Creationist model

How would you know? Maybe it can.Theists have been postulating the existence of supernatural (that is, immaterial and metaphysical) intelligence for centuries. Surely you've noticed. On what basis did you decide your fellow creationists are wrong and that naturalism and materialism are the way to go?While you're answering that, please address the subject. We were talking about that yellow Mini Cooper. You ignored the car in your reply. Surely you noticed, though, that your point about the car stands refuted.It now falls to you to refute or concede. It is moving the goal posts to suggest now that the car and driver don't matter. They mattered to you before. You brought them up. This claim to infallibility already stands falsified by the evidence. Note that you have spelled the word deceive two different ways.Only the first is correct. It follows that you are not immune to error as you claim.180 posts on, by the way, we're still waiting for that scientific model you promised.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

the law is solid. not me. show me where this is true?this is science not imagination. if a "spirit" of thought does exist, it has a body of energy to exist in. because anything outside of energy is not real. with no body, no thought is possible.you have a choice not to believe it. but the law is sound.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

this is science not imagination.

---

Actually, it is neither. What it is, is a fantasy developed by people seeking some meaning in the aspects of life they did not understand.Before astronomy taught us about the path our planet takes, it was held upon a giant's back, or a turtles, or suspended by leather straps. Before meteorolgy taught us about weather patterns and functions storms were the gods warring, or our ancestors punishing us, or water unleashed from some firmament in the heavens to drown mankind. So to does neuroscience dispell many of the dualistic notions of mind and body. And that is the way of it, knowledge will forever be dispelling the fanciful notions lumped under the heading of faith.

quote:

---

if a "spirit" of thought does exist,

---

The best argument you can give us is a massive unsubstantiated if? Come now, you can do better, I am sure of it.

quote:

---

it has a body of energy to exist in. because anything outside of energy is not real. with no body, no thought is possible.

---

It seems if you are veering toward some out there interpretation of Bohm's Holographic Universe. First, I would like you to define how you are terming this "energy". Are you misinterpreting an understanding of what relativity says of matter and energy? It seems possible. Secondly, how are you defining body. As a biological organism? If so, what of progresses in the computer science fields of artificial intelligence and digital organisms? Are you saying they are doomed to fail for not cowtowing to an arcane notion of spirit?There are plenty of things unknown about the human mind. But the wonderful thing is we are always learning more about it, always progressing. Why? Because simply stating "this is tough, let's say its spirit" and continuing no further does not content us. So we keep studying. It is important to add not knowing everything about the mind is poor reason to fill the gap with nonsense.

you ignore the evidence i do show you, and throw words around saying i am ignorant of anything i say, because of your unwillingness to understand?energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, but changed from form to form. it is not a trick law, and the observer of it hard fought before it was accepted. or do you disagree that Einstein has had any relevance with what he has observed?i show you by the definitions of the words you can find in the dictionary the full proof by observation of what is "real". you choose to speak a lot but say little. i wish for all to agree with what i have observed. but can any man see any more than he chooses too? if you choose to admit to all that you "might" not really exist, am i to blame for your blindness? here is the law. YOU dispute it.what argument can i have with you? will you convince a master stonemason that you know more about his work, when you are a lawyer? will you tell the carpenter how to build his house, when you are a judge? you cannot blind me, because i have debated the law and see the truth in all observation, and not ONE has brought any evidence to show me this law is not sound accept by saying : it CANT be. because it should not be possible. but it is. and here is the law.The laws of science that prove God:Under this basis: you are. not maybe are. not could be are. but do, exist:Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, but changed from form to form.No ordered form can exist on top of chaos without direction. (remember direction.)Something cant come from nothing. (it can "appear" to, but impossible to "literally" not come from nothing.(because we are)This means: although we cant see the energy of God, nothing outside of energy is real. that is reality.Existence had to be established, and all the elements are too ordered to have existed without direction.So existence is a synonym for God, in that in the beginning, there was intelligent energy that existed singularly, and created all that is based on faith that it was/is.Debate the law. its sound.Edited by tesla, : spelling

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Nice one Tesla, that is a lovely way to welcome a new member, accuse him of being too stupid to understand your argument. This is what you do when anyone has the temerity to disagree with you. Perhaps you might give thought to an alternative hypothesis, namely that people understand your argument perfectly well, and we understand it to be bollocks. You are no "master stonemason" my friend.
Your "laws of science" break down at step three. Providing some kind of evidence for this baseless and false assertion might make a good start for the promised creation model that, 184 posts in, you have shown no sign of providing.

