ANIMAted by something that biology vaguely terms life ... then might we one day confirm this distinction by the same first-person powers of clear-seeing which some, gifted individuals can already utilize?
[`Anima,' by the way, means breath, soul or spirit, from the ancient Latin, Greek and Sanskrit. Science is full of terminology with which its wiser, more perceptive, and more spiritually-minded contributors have gifted it over the ages - and even in recent centuries with the trends toward materialism, she has never been without Divine Inspiration - as every other Human endeavor. Newton, Galileo, Jacob Boehme, Johannes Kepler, and Paracelsus have all helped to breathe the Divine Life into Science & scientific endeavor.]
So maybe that will help to get the ball rolling ...
protokletos
I suppose I looked forward erroneously to a utopian thread...one where one did as the thread starter requested..not jump to the evolutionary debate but put forward creationist concepts and evidence sort of like a brainstorming session (where everything is allowed out on the table) prior to it turning into ... the lively debate.
I do find it interesting that we are asking the creationists to prove what the big bangists posit. After all the creationists say God is, always was and ever will be...and that out of that God put everything into nothing...now the scientific parallel is that out of the ethers all creation occurs. Ether you think God may be involved or you don't. Ether way I'm willing to explore what the creationists come up with prior to treating all theories as a pinata.
namaste,
Ciel
in essence
Ponderings on nothingness, inspired by Taijasi's words.
Looking at this empty hand, I see fine electrical emanations, an alive thing. Between these small expanses with fingers spread, energy stretched, finite and infinite worlds appear, movement, colour, interactive miniscule apparitions, not matter as we know matter to be, yet form that can be entered by matter, and passed through, ruled by it's own laws, created by it's own nature.
Before this hand existed the electromagnetic form of God and creation was already in place,waiting, while this hand exists it is supported in maintenance by the same. And nowhere on this planet is there nothing. Once tuned the eyes can see, intelligence touches intelligence, God and creation is everywhere.
I open the hand and witness existence in creational form.
I close the hand and God slips through the fingers.
Looking at this empty hand, I see fine electrical emanations, an alive thing. Between these small expanses with fingers spread, energy stretched, finite and infinite worlds appear, movement, colour, interactive miniscule apparitions, not matter as we know matter to be, yet form that can be entered by matter, and passed through, ruled by it's own laws, created by it's own nature.
Before this hand existed the electromagnetic form of God and creation was already in place,waiting, while this hand exists it is supported in maintenance by the same. And nowhere on this planet is there nothing. Once tuned the eyes can see, intelligence touches intelligence, God and creation is everywhere.
I open the hand and witness existence in creational form.
I close the hand and God slips through the fingers.
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Even the most open, most expansive and unpredjuidiced mind living a long life of study and contemplation can but touch on a fraction of the knowledge humanity as a whole has accumulated. Those that have the greatest intellect and depth of cognition are often found to say "I dont know". To take any single volume from mans vast achievment, and every book is by mans hand, and to believe verbatim that it is the word of God is an insult to the very idea of God. We are Gods creation, every word however frivolous, irrelevant, profound or inspiring is by that token a part of Gods creation. To blindly follow any single doctrine is not service to God, its a disservice. The truth is everywhere.
I know there are some completely athiestic scientists out there. They are a minority group however. The prominent ones tend to make a career of their atheisim and so their vested interest is easilly understood. And whether by design or otherwise they set a kind of control function by which the genuine free thinker can test their thoughts. Most people in science do however have some belief, infact I think many people who set out as atheists have discovered their beliefs by looking at the universe under the microsope of the scientific method. Science and Spirituality have been uneasy bedfellows for some time but I disagree, Taijasi ,that most sciences are out to close the door on spirituality, quite the opposite. The frontiers of science are pushing them ever wider open for us.
I predict that reasonably soon science will allow us to see and measure that which we call our souls. I feel quite confident that this will give us scientific evidence that we are a part of God. That we need no salvation through following the dictates of some dusty old tome because we are all now and forever a part of God anyway. Our individual selves are but countless works of expression of a singular whole. Monotheisms as religeons I think miss the point in so much as God is not one 'thing' but the entirety of things. And followers of these religeons all too often guilty of gross oversimplification. Quoting a few words from here, and a few from there in support of any argument is irrelevant. The one fundamental of Faith should be Love, of oneself and of ALL others, for we all are the same child.
Religeous leaders who demand that ideas such as the 6000 yr old date for Creation are facts are simply control freaks. They want their 'flocks' to hang on their every word. They are the paranoid dictators of the religeous world and I feel they have very little spirituality in them. They are entirely creatures of ego. The 'flock' themselves I find it difficult to fathom and difficult to describe without appearing condescending. I have no desire to evangelicise or convert anybody for I believe while we are all one we each have our own path to walk. Free thinkers tend not have a whole lot of desire for power over others in my experience. Those with singular ambition and ego do. And there are some that have neither and are content to be led. My hope is that in years to come science and our modern technologies creates an atmosphere more conducive to free thinking. And that that in turn will bring us all much closer together and make it more difficult for the individual ego to operate and manipulate. I hope that I am not a hapless romantic in that dream.
Regards
TE
I know there are some completely athiestic scientists out there. They are a minority group however. The prominent ones tend to make a career of their atheisim and so their vested interest is easilly understood. And whether by design or otherwise they set a kind of control function by which the genuine free thinker can test their thoughts. Most people in science do however have some belief, infact I think many people who set out as atheists have discovered their beliefs by looking at the universe under the microsope of the scientific method. Science and Spirituality have been uneasy bedfellows for some time but I disagree, Taijasi ,that most sciences are out to close the door on spirituality, quite the opposite. The frontiers of science are pushing them ever wider open for us.
I predict that reasonably soon science will allow us to see and measure that which we call our souls. I feel quite confident that this will give us scientific evidence that we are a part of God. That we need no salvation through following the dictates of some dusty old tome because we are all now and forever a part of God anyway. Our individual selves are but countless works of expression of a singular whole. Monotheisms as religeons I think miss the point in so much as God is not one 'thing' but the entirety of things. And followers of these religeons all too often guilty of gross oversimplification. Quoting a few words from here, and a few from there in support of any argument is irrelevant. The one fundamental of Faith should be Love, of oneself and of ALL others, for we all are the same child.
Religeous leaders who demand that ideas such as the 6000 yr old date for Creation are facts are simply control freaks. They want their 'flocks' to hang on their every word. They are the paranoid dictators of the religeous world and I feel they have very little spirituality in them. They are entirely creatures of ego. The 'flock' themselves I find it difficult to fathom and difficult to describe without appearing condescending. I have no desire to evangelicise or convert anybody for I believe while we are all one we each have our own path to walk. Free thinkers tend not have a whole lot of desire for power over others in my experience. Those with singular ambition and ego do. And there are some that have neither and are content to be led. My hope is that in years to come science and our modern technologies creates an atmosphere more conducive to free thinking. And that that in turn will bring us all much closer together and make it more difficult for the individual ego to operate and manipulate. I hope that I am not a hapless romantic in that dream.
Regards
TE
Kaldayen
Spiritual ronin
Very inspiring post Tao_Equus!
I hope too. We need dreamers to make other people dream.
___
Kal
Tao_Equus said:
I hope too. We need dreamers to make other people dream.
___
Kal
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Kaldayen said:
lol..thx.....reads like a bit of a sermon to me now.....wish you had 30 days not 30 minutes to make edits
.....or maybe even 40 days and 40 nights
B
Bandit
Guest
Ciel said:
this is real good Ciel. i printed it & hung it on my fridge
n4h1z
Thirst for 'Ilmi...
Peace to all....and sorry for the late post
The evidence of creationism, to be generally speaking is all around us and in almost everything.
This would be my first argument on the evidence of creationism. Here I would like to use the law of repetition in nature as my first evidence of creationism. Generally the law of repetition in creationism observes the repetitive design or repetitive event in different branches of science. It then will attempt to answer the question what and who is the cause of this repetition.
Humans and animals share many repetitive features. On the outside they have symmetrical organs - two hands, two or four legs, two eyes, two ears - all arranged symmetrically. The repetition pattern is also seen in the arrangement of these organs. A majority number of multi cellular organisms have their eyes, ears, nose and mouth placed on their heads. Seldom have we seen any of these organs placed far apart. From fishes to amphibians to reptiles, insects, birds, mammals, marsupials - the whole animal kingdom...we can see this law of repetition is being applied.
Again we can see this law of repetition in the arrangement of the internal organs. Internal organs of humans and animals are arranged to use the space inside efficiently. The human left lung has fewer lobes so it can accommodate the heart, which nestles inside it. Nearly every species from cow to chicken to human, has its' heart on the left. Nobody can really explain as to what pushes the cells of the heart to the left in the embryonic stage. Most of the multi cellular organism has the same arrangement for their internal organs. The respiratory system is always between the head (home to the brain) and the digestive system. This uniformity can be seen in most of the multi celled organism. This clearly reflects the law of repetition in the arrangement of internal organs.
The law of repetition here may be stated as: Organs in multi cellular organism is arranged symmetrically. What is the cause of this symmetrical arrangement and who did it?
This law of repetition can also be seen in atoms, cells, solar system and galaxies.
An atom is made up of a nucleus and a number of electrons moving in orbital shells at great distances from the nucleus. Inside the nucleus are other particles called protons and neutrons.
The cell, in a glimpse consists of a nucleus in the center which is surrounded and orbited by organelles. Each organelle serves a specific function. Both the nucleus and organelles is enclosed inside the cells’ membrane.
The solar system consists of thousands of celestial bodies. These bodies orbit the sun which is the "center of attraction" which is comparative to the nucleus. The celestial bodies rotates in its' own path orbiting the “nucleus”.
The sun is just one of the 100 billion stars traveling together that makes up a spiral galaxy called the Milky Way. The center of orbit in the Milky Way shapes like a bulging foam full of stars just like the our sun.
A galaxy is a massive group of hundreds of millions of stars, all gravitationally interacting and orbiting about a common center. The Milky Way is one of a small group of 20 galaxies that astronomers call the local group. Andromeda is also a member of this group. This group and other known clusters of galaxy travels together circling a common center.
The law of repetition here can be stated as: The building block of basic objects has a nucleus and smaller things / components orbiting it. What is the cause of this similar pattern in these building blocks behavior? Who caused all this?
All studies in different branches of engineering schools consist of studying and solving equilibrium equations, studying the physical properties of matter and designing a system that satisfies the equilibrium and the properties of material. E.g.
Electrical engineering: studying the equilibrium of flowing electric currents in circuits and the physical properties of electric and magnetic fields.
Mechanical / thermodynamics: Studying the equilibrium of different kind of energies such as heat and the physical properties of the vibrating objects.
Chemical engineering: studying of equilibrium of chemical processes and the physical properties of the elements involved in the chemical process.
Pharmacology: The study of chemical reactions in the human body and the effect of medication on diseases. We can say that pharmacology involves the study of equilibrium of chemical reaction inside the body as well as the properties of each organ and system in the human body.
The law of repetition is demonstrated here as:
All systems are in a state of static or dynamic equilibrium. What shapes the mold of these different fields of studies? Who sets it all to be in such way?
The law of cause and effect attributes one cause to one effect. Since the phenomenon of law of repetition can be found in all branches of science, then this phenomenon has to be attributed to only one Uncaused Cause. This leads us to the One Being that caused all the effects directly or indirectly. The Uncaused Cause is God which in His unlimited wisdom creates everything from nothingness.
