Original Research--join In

[justlookinla]

And God couldn't look down the time line and see this, skip Adam and Eve and just create the eight? No wonder he wanted a do-over.

God does look down the time line, just not from your pseudo-godlike perspective.

 

[Linuxgal]

One point of my "logic" is that if physical things started the universe at some point, by means of predictable scientific physical principles of atoms and molecules and energies, then why didn't they do all that way way way back in all past eternity, versus only about ten billion years ago?? Why didn't those predictable principles do what they do, earlier . . . in all past eternity?

You make the assumption that there is an absolute framework of time that stretches to infinity in both directions, but time is an emergent property of "stuff" that moves. If you have "stuff" and it doesn't move, then there's no time. Even if you have one thing, say an electron, all by itself, then there's no time as well. You can't measure it's rate of spin or its speed because there's nothing to reference that spin or velocity against. So it exists in an eternal now that never changes.

 

[justlookinla]

You make the assumption that there is an absolute framework of time that stretches to infinity in both directions, but time is an emergent property of "stuff" that moves. If you have "stuff" and it doesn't move, then there's no time. Even if you have one thing, say an electron, all by itself, then there's no time as well. You can't measure it's rate of spin or its speed because there's nothing to reference that spin or velocity against. So it exists in an eternal now that never changes.

Yet the electron exists and has spin and speed....and laws of physics acting upon it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You make the assumption that there is an absolute framework of time that stretches to infinity in both directions, but time is an emergent property of "stuff" that moves. If you have "stuff" and it doesn't move, then there's no time. Even if you have one thing, say an electron, all by itself, then there's no time as well. You can't measure it's rate of spin or its speed because there's nothing to reference that spin or velocity against. So it exists in an eternal now that never changes.

Eternity isn't measured by time. Time, as well as the laws of physics and chemistry, began with the material creation; the Beginning of Genesis 1:1. Note that in verse 2 the creation fell into disrepair.

 

[Linuxgal]

Eternity isn't measured by time. Time, as well as the laws of physics and chemistry, began with the material creation; the Beginning of Genesis 1:1. Note that in verse 2 the creation fell into disrepair.

In verse six, it says, "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." This firmament is called the heaven. So the heaven wasn't created until Monday. That makes verse 1, when it says he created the heaven and the earth, a chapter heading, a summary of what he's about to do. Unless you hold that he created heaven twice.

 

[justlookinla]

In verse six, it says, "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." This firmament is called the heaven. So the heaven wasn't created until Monday. That makes verse 1, when it says he created the heaven and the earth, a chapter heading, a summary of what he's about to do. Unless you hold that he created heaven twice.

There's heaven and then there's heaven.

 

[Zosimus]

But you have no problem believing a magic man in the sky did it all, how strange is that?

Once again, I wish to remind people that I am agnostic.

Furthermore, no one–not even Christians–believe in a magic man in the sky. Saying so is equivalent to people saying that Darwinists believe that life turned out as it is solely by chance.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In verse six, it says, "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." This firmament is called the heaven. So the heaven wasn't created until Monday. That makes verse 1, when it says he created the heaven and the earth, a chapter heading, a summary of what he's about to do. Unless you hold that he created heaven twice.

Verse 1 is a stand alone statement describing the original creation. Verse 2 describes the destruction of that original creation, followed by the restoration account generally believed to be a continuation of verse 1.

Also, the word 'heaven' has several meanings in Hebrew, but they are often misapplied when interpreting the creation account.

 

[Zosimus]

A magnetic field inside a planet is caused by the convection of molten iron. How does this challenge the theory of planetary formation by accretion?

Why does the fact that the rotation period of Venus is slower than its period of revolution around the sun challenge the theory of planetary formation by accretion?

The current theory for the formation of the Moon involves the impact of an object about the size of Mars with the Earth when this object and the Earth were both forming in the planetary accretion disk. How does this challenge the theory of planetary formation by accretion?