---

Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

you ignore the evidence i do show you

---

The thing is, you consistently fail to show evidence to anyone. You merely assert you are correct and bulldoze on. I am sorry, but that is simply not how providing evidence works. I do not believe I am alone in saying even unsourced evidence is preferable to the mishmash you have offered thus far.

quote:

---

and throw words around saying i am ignorant of anything i say

---

I did not call you ignorant, but you rightly assumed that I think it. In fact, if may be the only correct assumption you have made in the long sad history of this thread.

quote:

---

because of your unwillingness to understand?

---

No, because of my unwillingness to accept tripe and nonsense passed as assertions from a person who is either being a very cleverly satirical facetious or is truly genuinely in need of a high school equivalency degree.

quote:

---

energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, but changed from form to form.

---

I have yet to see anyone here dispute Conservation of Mass or Conservation of Energy. What I would like to see, though, is how that applies to any of the arguments you have attempted to make. And when you elaborate, make sure you do so in a detailed manner instead of the punch drunk half attempts we have seen. You will get further that way.

quote:

---

it is not a trick law, and the observer of it hard fought before it was accepted. or do you disagree that Einstein has had any relevance with what he has observed

---

Let me get this straight. You are saying you have no idea what the difference between General Relativity and the Lomonosov-Lavoisier law is?Let me give you a hint, what you described was not Einstein's brain child.I have an honest question. Do you actually think before you post or do you just type the first inanity that comes to mind. Before you try educating a single person in here on what you think energy is, please do us all a favor and find out what it actually is. The concepts for this stuff is nothing one would not find in a high school physics class. It is not difficult so go read.

quote:

---

i show you by the definitions of the words you can find in the dictionary the full proof by observation of what is "real".

---

And would you be discussing reality as observed by empiricism or vague philosophical arguments on relativism and gods forbid post-modernism. If you wish to get into the subjective vs. intersubjective views of reality, I would greatly love to break out the Kant with you in another thread. But this is not the thread for that discussion.What you *are* attempting to do is play word games built upon vagaries to prove some imaginary point which exists nowhere but within your own mind. Wow, now how is that for relative?

quote:

---

you choose to speak a lot but say little.

---

Says the person yet to form a single coherent sentence.

quote:

---

i wish for all to agree

---

I am sure you do. It would boost your already overlarge ego. The problem is, we will not agree on the simple assertions of a person unable to present *any* reason to accept those assertions.

quote:

---

with what i have observed.

---

Well that is the problem isn't it. All you have is your observation to convince you and nothing else to support it. Yet any manner of mental illness or intoxicant can effect your observations. Indeed, your observations can be affected when you are in sound health and sober. So what you must then do is provide us with a reason to support you built upon evidence not the anecdotes of a person who confuses Einstein with being the discoverer of the Laws of Conservation of Mass and of Energy.

quote:

---

but can any man see any more than he chooses too?

---

William Blake wrote, "the eye altering alters all". Our eyes are indeed very biased. We want fact. We want veracity. And we want supporting evidence for those things. What you want, is for us to believe you simply because you say something is so. Who's eyes are most affected?

quote:

---

if you choose to admit to all that you "might" not really exist, am i to blame for your blindness?

---

Are you by chance a solipsist?

quote:

---

here is the law.

---

Definitely a solipsist.

quote:

---

YOU dispute it.

---

And what is it I dispute? That you have yet to provide evidence? That the "laws" you attributed to Einstein are not his?Tell me, the two laws you attempted to cite, do you know why they are called laws? Do you know why laws are no longer introduced in science? Or are you simply seeing the word law and mistaking it as something other than a theory? As we know, theories are grand ways of describing fact but are not immutable. Nor are "laws" the older precursors to theories.

quote:

---

what argument can i have with you?

---

You can have none because your knowledge is wanting. You will be shot down. Again and again for as long as it takes to sink in.

quote:

---

will you convince a master stonemason that you know more about his work, when you are a lawyer? will you tell the carpenter how to build his house, when you are a judge?

---

Fortunately I do not have to do those things. All I have to do is pelt a poor Punch and Judy puppeteer with rocks and tell him his show sucks, it is time to pack it up and go home.

quote:

---

you cannot blind me, because i have debated the law and see the truth in all observation, and not ONE has brought any evidence to show me this law is not sound accept by saying : it CANT be. because it should not be possible. but it is. and here is the law.