These are just few examples of law of repetition in Gods’ work.
Peace...
The evidence of creationism, to be generally speaking is all around us and in almost everything.
This would be my first argument on the evidence of creationism. Here I would like to use the law of repetition in nature as my first evidence of creationism. Generally the law of repetition in creationism observes the repetitive design or repetitive event in different branches of science. It then will attempt to answer the question what and who is the cause of this repetition.
Humans and animals share many repetitive features. On the outside they have symmetrical organs - two hands, two or four legs, two eyes, two ears - all arranged symmetrically. The repetition pattern is also seen in the arrangement of these organs. A majority number of multi cellular organisms have their eyes, ears, nose and mouth placed on their heads. Seldom have we seen any of these organs placed far apart. From fishes to amphibians to reptiles, insects, birds, mammals, marsupials - the whole animal kingdom...we can see this law of repetition is being applied.
Again we can see this law of repetition in the arrangement of the internal organs. Internal organs of humans and animals are arranged to use the space inside efficiently. The human left lung has fewer lobes so it can accommodate the heart, which nestles inside it. Nearly every species from cow to chicken to human, has its' heart on the left. Nobody can really explain as to what pushes the cells of the heart to the left in the embryonic stage. Most of the multi cellular organism has the same arrangement for their internal organs. The respiratory system is always between the head (home to the brain) and the digestive system. This uniformity can be seen in most of the multi celled organism. This clearly reflects the law of repetition in the arrangement of internal organs.
The law of repetition here may be stated as: Organs in multi cellular organism is arranged symmetrically. What is the cause of this symmetrical arrangement and who did it?
This law of repetition can also be seen in atoms, cells, solar system and galaxies.
An atom is made up of a nucleus and a number of electrons moving in orbital shells at great distances from the nucleus. Inside the nucleus are other particles called protons and neutrons.
The cell, in a glimpse consists of a nucleus in the center which is surrounded and orbited by organelles. Each organelle serves a specific function. Both the nucleus and organelles is enclosed inside the cells’ membrane.
The solar system consists of thousands of celestial bodies. These bodies orbit the sun which is the "center of attraction" which is comparative to the nucleus. The celestial bodies rotates in its' own path orbiting the “nucleus”.
The sun is just one of the 100 billion stars traveling together that makes up a spiral galaxy called the Milky Way. The center of orbit in the Milky Way shapes like a bulging foam full of stars just like the our sun.
A galaxy is a massive group of hundreds of millions of stars, all gravitationally interacting and orbiting about a common center. The Milky Way is one of a small group of 20 galaxies that astronomers call the local group. Andromeda is also a member of this group. This group and other known clusters of galaxy travels together circling a common center.
The law of repetition here can be stated as: The building block of basic objects has a nucleus and smaller things / components orbiting it. What is the cause of this similar pattern in these building blocks behavior? Who caused all this?
All studies in different branches of engineering schools consist of studying and solving equilibrium equations, studying the physical properties of matter and designing a system that satisfies the equilibrium and the properties of material. E.g.
Electrical engineering: studying the equilibrium of flowing electric currents in circuits and the physical properties of electric and magnetic fields.
Mechanical / thermodynamics: Studying the equilibrium of different kind of energies such as heat and the physical properties of the vibrating objects.
Chemical engineering: studying of equilibrium of chemical processes and the physical properties of the elements involved in the chemical process.
Pharmacology: The study of chemical reactions in the human body and the effect of medication on diseases. We can say that pharmacology involves the study of equilibrium of chemical reaction inside the body as well as the properties of each organ and system in the human body.
The law of repetition is demonstrated here as:
All systems are in a state of static or dynamic equilibrium. What shapes the mold of these different fields of studies? Who sets it all to be in such way?
