Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[Doveaman]

Boy do I feel stupid about this whole matter bridge thing, there's more of them.

Nice painting.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In evolution (theistic and otherwise), there is no Adam; therefore, we do not inherit the Adamic Nature.

It doesn't mean there's no Adam. Theistic evolutionists have a rather tidy reconciliation: Adam was the first human God endowed with a spirit (or soul, or whatever). Before that, humans were just another species of ape; after that, we were higher. The Fall, etc, happen, but perhaps not as literally as Adam and Eve munching on a banana.
Of course, this requires an allegorical view of Genesis...

In addition, no Adam = no dispensation of Innocence.

Who with the what now?

I'm not against grouping animals and giving them a taxon entry --- I'm against sticking us in there as well.

If the shoe fits...

What is so special about us that we don't fit into taxonomic classification? We satisfy all the criteria for (say) mammal-hood, and that's all that's required to be considered a mammal (under a non-evolutionary paradigm, that is). So why not call ourselves 'mammals'?

 

[Doveaman]

Yeah, but why not simply say "God created" instead of using a pejorative term coined by New Atheists?

"God did it" has a better sound to it. Not to mention the fact that He did it.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil : I the LORD do all these things. - Isa 45:7.

I'm sure this verse will create a storm here.

Consensus Cosmology are not the only ones that can create darkness.

 

[BananaSlug]

How about getting pass the first hurdle first - Redshift.

The official explanation of the NASA image states, "Appearances can be deceiving. In this NASA Hubble Space Telescope image, an odd celestial duo, the spiral galaxy NGC 4319

and a quasar called Markarian 205 [upper right], appear to be neighbors. In reality, the two objects don't even live in the same city. They are separated by time and space. NGC 4319 is 80 million light-years from Earth. Markarian 205 (Mrk 205) is more than 14 times farther away, residing 1 billion light-years from Earth. The apparent close alignment of Mrk 205 and NGC 4319 is simply a matter of chance.​

​

" Professional astronomers seem to be so enamored of their 'redshift equals distance' theory that it damages their eyesight.​

If you read my post again, I was pointing out anomalies that Plasma cosmology cannot answer, thereby showing plasma cosmology is wrong.

Here they are yet again:

So how would the "electric universe" explain the blackbody spectrum observed in the cosmic microwave background by the COBE satellite?

Light element production as required in plasma cosmology has been discussed in the mainstream literature and was determined to produce excessive x-rays and gamma rays beyond that observed. How would you account for this?

No proposal based on plasma cosmology trying to explain the cosmic microwave background radiation has been published since COBE results were announced. How would plasma cosmology explain the cosmic microwave background radiation that was predicted with Big Bang cosmology?​

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"God did it" has a better sound to it. Not to mention the fact that He did it.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil : I the LORD do all these things. - Isa 45:7.

I'm sure this verse will create a storm here.

Nothing we haven't heard before. I quite like the 'create evil' part. Finally, credit where credit's due...

 

[Nostromo]

Nice painting.

It's not a painting, it' just a photo of the lights in my bedroom. I haven't changed any information in the picture, when you adjust the contrast and create a false colour image like the others you notice effects like this where the halos of the bulbs overlap.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's not a painting, it' just a photo of the lights in my bedroom. I haven't changed any information in the picture, when you adjust the contrast and create a false colour image like the others you notice effects like this where the halos of the bulbs overlap.

I tried to get this idea to him for ages, but he just wouldn't take. Wonder how he'll wriggle out of this one...

 

[BananaSlug]

I'm not against grouping animals and giving them a taxon entry --- I'm against sticking us in there as well.

18 I said in my heart, “Concerning the condition of the sons of men, God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like animals.” 19 For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity. Ecclesiastes 3:18-19

Yesossibly a reference to the gargoyle.

Anything to make the Bible inerrant, right?

 

[BananaSlug]

It's not a painting, it' just a photo of the lights in my bedroom. I haven't changed any information in the picture, when you adjust the contrast and create a false colour image like the others you notice effects like this where the halos of the bulbs overlap.

That deserves mega reps

 

[Doveaman]

It doesn't mean there's no Adam. Theistic evolutionists have a rather tidy reconciliation: Adam was the first human God endowed with a spirit (or soul, or whatever). Before that, humans were just another species of ape; after that, we were higher.

If I recall correctly, Adam "evolved" from dust, not from ape.

And Eve "evolved" from Adam, not from ape.

 

[Nostromo]

Explain to me how that counts as deception. I've illustrated one possible alternative to yours, and if I remember your quotes correctly, you're all for considering the alternatives.