---

And which law is that? One of the two you mistakenly attributed to Einstein. It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about. You are merely posting to see your words on that magic screen box glowing in front of you.

quote:

---

The laws of science that prove God:

​

Under this basis: you are. not maybe are. not could be are. but do, exist:

​

Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, but changed from form to form.

​

No ordered form can exist on top of chaos without direction. (remember direction.)

​

Something cant come from nothing. (it can "appear" to, but impossible to "literally" not come from nothing.(because we are)

---

Tell me, does your bum still hurt from pulling this out of it?Let's see what you mangle here.First you give an exceedingly poor attempt at explaining cogito ergo sum. I am no fan of Descartes, but I do believe he would wish to flay you with the most rust razor he could find. May I recommend the book Philosophy East, Philosophy West, to help remedy your misunderstanding on the topic.From there you lead into the Laws of Conservation of Energy and of Mass, which you have already established you haven't the foggiest about. Then you mangle the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which refers to heat transfer in a closed system and has nothing to do with order or chaos as you seem to understand it.Finally you top it off with some inanity from gods only know where about something from nothing. Are you trying to describe abiogenisis or the origin of the Big Bang? If the later, I recommend you look into the words singularity and Hartle-Hawking Wavestate.

quote:

---

This means: although we cant see the energy of God, nothing outside of energy is real. that is reality.

---

Actually, what it means is that you are a hack philosopher with an exceedingly poor grasp on concepts basic to physics. But for what it is worth, you prove that very very well.

quote:

---

Existence had to be established, and all the elements are too ordered to have existed without direction.

---

You have made the claim, I would certainly love to see you back it up. Go on now, try providing something factual. Who knows, it may be fun.

quote:

---

So existence is a synonym for God, in that in the beginning, there was intelligent energy that existed singularly, and created all that is based on faith that it was/is.

---

If you wish to leave me an instant message I can give you a nice list of books that will rather thoroughly remedy every instance where you misunderstand basic physics. This post is already rather lengthy, so I would prefer not posting them here.

quote:

---

Debate the law.

---

You have yet to say which one. I am working on the assumption that you do not mean that list of crap you posted earlier.

quote:

---

its sound.

---

I assure you, it is every bit as sound as your mind.

quote:

---

Nice one Tesla, that is a lovely way to welcome a new member, accuse him of being too stupid to understand your argument. This is what you do when anyone has the temerity to disagree with you. Perhaps you might give thought to an alternative hypothesis, namely that people understand your argument perfectly well, and we understand it to be bollocks. You are no "master stonemason" my friend.

---

Don't worry, I am fine and have seen worse.

You still are only say that you have to be real to exist.That's one hell of a non sequitor. Yes it can. How else do you explain Hawking Radiation? So you assert. Show how it is true. Using a dictionary to prove things does not work.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

"or" should be "and" in my previous post, next to Einstein.i have debated this, it's for you now. you believe I'm full of it. then say I'm full of it. but ill assert the law is sound.i don't know about hawking radiation. but just because something "appears" to pop out of nowhere doesn't mean it did. it means you haven't figured out the how or why of it.good day and good luck to you.model: i already explained what the model is, what did you really expect? a 50,000 word report?to new poster: my apologies if i sounded rude to you. everyone is entitled to their opinions. i hope you will accept it...take care all. God be with us all.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You. Are. Full. Of. It.Your law (that things can only exist if they exist) stinks. I can smell it from my lap top it's so strong.You have said nothing that makes sense and I defy any lurker to wade in in support of you. You have not supported your law with anything other than opinion.Your position is that of a self indulgent pompous ass.

