Creation

Hi Paul

AZPaul writes: And "common sense" is subjective (the Earth looks flat to me). Not good for building a model of reality.

Well I know better as I spent a lot of time on the water when I was young in the Gulf of Mexico and I could see the curvature of the earth.

Now as far as subjective, everything is subjective.

Everything you have ever been taught about creation is subject to the original assumptions being fact.

AZPaul writes: Proof? Who said anything about proof?

What else is an experiment supposed to produce. It either proves or disproves the premise.

AZPaul writes: ... yet.

Nor will they ever.

AZPaul writes: Why the universe exists? You mean as in purpose? "Purpose" is a human construct, an illusion, ICANT. There is no purpose.

The universe can not have existed eternally in the past due to entropy.

Since nothing exists outside the universe according to the standard theory that requires the universe having a beginning to exist from non-existence.

Therefore a "WHY" is necessary.

AZPaul writes: ... yet.

Nor at any time that ever becomes now.

AZPaul writes: You have to look, ICANT. BBT, Nucleosynthesis, Genetics, Evolution all have a say in answering that one.

You left out the most important one "BIOGENESIS".

AZPaul writes: Purpose, again. "Purpose" is a human illusion, ICANT. There is no purpose.

Humans did not exist. Now humans exist. My question is why do they exist which requires a purpose.

AZPaul writes: ...yet.

And they will never tell me where life came from.

AZPaul writes: And many of our theories do that exceptionally well. That is all we ask of them.And many of our theories do that exceptionally well. That is all we ask of them.

The standard theory is the only hypothesis that has reached the theory category.

I have been trying to get supporting evidence for that conclusion since the 1st post in this thread and in other threads.

Would you care to present any evidence or just continue to tell me the "theories do that exceptionally well". That statement is an assertion not evidence.

AZPaul writes: Yes. Though we know it is not complete.

If it is not complete it should not be classified as a theory but as a hypothesis.

AZPaul writes: Is inflation a theory? Yes. Though we know it is not complete.

When did it reach a consensus?
One of our most outstanding cosmologist of the present Sir Roger Penrose calls "cosmic inflation a “fantasy.”

Do you know something that he does not? If you do present it.

At least you said string theory, and bounce theory were just a hypothetical model.

Which means it is something that is based on a guess.

AZPaul writes: You got one right. And the hypothesis as to why/how (not purpose but operation) is dark energy. Super strong evidence that an unseen energy exists, not so strong on the actual mechanisms involved.

Dark matter and Dark energy are required for the universe to exist without flying apart. That assumption is all the evidence you have for their existence.

quote:

---

Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

---

Definition of consist found here

quote:

---

To stand together; to be in a fixed or permanent state, as a body composed of parts in union or connection. Hence, to be; to exist; to subsist; to be supported and maintained.

---

You say gravity holds the universe together and since there is not enough matter and energy in the universe to accomplish that feat science invented dark matter, and dark energy.

The Bible says God holds, or binds it together. There is just as much evidence to support this hypothesis as for dark matter and dark energy.

AZPaul writes: Did he? Is that the actual translation from the original? Or was it something like "You bleed too hard you get dead."? Can you show that he even was, let alone what he may/may not have said?

The Hebrew word נפש means: living being, life, breath as it had to do with God breathing the breath of life into the form He had formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 and he became a living being.

The Hebrew word הבשר starts with the definite article translated as the , and the noun meaning flesh, body of humans and animals.

So yes I am sure the original is saying the life of the flesh is in the blood. That life being the contents of the blood which is oxygen and energy, which is transported to the cells of the body.

AZPaul writes: No, he didn't. This smacks of desperate reaching for something "sciency" to defend the indefensible.

Why do you say "no he didn't". I have photo copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls which is 2200 hundred years old and they used the same two Hebrew words I explained above. According to science those original scrolls are a little over 2200 years old.

The people who lived 400 years after Moses lived had scrolls with the same text written on them.

We have a record of Columbus discovering the Americas in 1492, do you question that information?

AZPaul writes: He didn't. All he knew, and all your quote of him shows, is that he knew if you bleed too hard you get dead.

Moses was very familiar with draining all the blood from a sheep.
But usually the sheep was dead quite some time before all the blood came out, as the throat of the sheep was cut depriving the brain of blood. Moses probably did not know that the sheep died from the brains lack of blood either.

AZPaul writes: This forum is full of such religious proclamations, yet, no evidence is ever presented.

Everything I would tell you, you would probably classify as coincidence. But with such a preponderance of coincidences in my life the evidence is overwhelming to me that God does exist.

AZPaul writes: Ultimately unproductive but I appreciate the sentiment. Thank you.

It will produce exactly what it is supposed to accomplish. It may not produce the result I would like but non the less it will produce a result.

When you die and you will, you will stand before God and be judged by what you have done with the opportunities you had on earth to trust Him for eternal life. You will not have an excuse when you stand before Him.

God Bless,
And I continue to pray for you and yours, and everyone else.

ICANT writes: Which is what your science concerning creation is based on.

There in no science of creation.

Icant writes: No one knew the life of the flesh was in the blood until the circulatory system was discovered.

Everyone knew that without blood the flesh dies.

After that discovery took place it was discovered that there was red blood cells in the blood that carried oxygen, and energy to each cell in the body for them to function.

Yeh, science is pretty cool like that.

But they did know that if you took all the blood out of an animal or human they would die. Which a lot different from understanding the circulatory system.

It sure is, and they didn't understand the circulatory system. If Moses had even mentioned the circulatory system I'm have been impressed - though not terribly surprised as it was there to be discovered. I'd be even more impressed that having 'understood' the circulatory system he'd done anything with the knowledge. But he didn't know anything about it, he just said what everyone already knew. You'd love to make something more of it but UCANT.

Why do you want to make ancient people ignoramuses in one breath and then the next say they knew what was not known until the 1900 hundreds?

Now here's a perfect example of your total lack of integrity. You *know* that I am saying that they didn't understand the circulatory system and its purpose. You know that because I've said it half a dozen times. Yet you twist it in this simpleton way - who do you think you're fooling?

ICANT writes: Why do you want to make ancient people ignoramuses in one breath and then the next say they knew what was not known until the 1900 hundreds?

Whereupon, Tangle replies:

Now here's a perfect example of your total lack of integrity. You *know* that I am saying that they didn't understand the circulatory system and its purpose. You know that because I've said it half a dozen times. Yet you twist it in this simpleton way - who do you think you're fooling?

To be fair, none of us can accuse another member of a *total* lack of integrity, since none of us have ever met.

What is the argument, anyway? Im lost as to what precisely is being argued.

Phat writes: It seems that the basic issue with Tangle is that he assumes that collective human wisdom knows more now than we did thousands of years ago.

Do you actually doubt that? Really?

He is selective as to which wisdom and selective as to what the wisdom purports to teach. If you give him even a hint that the wisdom was intuitive or came from God, he will run faster than a cat needing a bath.

If we're sticking with the cat analogy it's more likely, I'd spit in your face.

Look Phat, wisdom is only useful if it's knowledge. The sort of 'wisdom' you talk about is folk wisdom, 90% useless 10% dangerous.

OK, lets go with a "preacher" you can relate to.
Here is something to chew on. Michio Kaku

The Universe in a Nutshell (Full Presentation) Dr.Kaku is one of the public voices of Physics, and he carries on a grand tradition of public presentation. But is he right? Relevant? Empathetic towards a needy planet? Is he better able to give humanity hope in our own intelligence? What do you think?

He claims in this video that by the year 2100 we will have the power of the gods.

To be fair, I havent watched it all yet...but will do so after work. Gotta run.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Phat writes: What is the argument, anyway? Im lost as to what precisely is being argued.

ICANT is trying to say that because Moses said that life is in the blood he was telling us something science only discovered thousands of years later. Drivel.

Hi Tangle

Tangle writes: There in no science of creation.