I don't see the resemblance

They're different things? The other guy used a difference false colour palette to mine? I could try and make the next one a nice chocoloaty brown if you like.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If I recall correctly, Adam "evolved" from dust, not from ape.

And Eve "evolved" from Adam, not from ape.

You conveniently skipped the final line in my paragraph:

"Of course, this requires an allegorical view of Genesis..."

 

[Doveaman]

I tried to get this idea to him for ages, but he just wouldn't take. Wonder how he'll wriggle out of this one...

It's one thing to deceive others. It's another thing to deceive yourselves. You guys seem to be very good at both.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You guys seem to very good at deception.

In any case, I don't see the resemblance:

Surely the point is obvious: a so-called 'luminous bridge' can occur in a photograph despite the two objects being physically disconnected. The bridge in the bulb picture proves that such bridges are in no way indicative of a physical bridge actually existing: they are simply optical phenomena. Illusions. Phantasms.

Likewise, the 'bridge' between the galaxy and the quasar is not indicative of a real, physical bridge between the two objects: it is (or, at the very least, is most likely to be) an optical illusion. Despite your claims to the contrary, there is no reason to think that it is real, and every reason to think it is false (yes, redshift still counts, because your disproof has been rather elegantly blown out of the water).

 

[Doveaman]

Explain to me how that counts as deception. I've illustrated one possible alternative to yours, and if I remember your quotes correctly, you're all for considering the alternatives.

I'm not the one deceived, you are.

They're different things? The other guy used a difference false colour palette to mine? I could try and make the next one a nice chocoloaty brown if you like.

Your colours are also flying all over the place.

 

[Nostromo]

I'm not the one deceived, you are.

That's not the point. You said you were open to alternatives and I provided you with one, which you have promptly declined to even consider.

What you really mean is you're open to alternatives that support your opinion.

 

[AV1611VET]

You guys seem to very good at deception.

In any case, I don't see the resemblance:

I don't know about you guys, but this looks like a chicken getting tazered.

(I'm practicing for my Ink Blot Test tomorrow. )

 

[Ellinas]

You're kidding. Right?

NO I could not be more serious. I stand by my remark!

That's an incorrect analysis & conclusion. The Scientific PROCESS seeks to steer further interest and research into areas that show evidence of being usefull by showing repeatable outcomes when the same procedures are followed. There are people who have FAITH that the PROCESS will do that.

When that happens, it builds a foundation for further research. Over time, repeated experiments can move theories more towards the "Fact" category.

What you say is that Atomic Theory is not proven? You have no knowledge as to the meaning of "Scientific theory". Here is an example just to help you understand it better: (excerpt from /www.fsteiger.com)
Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.
A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.
It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.
Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.
Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.
Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.

Science is vitally dependent on "make-believe" and is entirely Faith based. The Faith in the process, based on repeatable experiments, requires unlimited "make-believe" for testing and confirmation with new and challenging, "dreamed-up" theories.

You have no idea what the word faith means do you? Science is not faith based period!

Moreover it is critical that Science remain faith based so that established theories can always be questioned and tested from new and interesting angles. Once a "theory" becomes a "fact" it is no longer questioned or tested. Then there is nothing new that can be learned from it. When you ass-u-me that something is true and no longer test the theory, you knock out the foundation of the Scientific investigative method altogether.


- Sky -

There is no such thing in science. Even tested and proved theories undergo change. As we acquire more knowledge; so will we modify what we consider to be tried and tested theories. Religion on the other hand is static simply because it is faith based.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no such thing in science.

For everything written in the pages of the Bible that God did, there's a theory in science that says He couldn't have.

• Resurrected from the dead? Science says, "no".
• Parted the Red Sea? Science says, "no".
• Walked on water? Science says, "no".
• Born of a virgin? Science says, "no".
• Global flood? Science says, "no".
• Fed 5000 from a picnic basket? Science says, "no".
• Turned water ... (skip that one).
• Spoke to a fig tree and it withered? Science says, "no".
• Teleported a man from point A to point B? Science says, "no".

With science being in denial as much as it is, I say science is the one that should be investigated.

 

[Doveaman]

That's not the point. You said you were open to alternatives and I provided you with one, which you have promptly declined to even consider.

What you really mean is you're open to alternatives that support your opinion.

House lights just don't cut it.

Your next challenge is to place two light objects of different red-shifts one billion light years apart, with two additional light objects nearby, and produce the same results.

Or at least do it at lab scale using the exact physics observed and the math.

After that, you can experimentally demonstrate how a high red-shift quasar can appear in front of a lower red-shift dusty, opaque galaxy like this one:

After that you can experimentally demonstrate how 1 + 1 = 5 like this one:

No more empty, crazy explanations, please.

The Scientific Method would be helpful.