why? i don't know how to state the laws any simpler. ill try, for the sake of your debate with me.i say: nothing outside energy is real.you say: prove it.i say: if it isn't energy, it isn't real. it will never be measured. it will never be found, it will never exist. because it would not be real.you say: what about ghosts? thoughts? space?i say: ghosts: IF there "real" can only exist in a form of energy, even if you cant measure it with current technology, because if not energy, it isn't real. thoughts: they exist in your mind which is a part of your body, which is a ton of different energy transfers, chemically, and small electric pulses and perhaps other unmeasurable energies. space: 1 cubic liter of space would boil the earths oceans i believe one poster said. (radiation, fields, and light are some measurable energies in space)you say: none of that makes sense.i say: how doesn't it?reality i say, is only what is real. and if it can never be measured, it wouldn't exist. and since we do exist, energy was first that made it possible. and its too perfect, too complex and ordered to have just "appeared" out of nothing. so something was the first "genesis" energy.so what would we call the genesis energy? well...existence. since that is what has to be, before anything else.and so i applied the genesis energy to scientific enquiry and found the "law of existence".the only debate that has been brought to me is : well you didn't measure it, so its not there.i say: I'm here. the galaxy is there. so it was there. or nothing would be.that's as simple as i can explain it. you can choose to ignore the truth of it, but all your tentative science is a big "maybe" and this law that "i am, so the earth was, so the galaxy was before that, and so the greater energy that was first was there, is sound. perfect. and indisputable.that's why you cant change my mind, and never will. because its true. and you can only come to terms with the truth of it if you actually try to debate the soundness of it, instead of looking for reasons to say it isn't sound.the law really is easy to defend. because all true science is supported by it. relativity, because of it all coming from the same start is sound. and point of view of the individual becomes clearer when its understood.its the difference between looking at your life through a window, to looking at your life as whats staring you in the face.I'm not saying you'll agree with me. who out there who doesn't want to accept any religion, would be willing to accept science that proved that nothing could be at all without God?so if that's your motivation, all the science in the world wont change your mind.I'm hoping for a scientist who wishes to know the truth MORE than his/her willingness to not change there points of view.so then if such a scientist is out there, try to defend this law in the debate against another, and see how easy it is.Edited by tesla, : typoeEdited by tesla, : typoe

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

No I don't! I say (again) that all you are saying is that only real thing are real. Very good. We can all agree real things are real. NO I DON'T.I say that (again) we agree that only real things are real. I don't believe in ghosts or fairies or gods or any of that bullshit. No. I. Don't. I don't believe in ghost and all that crap (as I mentioned). If by space you are talking about vacuum enegy density then you are on very shaky ground with you boiling off oceans idea.http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html This is where you start down the logical fallacy called arguement from incredularity. It seems 'too perfect, too complex etc'. The flaw in your arguement is that it is only your opinion of 'too perfect, too complex etc'. One cannot base conclusions on not being able to imagine something being true. You continue to dig a hole for yourself. The energy in the nacent universe has no obvious connection to genesis outside of theology. We are in a science forum, not a religious one. Not so. You have made fallacious logical errors in your thinking to get from things having to be real to energy having to be real to energy having to be first to this energy being 'genesis energy'. No mention of measuring. Again you simply state that things have to be real to exist. WE KNOW! Again all you state is that you are real, the earth is real the galaxy real and was once in a highly energetic state right after the big bang. THIS IS OBVIOUS TO ANY ONE! No one here is argueing that what is real is real. No one here is argueing that what is real is real. No one here is argueing that what is real is real. Now we are cooking on gas! You get from 'the earth is real the galaxy real and was once in a highly energetic state right after the big bang' to the xian god creating it all.THIS IS WHERE YOU FAIL TO SHOW YOUR WORKING. The thing is tesla, that all you have managed to say is that energy is real and always was so your god is real. That does not follow. I may as well say that energy is real and always was so Enki is real, or Odin or Zeus. You being correct about energy being real does not make your god or the 'creation model' that you have failed to provide in 190 post real. To do this you need to use the tools of science and you have fallen far short of the mark. But tesla, you have not defended it. You have said energy is real therefor god is real.Like the wookie defence; IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

ok, so you agree only what is real is real.then, something cannot "literally" come from nothing.it can "appear" to, but not "literally" be possible, because without something, nothing can be.its that simple.its science.its reality.you going to say then : it was "just there"?ok. so it was. its ordered. perfectly. mathematically. and you think that's possible from some random possibility? impossible. its too ordered. and random would be lack of order. it would have to have been directed.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

So you're arguing that God can't exist.But how does that support a creationist model?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

not at all. what I'm saying is, since something cannot literally come from nothing, that whatever the "genesis" energy is, had to have intelligence to be able to exist in such a complex ordered form as the universe. which means that the universe is a part of the very body of the genesis energy, which would have to have been intelligent, and initially existed singularly. because without it, nothing is.that is the reality of God.intelligence (consciousness) energy (which is pure and the fabric that everything exists on top of) and because of singularity initially, which is necessary before anything else could be, that any creation of the second energy from the genesis energy was an act of faith.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

That doesn't solve the coming-from-nothing problem. If God can exist contrary to the coming-from-nothing "law", then why couldn't a singularity? Or a tangerine?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs