Creationist model

quote:

---

Tesla. Are you suggesting that god is directing the formation of fractals? Snowflakes? Crystals? Coupled oscillators? Mandelbrot sets?

​

That is one busybody god.

---

As opposed to what else? I mean, its antithesis is less credible, namely it just happens; a fictional placebo called 'nature'; a complexity deriving from a random; etc, etc.Whatever/whoever/wherever else is allocated for snowflakes, the buck has to stop somewhere, and it must, logically and scientifically speaking, lead to 'ONE' only: this is the Abrahamic MC2 code, and it is very logical, with no alternative in sight or even potentially possible.Snowflakes are not superfluous items, but appears fully intergrated with its environments, and an intergration negates any pos of a randomity, and only infers a hovering entity able to control the underlying factors and entities. Its exactly like saying, disingeniously, that one lung and one toe in a body happened by itself.The aspect of being too busy is also less engenius: we have PCs today whch can record upto a trillian bytes of data in a nano-sec. Are we to assume this is the first and ultimate treshold of omniscience, or that it says controlling all the minutea works of the universe is thereby well possible with a universe maker?I think mankind is going through a transit phase, whereby because of recent developments in science and high-tech, combined with the poor reputation of religionists today, it is trendy to ridicule creationism. The lack of physical proof, or its disproof, makes any alternative view acceptable - and it does not require any back-up proof. But the most vital factor here is not proof, or its greater non-proof factor, but what is a sound premise. And here, aside from any religious belief systems, there is no alternative to creationism or monotheism. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Monotheism is the code factor here; MC2 to point out this was a greater world altering premise than Einstein's - all things being relative of its spacetime.And since when is 'Monotheism' off-topic in a 'Creationism' subj?Cheers.

The script merely needs a renewed deciphering. Many confuse creationism as not within a scientific construct, when in actuality, science itself began here. 'IN THE BEGINNING' = the first recording of the universe being FINITE: there was a BEGINNING, and we generally tend to discard this primal factor from the equation.Unlike a solar system model, the universe was not given any boundaries in the creation description, yet described as finite in the genesis preamble. So how would a Creation model be percieved? I see a reason embedded in the very notion of genesis's exacting descriptions: the uni has boundaries, but this is now the circumference of the centre, and the centre is the first BB particle, which expanded to its current size. IOW, we are in the centre, and this centre is the entire universe.The problem with a uni/creationism model is what is outside the uni circumference! Being within it, there can be no objective view. But the uni being finite, means there cannot be other para- or multi-universe scenarios: this will violate the finite factor. And the finite factor says, a finite universe means all its components are also finite. This means we cannot apply anything in this uni, elsewhere - no space, matter, energy, light, quarks, life or pineapples - these are all restricted items of this here universe.The obvious question pops up: how does genesis, which introduced this creationist model of the universe, explain this quandary? As an anticlimax for anti-creationists, genesis gives a scientific answer; scientific, because it observes the scientific premise of 'cause and effect' [w/o retreating to the unscientific, 'IT JUST HAPPENED'], and where there is no other scientific alternative. The first 4 words in Genesis says:'IN THE BEGINNING - GOD'.Scientifically speaking, genesis is saying, there was a Creator of Creation. And scientifically, there is no alternative here.

Genesis is 100% science, and can thus be presented in a non-theological basis. But this does not mean it gives scientific explanations of the entire universe; rather there are constants and processes given, but without these proceedures. Any such expectation is a wrong one, because this would depend on our knowledge status any given time, and thus will be obsolete in another 100-200 years. That it has prevailed as the introducing creationist document for over 3000 years means it was contemplated by all generations.However, it does start off with the right scientific premises, with the variance of only one factor: the genesis evolution model is based on the 'seed' factor, and thus speciation and adaptation are catered for in what is the first recorded scientific equations, and one should not be misled by the deceptively simple bible language:Repro & Adaptation covered by the seed factor: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree "Adaptation, inclusive of self-contained transmission of all relevent data for continued repro, including dna and all biological imprints: "bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.'It is a constant: 'And it was so'.The next scientific equation is here:Primal origin of all life forms was from a dual-gendered entity: "male and female created He them."Primal origin of universe: Finite; an effect caused by a Creator/Supreme mind.Underlying base Particles such as atoms and quarks: 'Dust'Other constants: that light preceded starlight; that stars are unaccountable; that the moon gives light and seasonal impacts; life began in water; humans are the final and a seperate species [the only one with speech, as opposed communication and brains]; a correct calendar must be based on solar, lunar and earthly movements [signifying interaction]; that the heavenly bodies act as signs [astronomy] and omens [astrology]; that life occured after an anticipatory preparedness of the required elements and processes ; etc.That science does not know what genesis says is not given: actual origin of anything whatsoever, and that all which is given covers only a post-origin premise, namely we know or can know, only the B to Z, but not the 'A' [genesis starts with the second alphabet.]That 'CREATED' [something from nothing] is a technical term and fundamentally varied from 'FORMED' [something from something else]. The first chapter also ends with creation being rested [ceased]. Thus the word 'created' only appears in the first creation chapter, and replaced with 'formed' thereafter.These are sequential and patterned processes, thus they are scientifically vested, irrespective of any areas of variances with the current held premises.

quote:

---

This isn't a model, IaJ.

---

Why not: that the universe is the expanded centre is a model scenario, and one which alligns with the current premise of space/galaxies expanding. Its alternative is the faulty premise there is no centre in the universe.

Why? Monotheism is a scientific premise, with no alternative, whether one accepts a creator premise or not. Ultimately, everything must lead to ONE.

A model is a reconstruction of postulated factors.The red shift affirms my model. The uni is expanding, which means there can only be a point it expanded from - and there is nothing else aside from that point to consider here. This means the BBT point [particle?] expanded to the current uni size. No alternative is possible: we can and must trace all the current uni components to the beginning point: obviously, what else?Internal combustion engine, a recent discovery, comes under affirmation of the Genesis provisions - namely the finer workings of its postulations. We have not yet discovered what is within quarks: does it mean when we do, it will make engines obsolete? If genesis listed the workings of all its postulations, there would not be enough time to read it, nor would it be understood by all generations.Note that the premise of not over burdening a 'donkey' refers to all domestic animals - no need to list them all.

quote:

---

Monotheism is a philosophical not a scientific premise. And their are certainly alternatives just in the realm of Montheism IaJ.

---

All science is based on philosophical thoughts, but Monotheism is the first scientific equation. There is no alternative to monotheism.

quote:

---

Ultimately, everything must lead to ONE.

---

Yes, w/o doubt. In fact ONE does not exist in the universe.

quote:

---

Lead to ONE what IaJ?

---

It does not matter where you allocate this ONE - it is still the ultimate end source. It applies to all theisms, including atheism and science and maths. It becomes blatant when we factor the term of FINITE - also introduced in genesic: it means the buck does not stop at the oval office or the BB point.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

On the contrary, from a scientific viewpoint, monotheism is pretty unlikely.

---

Before prefixing on the contrary, please give me a HOW any science can differ from this fact?

quote:

---

As you said yourself, "In fact ONE does not exist in the universe." There isn't ONE of anything else, so why would we expect to find only one god?

---

One is transcendent of the universe, is what I meant. It cannot be limited to within the universe, because the division of a technical and actual ONE would violate itself, ceasing it to have been ONE: where would the other counterparts come from? Thus genesis posits that all things were originally ushered via a duality. Its causation factor is ONE. This duality is seen in V1 and continues for all the pivotal entities in ch. 1: heaven/earth; light/darkness; water/land; male/female.It is one reason the BBT has a problem, and must retreat to IT JUST HAPPENED W/O A CAUSE.

quote:

---

That's part of it. A scientific model must also be capable of producing testable predictions so that the accuracy of the model can be verified.

---

Agreed it must be testable, but the latter clause is inclusive of the former constant, and applies for everything. Accountability of a premise depends on the subject's status. Genesis is vindicated as of today: what's the alternative?

quote:

---

Right, the Singularity. But why does the Singularity require a deity?

---

The diety factor is to signify that even scientifically, it is vindicated. One can use any term, diety, force, whatever one likes. The point is, 'IT JUST HAPPENED' is perhaps the most unscientific premise ever contemplated, and is actually not science at all. It is better to say, WE DON'T KNOW.

quote:

---

If you postulate that all things require a cause in order to invoke a deity as the cause of the Big Bang, you must then assume that the deity also must have had a cause, which must also have had a cause, and so on.