The law of cause and effect attributes one cause to one effect. Since the phenomenon of law of repetition can be found in all branches of science, then this phenomenon has to be attributed to only one Uncaused Cause. This leads us to the One Being that caused all the effects directly or indirectly. The Uncaused Cause is God which in His unlimited wisdom creates everything from nothingness.
These are just few examples of law of repetition in Gods’ work.
Peace...
bob x
Well-Known Member
The evolutionary model gives a simple explanation why the asymmetry in the placement of the heart is toward the left in all the vertebrates: because they have a common ancestor, and whichever way it was in the ancestor, it tends to remain that way. What is your explanation for it in the creationist model? None.
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Hi Nahiz,
I too find the repetition found throughout the universe fascinating. And I believe there may even be some things we have thus far missed in this 'harmonic resonance'. But I also understand it as a simple function of mass and gravity.
Throw a pebble in a pond and you will get repeated ripples expanding in just the same way. It does not take a dvine hand to throw that pebble, a little rockslide or a simple raindrop will have the same effect. The cause of the effect that we see can in no way, in the terms you describe, be accredited to intelligent design.
Regards
TE
I too find the repetition found throughout the universe fascinating. And I believe there may even be some things we have thus far missed in this 'harmonic resonance'. But I also understand it as a simple function of mass and gravity.
Throw a pebble in a pond and you will get repeated ripples expanding in just the same way. It does not take a dvine hand to throw that pebble, a little rockslide or a simple raindrop will have the same effect. The cause of the effect that we see can in no way, in the terms you describe, be accredited to intelligent design.
Regards
TE
Unfortunately, I am unimpressed by this latest argument. Like other creationist-science ties, it includes jumps, assumption, and exaggeration. While some of these are interesting points, they are simply unexplained things. When something is unexplained and not understood, one cannot say, 'Well, it must be evidence that God created us.' It is only evidence that we do not know.
- Sarah
I don't intend that this thread would drop to the level of bickering over small points, but to back up what I said in the previous paragraph, I have added a nit-picking section below.
All of this is a strong argument for evolution.
Actually, not true. There are many things in the body which are not symmetrical. If you want to get technical, nothing is. If you want to be basic, then back to evolution. The cause is the symmetric nature of a common ancestor. As to why it was symmetric is open for speculation, and while it could be some supernatural intervention, symmetry's mere existence is not evidence of it.
Organelles do not orbit the nucleus in a cell, nor are they necessarily surrounding it. The similarity, between that and the nucleus of an atom, is in name only.
The similarity between an atom and a solar system is interesting. Calls to mind, 'as above, so below.' But still, this is not evidence of divinity.
I think that the profession examples are a stretch. To go through each one and explain why is too nit-picky even for me.
- Sarah
I don't intend that this thread would drop to the level of bickering over small points, but to back up what I said in the previous paragraph, I have added a nit-picking section below.
n4h1z said:
All of this is a strong argument for evolution.
n4h1z said:
Actually, not true. There are many things in the body which are not symmetrical. If you want to get technical, nothing is. If you want to be basic, then back to evolution. The cause is the symmetric nature of a common ancestor. As to why it was symmetric is open for speculation, and while it could be some supernatural intervention, symmetry's mere existence is not evidence of it.
n4h1z said:
Organelles do not orbit the nucleus in a cell, nor are they necessarily surrounding it. The similarity, between that and the nucleus of an atom, is in name only.
n4h1z said:
The similarity between an atom and a solar system is interesting. Calls to mind, 'as above, so below.' But still, this is not evidence of divinity.
n4h1z said:
I think that the profession examples are a stretch. To go through each one and explain why is too nit-picky even for me.
There are several illogical jumps in this. No need to point them out, I think.n4h1z said:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards. all!
The more I see of the debate between evolution and creation, the more I am inclined to agree with Stephen Gould about the two distinct "magesteria" (sp?) of science and religion, of how one cannot adequately address the other.