That is correct. Everything is based on assumptions. There is no evidence concerning creation.

God Bless,

ICANT writes: There is no evidence concerning creation.

That's correct, there is no evidence for creation.

Phat writes: Dr.Kaku is one of the public voices of Physics, and he carries on a grand tradition of public presentation. But is he right? Relevant? Empathetic towards a needy planet? Is he better able to give humanity hope in our own intelligence? What do you think?

I'm travelling and don't have time to watch videos, but I've seen endless explanations of our universe. A couple by him.

I don't understand the question I'm afraid. Why does humanity need to hope in our intelligence and what does 'hoping in our intelligence mean? How can a planet be needy? All this wishy-washy, precious, 'I'm special' thinking. I find it weird.

Why do some people need to do it is a better question.

Hi Tangle. It turned out to be an interesting video...I judged it prematurely based on one quote that he said. He describes the basics of the 4 forces of the universe and how they affect our modern lives. 1) Gravity,2)Electromagnetic force,3)Weak Nuclear, and 4)Strong Nuclear. Kaku explains the implications of the discovery and subsequent utilization of each of the 4 laws. A basic science primer for those of us, such as myself, who never took calculus or an advanced science course.

To be honest, I think much the same way that Pastor ICANT thinks when I attempt to consciously tie science in with my faith. Don't belittle or criticize us for doing so...unlike you, we have a firm belief and are attempting to rationalize modern thought and motive with the teachings we know about human nature.

Why does humanity need to hope in our intelligence and what does 'hoping in our intelligence mean?

I am asking a basic question about whether humanity is going to survive and progress based on faith in our own intelligence and comprehension. My preassumption is that deference to Gods intelligence will benefit us more than the rejection of belief and reliance in our own wisdom alone. Call me crazy. Its how I think.

Phat writes: To be honest, I think much the same way that Pastor ICANT thinks when I attempt to consciously tie science in with my faith.

Which means that like ICANT and Faith, you will never understand it. If you try to filter the science through your beliefs you'll reject what you don't like and put undue emphasis on what you do. That's not science or anything like it. That's a really good way to look really stupid.

Don't belittle or criticize us for doing so...unlike you, we have a firm belief and are attempting to rationalize modern thought and motive with the teachings we know about human nature.

I'm going to belittle and criticise every attempt that ICANT makes to lie about science. That's what he's doing Phat, he's lying about science. Luckily it's very easy to demonstrate how wrong he is.

Hi Tangle

Tangle writes: I'm going to belittle and criticise every attempt that ICANT makes to lie about science. That's what he's doing Phat, he's lying about science. Luckily it's very easy to demonstrate how wrong he is.

quote:

---

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

---

I said the KJV Bible says "the life of the flesh is in the blood".

The quote above is from the KJV Bible.

Does the words that are enlarged say "the life of the flesh is in the blood"?

So where is the lie?

God Bless,

ICANT writes: I said the KJV Bible says "the life of the flesh is in the blood". The quote above is from the KJV Bible. Does the words that are enlarged say "the life of the flesh is in the blood"? So where is the lie?

Tangle to Phat writes: ICANT is trying to say that because Moses said that life is in the blood he was telling us something science only discovered thousands of years later. Drivel.

Hi Tangle

Quote your message.

ICANT writes: I said the KJV Bible says "the life of the flesh is in the blood". The quote above is from the KJV Bible. Does the words that are enlarged say "the life of the flesh is in the blood"? So where is the lie?

Tangle to Phat writes: ICANT is trying to say that because Moses said that life is in the blood he was telling us something science only discovered thousands of years later. Drivel.

I don't know the point you were trying to make by those two quotes as you did not state one.

But let me comment.

Moses did not say "life is in blood"

I enlarged what Moses said again so maybe you can read it.
There is a big difference in the two statements. One has been proven to be a scientific fact. The other is a lie perpetrated by Tangle.

Moses did say: "the life of the flesh is in the blood".

So stop misrepresenting what I said that Moses said.

God Bless,