Spinning Wheels

[Senachwine]

ENOUGH!

Theistic Evolution is/has to be real. Even the Big Bang cannot explain the formation of life that develops into intelligent thought: the fiery matter of that Bang did not produce life forms- it produced planets/celestial matter. That's all. Evolution doesn't even enter the discussion about the actual Creation.

The formation of the celestial bodies which comprise the Universe is a separate matter from the creation of life forms. Said life forms, obviously, came to be at later times, when the celestial bodies, such as our Earth, had settled into place and taken form that was capable of supporting life forms. Seeds of life. Who planted them? The Creator(s), or those given said task. For those life forms to change/evolve, would appear to be the way it is- the Order set-up by the Creator(s). Science can only tell us of matter, and theory of how it all came to be.

Some of you are aware of my memory, and what I bore Witness to. And to you, I ask you why can't you get beyond spinning your wheels? If you are of agenda, be it traditional Evolution or Creationist, you have a closed, therefore very little, mind. However, for those others, if you can, then we advance. And you, not I, are on the ground floor. You can become known voices. I cannot. I am only kinduva Mercury Cassiel in the ether. EVOLUTION IS REAL, BUT SO IS CREATION BY A BEING/CREATOR, or CREATORS. The "Creation" was not a simple one-event happening, but was more likely a two-step operation for us on Earth, as for others elsewhere in the Universe: first came the houses, then came the people and their pets when the houses were ready for them.

 

[Mallon]

This is a Christian forum. Why are you referring to creators?

 

[crawfish]

You obviously put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into that post.

 

[Jester4kicks]

ENOUGH!

Theistic Evolution is/has to be real. Even the Big Bang cannot explain the formation of life that develops into intelligent thought: the fiery matter of that Bang did not produce life forms- it produced planets/celestial matter. That's all. Evolution doesn't even enter the discussion about the actual Creation.

The formation of the celestial bodies which comprise the Universe is a separate matter from the creation of life forms. Said life forms, obviously, came to be at later times, when the celestial bodies, such as our Earth, had settled into place and taken form that was capable of supporting life forms. Seeds of life. Who planted them? The Creator(s), or those given said task. For those life forms to change/evolve, would appear to be the way it is- the Order set-up by the Creator(s). Science can only tell us of matter, and theory of how it all came to be.

Some of you are aware of my memory, and what I bore Witness to. And to you, I ask you why can't you get beyond spinning your wheels? If you are of agenda, be it traditional Evolution or Creationist, you have a closed, therefore very little, mind. However, for those others, if you can, then we advance. And you, not I, are on the ground floor. You can become known voices. I cannot. I am only kinduva Mercury Cassiel in the ether. EVOLUTION IS REAL, BUT SO IS CREATION BY A BEING/CREATOR, or CREATORS. The "Creation" was not a simple one-event happening, but was more likely a two-step operation for us on Earth, as for others elsewhere in the Universe: first came the houses, then came the people and their pets when the houses were ready for them.

I am somewhat confused by this post.

You talk about how evolution could not possibly explain the origins of life, and how creation is the only rational choice. My confusion is that you seem to take a biblical standpoint on this issue, and yet you refer to possibly more than one creator.

If you are taking a biblical stance on this issue... why wouldn't you be absolute in your resolve about a single creator?

The only logical conclusion I can come to is that you are not actually concerned with the biblical story of creation... but rather that you just can't accept the idea that life could have developed naturally.

Now, if that's the case... I have to wonder, "why not?". Let me clarify.

Why would you be so opposed to the idea that life could have developed on it's own? Granted, science has not fully explained it... yet... but that doesn't mean we won't be able to know everything about it someday. We already understand the basic conditions that would have existed on the planet when life is thought to have begun... and we've already duplicated those conditions to see what might have happened... AND we've already seen the basic building blocks of life form under those conditions. (Check Wikipedia for the "Miller-Urey Experiment")

Now, I'm not going to sit here and say you are wrong about a creator (that's an entirely different subject)... but I'm wondering why you are so obviously-opposed to the idea that life could have formed naturally.

 

[Senachwine]

"Now, I'm not going to sit here and say you are wrong about a creator (that's an entirely different subject)... but I'm wondering why you are so obviously-opposed to the idea that life could have formed naturally."

Because of intelligent thought- such does not evolve into being. Nor does the Soul, which I hope you also believe you have. Nor do the intricate details of human innards. Also, even the notion of human tissue evolving into existence from what HAD TO BE the fiery matter of the Big Bang- this, also does not pass the litmus test of common sense logic.



"This is a Christian forum. Why are you referring to creators?"