---

No, this would violate the ONE factor. My point, and what Monotheism says, is that the ONE is independent and transcendent of what comes after it, which means the ONE has no precedent ['INFINITE']. What first appears a theological statement, is actually a fully scientific constant when contemplated, and remains the only definition of infinity, while answering your question: "I AM THE LORD - I HAVE NOT CHANGED; THERE IS NO OTHER".Thus the determination of Infinity is 'CHANGE' - anything subject to change is not infinite, by virtue of whatever changes it is transcendent of it; the 'NO OTHER' clarifies that ONE here refers to an actual ONE, not an academic premise.

quote:

---

If you assert that a deity can be an uncaused First Cause, there is no reason to invoke the deity in the first place, as the Singularity could simply have existed without any cause at all.

---

I agree. The diety factor may not be included in every discussion, and in no way negates or dents science. Equally, science, math & history have no input in original causation factors: they are post-ONE; IOW, post universe/creation. But the problems start when anyone takes seriously and actually, the BB as an actual beginning unto itself. Better to say, WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT HAPPENED, which frees us to scientifically debate the B - Z, without making any input of the elusive A.

quote:

---

So monotheism is a logical impossibility without special pleading. Either your deity is simply the last of a series of deities creating each other back into infinity, or no deity is required in the model at all.

---

'Last' cannot apply - this would negate the ONE factor. Note that it does not say FIRST - which infers a precedent; instead it says only LORD IS ONE, as opposed Lord is first. Note also, that in genesis creation chapter, there is no 'FIRST' day, but there is SECOND DAY, THIRD DAY, etc. Because FIRST day inferes a precedent. This is no typo: genesis, amazingly, uses DAY ONE, followed by SECOND DAY; THIRD DAY!

quote:

---

This paragraph is nonsense. Where, precisely, does the bible make any "provisions" that could be interpreted as leading tot he internal combustion engine?

---

There is no mention of scuds, mobiles and PCs either. equally, we do not have a BEAM ME UP SCOTTIE yet. Knowledge is accumulative, but based on the criteria of its primary constants.

quote:

---

You're taking my metaphor of automotive repair a little too far, IaJ - I was simply trying to explain what a model is. Any other metaphorical stories you may have mistakenly taken literally, or as more relevant than they are?

---

Disagree. Your version of model requires steam engine workings, which negates itself as knowledge progression occurs, same as flat erth is negated. Better to have a model based on criteria, specially when relating to original structurism. Here, obviously, engines are derivitives of the criteria.

quote:

---

I'm not asking for the bible itself to have a model, IaJ. We know it doesn't have one - we've all read it.

---

My point is, it does have one, and this is not limited to your description of what a model constitutes. Genesis Ch.1. should be seen as the first scientific model of the universe emergence, comprehensively listing all factors which constitute a model. The only next step is if that model is a scientifically vindicated one, not whether it is a model.

quote:

---

This thread is about a Creatonist model - feel free to extrapolate beyond the actual scripture to build a compelte model. Just be sure to back it up with evidence.

---

Yes, that's a fine check list. I do see logic in that all things were created at the one instance [signified by the ceasing of creation at the end of this chapter]. What is being said is, the created entities were in their potential form, and became manifest in its appropriate time, namely the disorder became orderly [V2] - a later developed scientific theory along the same lines [i seem to frget the name f this equation right now!].Its like baking a cake: first one has to secure all the required incredients - as opposed to pausing half way and considering if the cake maker can now create some ingredients like cane plantations for sugar, which requires the cake maker to already know what sugar and sweet means, seeing it never existed before. This postualtion refers to nothing can occur unless it has been included in the point preceding the ceasing of this process.If the above logic is accepted, I think the next criteria has to be how existing entities, as per V.1. [namely 'everything in the universe'], evolved, which refers to their interaction only. The latter ushers in science and explanations of such occurences, applicable only after the factors and entities are already existing in some form. IOW, 'causative' only applies to the caused here, not to original cause, and not to definitions of interactions between the caused. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Any and all science requires empirical evidence, repeatable observations, an objective consensus.