What is being asked is for religion to answer to science from one side, and science to answer to religion from the other side.
I think we tend to stay toward the side of answering the "facts," because there is some degree of commonality. Since this thread is dedicated to "evidence for the creationist model," allow me to ask a few questions for science to address.
What is beauty?
What is love?
What is faith?
Why do we have or need hope?
Why do we cherish our loved ones? Even after they are dead?
Why are we moral to those we hold within our "family?"
What is awe?
Why do we dream? Why do we have prescient dreams?
I can go on. There are things science addresses, very appropriately and adequately. It is with those "answers" that we are able to manipulate our world around us, ostensibly for the better. Like medicine, for example. Medical science has advanced so much in the last one hundred years alone, and what lies on the horizon holds such great promise. Yet, for all of the promise medicine holds, it has not replaced prayer. How many sick and dying people still pray in the hope of a miracle? Whatever medicine offered may be that miracle for that person, but that person will not pray to the medicine, that person will pray to Divine Providence for a healing miracle. And lest our good-natured but swell-headed doctors justify themselves in a misbegotten "god-complex" within their own minds, how many "hopeless" patients have recovered, "miraculously" with little more than prayer and palliative care? (Not a lot, but sufficient to let doctors and patients alike know there is hope in prayer!)
Science is a wonderful tool. It is not to be maligned. But it is not, repeat (for emphasis) *not*, the final or total answer, to anything. There is no hope in science, there is no faith in science, there is no respect for elders (or ancestors) in science. There is no love in science. There is no life in science. Science is about answers to what is, in an effort to remake something that already is. Faith can see beyond that, into what might be, and it allows for possibilities. Faith explains love, not with words but with deeds, actions, experiences. Not necessarily recreateable in a laboratory environment, therefore not proof in the scientific sense. But very much proof on an individual level, sufficient and remarkably consistent across cultural divides and across individual experiences. Not always everyone, but sufficient to prove to enough people the world over that there is something "out there," something a whole lot bigger than all of us combined.
If you want scientific proof of this, then science better get crackin'. Because there is no "proof" does not mean it does not exist. Religion has faith, and personal experience, will science accept that as an answer?
The more I see of the debate between evolution and creation, the more I am inclined to agree with Stephen Gould about the two distinct "magesteria" (sp?) of science and religion, of how one cannot adequately address the other.
What is being asked is for religion to answer to science from one side, and science to answer to religion from the other side.
I think we tend to stay toward the side of answering the "facts," because there is some degree of commonality. Since this thread is dedicated to "evidence for the creationist model," allow me to ask a few questions for science to address.
What is beauty?
What is love?
What is faith?
Why do we have or need hope?
Why do we cherish our loved ones? Even after they are dead?
Why are we moral to those we hold within our "family?"
What is awe?
Why do we dream? Why do we have prescient dreams?
I can go on. There are things science addresses, very appropriately and adequately. It is with those "answers" that we are able to manipulate our world around us, ostensibly for the better. Like medicine, for example. Medical science has advanced so much in the last one hundred years alone, and what lies on the horizon holds such great promise. Yet, for all of the promise medicine holds, it has not replaced prayer. How many sick and dying people still pray in the hope of a miracle? Whatever medicine offered may be that miracle for that person, but that person will not pray to the medicine, that person will pray to Divine Providence for a healing miracle. And lest our good-natured but swell-headed doctors justify themselves in a misbegotten "god-complex" within their own minds, how many "hopeless" patients have recovered, "miraculously" with little more than prayer and palliative care? (Not a lot, but sufficient to let doctors and patients alike know there is hope in prayer!)