Because we do not know for a fact there was only one Creator. We/some may believe there was only one, but we do not know for a fact such was the case. Of all who contemplate such, who has better perspective on such? You, Mallon, are aware of my testimony. I am a Creationist, with an authoritative modification on the oral tradition that is the Genesis Account, which is little more than a children's story of how it all began. You know my testimony, Mallon. Upon my grave, I swear it is true. Science will never be able to explain the beginning without a Creator(s) being at the very core. Those who can only accept the children's story, given to them by an unknown person(s) dating back to a time of the greatest ignorance in human history, keep Religion from advancing. Science, unable to comprehend the possiblity of describing the physical Being of God with a chalkboard equation, keep Science from advancing closer to Truth about the Creation.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Because of intelligent thought- such does not evolve into being. Nor does the Soul, which I hope you also believe you have. Nor do the intricate details of human innards. Also, even the notion of human tissue evolving into existence from what HAD TO BE the fiery matter of the Big Bang- this, also does not pass the litmus test of common sense logic.

Umm... just something to quickly point out... you think that life could not have developed from the basic elements that would have been present as the earth was forming... you say this defies common-sense logic... but somehow a supernatural being magically "poofing" everything into existence is MORE logical?

I'm still not sure why you think life absolutely could not have developed on its own. Have you read about the Miller-Urey experiment that I referred to? We already know that the very basic building blocks of life CAN form from the conditions that would have been present when they earth was developing. Are you denying that? Or do you just have a problem with the idea that those basic building blocks could have grown and developed into complex cellular systems?

 

[Melethiel]

I'd like to point out that this is the Christian Theology section of the forum...most posters here believe in a Creator. Usually, a single Creator...multiple creators kind of goes against the vein.

 

[Senachwine]

Jester4kicks: THOUGHT, is not physical, and the intelligence you use to make your point in this thread is proof. THAT IS THE KEY: INTELLIGENT THOUGHT, and again- from fiery matter? And Souls from such? NOT.
And, were you to know of my testimony, then you would understand why I subscribe to the belief of a "supernatural being magically 'poofing' everything into existence." Still, I think scientific dating is close to correct, and life may have existed here and elsewhere in the Universe long ago (and some of that "elsewhere" may have existed for far longer durations than we can trace our history- which does explain the UFO/alien thing, and how others of the "elsewhere" may be far more advanced than we presently are- though someday will be). I can only speculate that the Creator(s), or those given the task, planted the seeds of life upon the Earth, and elsewhere, with due cause, and the nature of evolution began.

Melethiel: A single Creator may be. This may never be known. All I maintain, with my testimony, is that I have reason to believe it possible there may have been more than One. But I have no judgement, or opinion, on whether there was One, or many- because I do not know of either/which to be the case. I would be more specific, Melethiel, but you have not answered my private message. And I think it possible that now I know why. As with you, or Mallon, or Busterdog, I have not lost hope (I have a new pen, Melethiel. Do you have a mailing address?).
And now crawfish and Polycarp may be included.

PLEASE, LET US BEGIN TO ADVANCE.
















"At the Creation site there was a large structure, from which large fireballs were cast into empty space."
witness

 

[Jester4kicks]

Jester4kicks: THOUGHT, is not physical, and the intelligence you use to make your point in this thread is proof. THAT IS THE KEY: INTELLIGENT THOUGHT, and again- from fiery matter? And Souls from such? NOT.

Correction: Thought is physical. It is the product of electrical impulses firing through your brain's synapses. Information is retrieved from your memory, and your brain processes it into output. It is no different than when you lift something and your muscles receive the signal to react and create force.

2nd Correction: I could make the exact same argument about the concept of the soul.

And, were you to know of my testimony, then you would understand why I subscribe to the belief of a "supernatural being magically 'poofing' everything into existence." Still, I think scientific dating is close to correct, and life may have existed here and elsewhere in the Universe long ago (and some of that "elsewhere" may have existed for far longer durations than we can trace our history- which does explain the UFO/alien thing, and how others of the "elsewhere" may be far more advanced than we presently are- though someday will be). I can only speculate that the Creator(s), or those given the task, planted the seeds of life upon the Earth, and elsewhere, with due cause, and the nature of evolution began.

Your "testimony"? I suppose you were instructed on the real truth of creation in a dream?

"At the Creation site there was a large structure, from which large fireballs were cast into empty space."
witness

There was no witness. Sorry to break it to you.

 

[Senachwine]

Yup.

 

[Mallon]

Who are the other creators you suspect beyond the Triune God, Senachwine?

 

[Chesterton]

Correction: Thought is physical. It is the product of electrical impulses firing through your brain's synapses. Information is retrieved from your memory, and your brain processes it into output. It is no different than when you lift something and your muscles receive the signal to react and create force.

Correction: Thought is not physical since it is about something, and can be true or false. It is different than when you lift something, since the physical event of lifting something cannot be true or false.

There was no witness. Sorry to break it to you.

Unless you were a witness to the fact that there was no witness, you cannot state that there was no witness. And if you were, then there was.

 

[Melethiel]

Correction: Thought is physical. It is the product of electrical impulses firing through your brain's synapses. Information is retrieved from your memory, and your brain processes it into output. It is no different than when you lift something and your muscles receive the signal to react and create force.

"Thought" is separate from "the mind," and nobody is quite sure how either of them works. I've read some highly interesting (scientific - I worked as a research assistant in the Neurology department here) articles on the function of the mind and thought. However, it is a very new field, and much work is hypothetical.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Correction: Thought is not physical since it is about something, and can be true or false. It is different than when you lift something, since the physical event of lifting something cannot be true or false.

Uh huh.... so thought is not physical since:
1) It is about something

All science is "about something". Biology is about the cell and cellular systems. Chemistry is about matter. Physics is about matter and energy.


and

2) it can be true or false

When you lift something, muscles contract. True or false? See how easy that was?

Our understanding of the brain is growing... practically by the day.

Unless you were a witness to the fact that there was no witness, you cannot state that there was no witness. And if you were, then there was.

Oh, the old "you can't prove what I'm saying is untrue... therefore it must be true. Ok, enjoy it. But as long as we're making things up, the witness was a giant purple monkey that gives out rainbows... and he currently lives on the far side of the moon.

See? I can play imagination-land too!

 

[Chesterton]

Uh huh.... so thought is not physical since:
1) It is about something

All science is "about something". Biology is about the cell and cellular systems. Chemistry is about matter. Physics is about matter and energy.


and

2) it can be true or false

When you lift something, muscles contract. True or false? See how easy that was?

No, I don't see how easy that was. You didn't even give an answer: is the contraction true or false?

Oh, the old "you can't prove what I'm saying is untrue... therefore it must be true. Ok, enjoy it. But as long as we're making things up, the witness was a giant purple monkey that gives out rainbows... and he currently lives on the far side of the moon.

See? I can play imagination-land too!

I believe what I said was true. If you can prove it isn't, please do.

And what did I make up?

 

[Jester4kicks]

No, I don't see how easy that was. You didn't even give an answer: is the contraction true or false?

Seriously? It's basic human biology. Ok, allow me: True, muscles contract when you lift something.

I believe what I said was true. If you can prove it isn't, please do.

Nope, can't prove it. Just like you can't prove that the giant purple monkey doesn't live on the far side of the moon.

It doesn't mean that either of us are actually right though...

And what did I make up?

1) Your idea that there was a witness
2) Your "quote" from that witness

 

[Chesterton]

Seriously? It's basic human biology. Ok, allow me: True, muscles contract when you lift something.




Nope, can't prove it. Just like you can't prove that the giant purple monkey doesn't live on the far side of the moon.

It doesn't mean that either of us are actually right though...



1) Your idea that there was a witness
2) Your "quote" from that witness

Are you really misunderstanding me, or are you just messing around? I can try again to perhaps be more clear, but I'd rather not waste the time if you're just messing with me.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Are you really misunderstanding me, or are you just messing around? I can try again to perhaps be more clear, but I'd rather not waste the time if you're just messing with me.

Honestly not messing with you.

REALLY wondering about the brain =/= science thing... the rest, well, I got accustomed to seeing that.

 

[Chesterton]

You posted that thoughts were physical things or events just like muscle contractions when you lift something, and I think you're wrong. It's true that muscle movement and electric impulses in the brain share the same physical mechanism - the motions of atoms - just as everything in the universe does. But motions of atoms cannot be true or false. A muscle contraction cannot be true or false (neither can a mountain or a rainstorm), but a thought can be true or false. I don't claim to know what thoughts are, but I think they're a unique kind of event.

And I didn't say there was or wasn't a witness, I only said that you (and I ) can't say there was or wasn't.

 

[Jester4kicks]

You posted that thoughts were physical things or events just like muscle contractions when you lift something, and I think you're wrong. It's true that muscle movement and electric impulses in the brain share the same physical mechanism - the motions of atoms - just as everything in the universe does. But motions of atoms cannot be true or false. A muscle contraction cannot be true or false (neither can a mountain or a rainstorm), but a thought can be true or false. I don't claim to know what thoughts are, but I think they're a unique kind of event.

And I didn't say there was or wasn't a witness, I only said that you (and I ) can't say there was or wasn't.

My apologies, you're right, I had gotten you confused with the previous poster that "quoted" a witness.

Let's get back to the thought issue. Perhaps I'm not understanding what you mean. Could you provide a couple examples of how a thought can be true or false?