How does Mercury's magnetic field challenge your pet theory? Well, in two ways. First of all, a magnetic field is believed to be created by a dyanmo effect created by the planet's rotation and a molten iron core. As such, it was predicted that Mercury would not have a magnetic field because A) Mercury's core should have cooled solid in 4.5 billion years, and B) Mercury's rotation is quite slow. In fact, it takes 1407½ hours for Mercury to rotate completely. The additional challenge posed by Mercury's magnetic field is that it is offset by more than 20 degrees from North.

As for Venus, as you can easily read at Why Venus Spins the Wrong Way - Scientific American "Venus is an oddball in many ways. For starters, it spins in the opposite direction from most other planets, including Earth, so that on Venus the sun rises in the west....scientists are still puzzled by Venus's retrograde, or backward, rotation."
---------------
Here's a clue. When some news report says that a finding is "surprising" or "puzzling" what that really means is that it falsifies science's primary theory, but science refuses to give up on a known-bad theory. Science fixes up falsified theories by means of ad hoc hypotheses. That's when you pull any old explanation out of your donkey to explain why your theory, which has just been proved as worthless as a hill of beans, really does work after all.

Finally the Earth's moon is puzzling because according to the theory a moon the size of our moon should not have happened. Additionally, you're right that scientists have postulated (without evidence) that some ancient collision created it. Again, that's what we call an ad hoc hypothesis.

The last one is the funniest one!! You see, scientific apologists commonly complain that Christians just make up explanations without any evidence for support. Somehow, however, when scientists do so it's perfectly acceptable.

 

[sfs]

I guess no cares about the subject of the thread.

 

[Zosimus]

I guess no cares about the subject of the thread.

As soon as the guy posted, Linuxgirl hijacked the thread.

 

[Linuxgal]

As soon as the guy posted, Linuxgirl hijacked the thread.

Ha-Satan is traditionally translated as "the accuser".

 

[sfs]

At any rate, I'd like to see this alleged research on DNA.

 

[WisdomSpy]

I enjoyed reading many responses, yet astronomy is completely off-topic. Please read the beginning proposition again. The original research pertains to cellular biochemistry in a way that isn't really hard to follow... as long as you are not doing LSD while musing about the cosmos. Really, this is an important matter that deserves more respect than diversionary tactics. If you want to learn about some really cool and unique evidence related to biological origins, then say so. If not... start another thread on your desired topic. Please.

 

[Zosimus]

Ha-Satan is traditionally translated as "the accuser".

Strong's Hebrew: 7854. ?????? (satan) -- adversary, also the name of the superhuman adversary of God

Satan = "adversary, also the name of the superhuman adversary of God"

Satan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Satan (Hebrew: שָּׂטָן satan, meaning "adversary";[1] Arabic: شيطان shaitan, meaning "astray" or "distant"

Satan - Definition and Meaning, Bible Dictionary

The Hebrew word satan [f'f] means "an adversary, one who resists." It is translated as "Satan" eighteen times in the Old Testament, fourteen of those occurrences being in Job 1-2, the others in 1 Chronicles 21:1 and Zechariah 3:1-2.

Bible Basics Study 6.2 - The Devil and Satan

Sometimes the original words of the Bible text are left untranslated ("Mammon", in Mt. 6:24, is an Aramaic example of this). As a word, 'satan' is an untranslated Hebrew word which means 'adversary',
----------------
You're 0-4.

 

[WisdomSpy]

As a starter, for anyone interested in the cell biology... do you realize the difference between the concept of "evolutionary origins" as opposed to changes which have occurred AFTER origins? It might be helpful to term the latter "downstream evolution" or "post-origins evolution". Unfortunately, many people confuse and conflate the two concepts. The usual boiler-plate argument that "everyone knows that evolution occurs" is true, to a point, only if you are thinking of post-origins events. The fairly simple yet profound research I did, and you can duplicate, pertains primarily to origins but also has amazing application to supposed downstream events.
You have to start by understanding what the supposed "engine of evolution" is and then imagining how it could possibly have begun forming DNA into genes. A rational mechanistic look at these things reveals a profound secret which will rock your world (if you care about the issue of origins).