Science is a wonderful tool. It is not to be maligned. But it is not, repeat (for emphasis) *not*, the final or total answer, to anything. There is no hope in science, there is no faith in science, there is no respect for elders (or ancestors) in science. There is no love in science. There is no life in science. Science is about answers to what is, in an effort to remake something that already is. Faith can see beyond that, into what might be, and it allows for possibilities. Faith explains love, not with words but with deeds, actions, experiences. Not necessarily recreateable in a laboratory environment, therefore not proof in the scientific sense. But very much proof on an individual level, sufficient and remarkably consistent across cultural divides and across individual experiences. Not always everyone, but sufficient to prove to enough people the world over that there is something "out there," something a whole lot bigger than all of us combined.
If you want scientific proof of this, then science better get crackin'. Because there is no "proof" does not mean it does not exist. Religion has faith, and personal experience, will science accept that as an answer?
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
BTW, Tao Equus, I have been looking into what you said about the Higher Critical Movement, and I find you are correct, in that the references I have found under that name are not the group to which I had meant to refer. I recall learning of this pre-internet era, and I admit to not following it up back then. However, my intention was in reference to the "birth" of Renaissance atheism / humanism / skepticism / rationalism. Under those terms I think you will find reference to what it was I was trying to get at. There was a distinct period of time wherein scholars of such inclination dismissed the Bible with a wave of the hand by stating there was no proof, no "evidence" to back up the Bible. (I seem to recall this movement stemming from France and Germany) Even though I still sometimes hear the same old argument (over 300 years old now), there have been many ancient cities from the Bible that have been uncovered in that time (Jericho being perhaps the biggest and most famous) that do in no small degree supply some evidential validity to the Bible.
Last edited:
n4h1z
Thirst for 'Ilmi...
Peace to bob x and all…
If the position of the heart is due to the common ancestor, then the common ancestor must have had a heart. This is total contradiction to the theory of evolution. From what we know the common ancestor according to the theory of evolution is a unicellular organism which appears in a primordial pond as a result of chance.
Then again if the common ancestor of vertebrates has had a heart on the left side, it must have evolved through time just like the external organs. Why should there be any exceptional for the internal organs arrangement to change.
If evolution was to really happen, the symmetrical organ arrangement in organism will certainly can’t be seen as it is today. This is because different organism lives in different environment.
If all organisms were to experience evolution at all, by right giraffes should have a flexible serpent-like neck to help it drink easily. We all know how giraffes drink from the ground. It looks as if they’re going to break their front legs. And I strongly believe that water is much more important to giraffes than the tall leaves.
Another example, by (evolution) right owls should have their eyes on the side of their head not in the front like what it is today. Owls have to turn their head in order to see their back. A typical bird has their eyes put on the side of their head so they can see what’s on their back.
Generally speaking, most animals including humans have to look over their shoulder when they want to see the rear view. If evolution was to took place in existence, most of them would have developed a 360 degrees, x and y-axis, all-direction kind of eye. We know how we always wanted to watch our back and the same goes to most animals especially the non-predatory animals.
Why do owls and giraffes have such irregularities? According to theory of evolution an organism should evolve into something that suits its’ behavior, diet, environment etc etc.
There are more similar cases like the giraffe and owl in the animal kingdom which we never thought of before.When we observe the entire animal kingdom, there is some kind of uniformity in their organs arrangement. This is an interesting point to ponder on. All these uniformity we see couldn’t just exist as a result of chance. If it was, it would be like throwing thousands and thousands of dices all at once hoping the same digit will appear on each and every dice. Even if you do it for millions and millions of years….the odds of it to occur are still unacceptable.
The law of repetition which we see in multi cellular organisms is the evidence of an intelligent design behind the existence of all living things.
Peace....
If the position of the heart is due to the common ancestor, then the common ancestor must have had a heart. This is total contradiction to the theory of evolution. From what we know the common ancestor according to the theory of evolution is a unicellular organism which appears in a primordial pond as a result of chance.
Then again if the common ancestor of vertebrates has had a heart on the left side, it must have evolved through time just like the external organs. Why should there be any exceptional for the internal organs arrangement to change.
If evolution was to really happen, the symmetrical organ arrangement in organism will certainly can’t be seen as it is today. This is because different organism lives in different environment.