---

Eaxctly! I was waiting for that. Now please tell us how science can produce a universe w/o using any tools and elements - because in a pre-universe scenario, these have not been created yet. Here, your own criteria proves my point: repitition and empirical observation is only possible when entities exist. IOW, we can repeat and test only that which has already been created from nothing - else you end up with no beginning and no causative factor - namely a cyclical contraption. Thus I say one must put their preamble up first: are they talking about a finite universe?This is why genesis employs the once only technical term of 'create' [something from nothing], then reverts to 'formed'[something from something else] for the rest of the five books of the OT. This is no typo but 100% correct, because the first chapter concludes with creation being ceased [rested]. By its own postulations, genesis is correct w/o contradictions.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Science, maths, history, geography and all such faculties are post-universe. So it the BB. A creation model is of coz seen in genesis - the first of its kind. Here there is a process, pattern and listing of products, constituting a matrix of the primal factors, which is all a model should do.A model which shows the inner workings of each product is secondary, and relevent to each generation's accumulative and changing positions. Why is this simple premise even debated - I dont mean to stymie this thread.

quote:

---

Science doesn't "produce" universes. It only studies the existing universe.

---

Correct, there was no playing semantics here: science is an explanation of how already existing phenomena work. My input in a creation model was modeled from the genesis text: that the BB point, posited as a beginning, MUST also be the centre; the expansion of the BB point MUST be where the universe as at now. Why no alternative? Because there was nothing else besides the BB point, and nowhere else for it to go - based n a finite universe.

quote:

---

Science doesn't need a "causitive factor".

​

You do.

---

No, its not right. Science cannot give a centre because it is post-uni, which is different from does not need one. Further, science cannot negate a cause: the uni is FINITE! The retreat to IT JUST HAPPENED is unscientific, but has been taken on board by anti-creationists as a real science: its not. It is akin to the term, NATURE - which is an intelligent placebo for the inexplicable - but that is not based on any reality. I doubt every one who mentions NATURE as a cause, sufficiently differentiates this placebo from reality, and have gone on to incur what they accuse creationists with: Nature has become their unvisible diety. So they fall back on genesis - by default!

THE NAME OF THE GAME IS: "CATCH ME IF YOU CAN"If one does not know the cause, does it mean there is not one? This is the sum total of this game.Analogy: someone places a new car in your bedroom, it has no maker label, and a note on the dash board:'DRIVE AND ENJOY, ITS ALL YOURS. ONLY I WON'T TELL YOU ANYTHING ABOUT THE SOURCE OF ITS MAKER'.Bet is, you will spend more time searching and devising the car maker than enjoying the drive. Some will come up with novel answers too.I see no other explanation. Do you?

quote:

---

The fact is, conventional science describes the existing universe quite well - and quite usefully - without needing to understand the origin.

---

Fact is, I agree with this. Fact is, this is what I have been saying here all along: the B-Z is absolutely well addressed by humanity, and we have progressed to be the most superior entity in the known universe [a vindicated postulation first made by genesis again!]. Fact is, I got this conclusion from the Genesis model - but no one wants to acknowledge this - "BECAUSE"!?

quote:

---

But creationism can't do that. Creationism postulates a creator which pre-existed the creation. Based on your own postulate, you do need to go farther back in "time" than conventional science does. You do need evidence that your postulate has merit.

---

I agree that it is not possible to do such - to go pre-uni and prove it. But! This is not what you or I say is our brilliant new observation: this is what Genesis says, namely that the 'A' factor is restricted. Vindicated again, no?The only variant here is, Genesis also says, there IS a cause factor nonetheless - pointing us to a challenging enigma hidden in a paradox none can resist [brilliant stratagem!]. This 'catch me if you can' puzzle is what Genesis is all about, and what has caused all this upheaval and mayhem - and, in its subsequence, also caused man to pursue this 'forbidden fruit' with a vengence.The correct conclusion is:NOT that there cannot be a source factor [science is not wrong here, but rather inapplicable] - but that we are not given privy to it. I use the term 'not given privy' intentionally, because it appears purposeful: consider the possibility of this not knowing factor - it is pervasive across the board - no one knows anything about the origins of anything. Here, the 'we know nothing' becomes very credible: who cares for all the fruits of the garden of paradise if one particular one is restricted? It cannot be an accident, and one upheld for so long, in spite of every human thinking about it in so many levels.This is the Genesis creation model, and IMHO, the only vindicated one on the table. Also, I see a definitive design here. I don't think this is off topic, because it relates directly with the issue of a creation model:Huston, we have a problem - we have a model, only we don't know who-done-it! Will Huston reply this is not relevent? - and will this stop everyone thinking about it anymore? Not a chance - we will risk all, and foresake all, in its question. Here, the garden of eden story ceases being a mythical tale, but a very applicable, scientific taunting.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.