 

[Shemjaza]

As a starter, for anyone interested in the cell biology... do you realize the difference between the concept of "evolutionary origins" as opposed to changes which have occurred AFTER origins? It might be helpful to term the latter "downstream evolution" or "post-origins evolution". Unfortunately, many people confuse and conflate the two concepts. The usual boiler-plate argument that "everyone knows that evolution occurs" is true, to a point, only if you are thinking of post-origins events. The fairly simple yet profound research I did, and you can duplicate, pertains primarily to origins but also has amazing application to supposed downstream events.
You have to start by understanding what the supposed "engine of evolution" is and then imagining how it could possibly have begun forming DNA into genes. A rational mechanistic look at these things reveals a profound secret which will rock your world (if you care about the issue of origins).

The scientific theory of evolution is only refers to already existing life changing and diversifying. So in that sense I can agree that evolution shouldn't be conflated with the origin of life (which is what i think you are referring to as "evolutionary origins").

The hypotheses that scientists use to describe the actual origins of life are usually labelled "abiogenesis". We don't have the hard evidence and supported theories that we have for evolution and given how long ago it must have first happened I imagine it will always be a mystery. That's not to say that we can't learn more about how life could have formed by learning more about lifeless organic chemistry and the conditions of the early Earth.

 

[Linuxgal]

The scientific theory of evolution is only refers to already existing life changing and diversifying. So in that sense I can agree that evolution shouldn't be conflated with the origin of life

Since the biblical account of the origin of life coincides with the biblical explanation for the diversity of life, when evolution provides a counter-explanation for the latter, it calls the former into question, but only indirectly.

 

[justlookinla]

I have read a lot of opinions regarding the supposed veracity of “evolution”, usually without the term being defined. This failure to clarify meaning only leads to further misunderstandings. Remember that science is man’s tool with which he tries to understand nature. Likewise, theology is man’s tool with which he tries to make sense out of spiritual realities. Specifically, biblical theology is a tool to more fully comprehend the meaning of the Bible. It is important to realize that science and theology are both opinion-based endeavors.

Let’s be clear: various constructions of creationism are essentially opinions based upon evidence from scripture and nature. Granted, various evidences are given different weights based upon prepositional biases or worldviews. Yet, to imagine that evolutionism does not exercise bias and presupposition and weighting of evidence, is simply not honest. It is also not honest to say that creationists don’t do any real research.

I am going to post a challenge to any and all honest souls who would like to participate in some real research. I actually did some original research within the past year which any of you could replicate or add to. Since the advent of the internet, you really do not need to be a trained biologist with various degrees, such as I, to do this research. I won’t even tell you my conclusions—you can come to your own when you do the research for yourself. It involves genes and simulating the expected results of various mutations on them. I discovered an amazing phenomenon that has direct and profound impact on the theory of evolution, specifically related to origins.

I don’t want to waste my time, so if 5 people or more would simply respond by agreeing to follow this through, I will walk you through the steps, which are not really hard to do. If you understand the basic concepts of DNA, the genetic code, mutations, and how DNA is “read” in order to turn its code into proteins/enzymes, then you should be able to keep up. All of these basic things can be gleaned from wiki and other easily-found web sources. If you are with me, just respond “yes”.

Yes. Let's do it. Sounds interesting.

 

[sfs]

As a starter, for anyone interested in the cell biology... do you realize the difference between the concept of "evolutionary origins" as opposed to changes which have occurred AFTER origins? It might be helpful to term the latter "downstream evolution" or "post-origins evolution".

Mostly we just call it "evolution". The study of the origin of life overlaps somewhat, but is basically a distinct field.

The fairly simple yet profound research I did, and you can duplicate, pertains primarily to origins but also has amazing application to supposed downstream events.
You have to start by understanding what the supposed "engine of evolution" is and then imagining how it could possibly have begun forming DNA into genes. A rational mechanistic look at these things reveals a profound secret which will rock your world (if you care about the issue of origins).

My world waits to be rocked.