If all organisms were to experience evolution at all, by right giraffes should have a flexible serpent-like neck to help it drink easily. We all know how giraffes drink from the ground. It looks as if they’re going to break their front legs. And I strongly believe that water is much more important to giraffes than the tall leaves.
Another example, by (evolution) right owls should have their eyes on the side of their head not in the front like what it is today. Owls have to turn their head in order to see their back. A typical bird has their eyes put on the side of their head so they can see what’s on their back.
Generally speaking, most animals including humans have to look over their shoulder when they want to see the rear view. If evolution was to took place in existence, most of them would have developed a 360 degrees, x and y-axis, all-direction kind of eye. We know how we always wanted to watch our back and the same goes to most animals especially the non-predatory animals.
Why do owls and giraffes have such irregularities? According to theory of evolution an organism should evolve into something that suits its’ behavior, diet, environment etc etc.
There are more similar cases like the giraffe and owl in the animal kingdom which we never thought of before.When we observe the entire animal kingdom, there is some kind of uniformity in their organs arrangement. This is an interesting point to ponder on. All these uniformity we see couldn’t just exist as a result of chance. If it was, it would be like throwing thousands and thousands of dices all at once hoping the same digit will appear on each and every dice. Even if you do it for millions and millions of years….the odds of it to occur are still unacceptable.
The law of repetition which we see in multi cellular organisms is the evidence of an intelligent design behind the existence of all living things.
Peace....
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Two separate magesteria...you cannot ask religion to conform to "empirical evidence," any more than I can ask science to conform to "faith, hope and charity." They are two very different paradigms.
bob x
Well-Known Member
The common ancestor of the vertebrates had a heart, on the left. The common ancestor shared by the vertebrates and other organisms with or without hearts is not relevant to the question.
Evolution has to work with what is given; it is creationism which would predict that creatures would have whatever was best for them, designed from scratch. The giraffe evolved from creatures with vertebrae in their necks, so they have them also.
Another peculiarity about giraffes is the vomeral nerve, which in all vertebrates goes from the face into the brain making a detour through the cervical vertebrae: this happens in the giraffe also, even though that means a detour of several feet. It is trivial to understand in evolutionary terms why this would be so; but one would not expect an intelligent designer to do such a thing.
A typical bird needs to see behind, in case some predator is chasing them. The owl is a predator: it is more useful to the owl to have a double view of what is in front, to get depth perception on what they are chasing.
To add to what bob x said,
Notice that giraffes do not break their legs when drinking, nor do they have a problem getting water. Their bodies are perfect for their needs or they would die out. As for a flexible neck, think about the engineering requirements for that.
bob x is absolutely right about the owl. Prey animals have their eyes on the sides of their head for maximum range of sight. Predators have their eyes on the front for increased depth perception. Owls would not have evolved to have eyes on the side because it would have decreased their ability to successfully hunt. Instead, they evolved the ability to turn their heads completely around. This is the best solution for the problem.
There is no issue here other than you presuming that you know better than millions of years of nature or, since you accept creationsim, God. If owls and giraffes could be more perfect, as you say, why didn't God make them so?
- Sarah
n4h1z said:
Notice that giraffes do not break their legs when drinking, nor do they have a problem getting water. Their bodies are perfect for their needs or they would die out. As for a flexible neck, think about the engineering requirements for that.
bob x is absolutely right about the owl. Prey animals have their eyes on the sides of their head for maximum range of sight. Predators have their eyes on the front for increased depth perception. Owls would not have evolved to have eyes on the side because it would have decreased their ability to successfully hunt. Instead, they evolved the ability to turn their heads completely around. This is the best solution for the problem.
There is no issue here other than you presuming that you know better than millions of years of nature or, since you accept creationsim, God. If owls and giraffes could be more perfect, as you say, why didn't God make them so?
- Sarah