Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

a reply to: cooperton

Sure - when you present your "research".

a reply to: cooperton

This was solved by philosophers long ago. God never was created. God always existed. That's the meaning of Alpha Omega. Not limited to the restrictions of space and time like we are.

Would you mind telling us who these philosophers were and how they "solved" the problem? You have no evidence for this mystical being. It's merely a belief system with no evidence. People who think logically really don't care one way or another whether there is a god(s). It's irrelevant. You argue for something that can't be proven or unproven. You're selling a bill of goods - but the bag is empty.

Cooperton, do you ever have doubt about your beliefs? Honesty would be appreciated.

I have doubts about some findings when they are published, like recently when OPERA faster-than-light neutrino communications were apparently discovered. I doubted the outcome, but I didn't doubt the science. Science eventually found a flaw in the measurements and normality returned.

What do you doubt in your beliefs?

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Cooperton, do you ever have doubt about your beliefs? Honesty would be appreciated.

I have doubts about some findings when they are published, like recently when OPERA faster-than-light neutrino communications were apparently discovered. I doubted the outcome, but I didn't doubt the science. Science eventually found a flaw in the measurements and normality returned.

What do you doubt in your beliefs?

There's times I get frustrated that things aren't in harmony yet... but then I remember I need to learn patience. I ask questions all the time and usually there is an answer. I have found that my doubt usually coincides with insufficiencies in my own behavior, so if anything it is a message for me to focus and realign myself. When I do this the outside world calibrated and the magic (for lack of a better word) starts to happen again

I do take into account empirical evidence from the sciences, but I have come to strongly believe that consciousness made matter, rather than the other way around. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum physics is probably my closest mainstream "proof".

I have also experienced things directly that my rational mind realized could not be explained from a material-literalist perspective.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


Would you mind telling us who these philosophers were and how they "solved" the problem?

Plato was the first I read.

Something cannot come from nothing.
Something exists.
This means Something was never nothing, and therefore never needed to be created.

This he supposed was the founder of the universe.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


Would you mind telling us who these philosophers were and how they "solved" the problem?

Plato was the first I read.

Something cannot come from nothing.
Something exists.
This means Something was never nothing, and therefore never needed to be created.

This he supposed was the founder of the universe.

Virtual particles, spacetime bubbles and cosmic inflation with a dash of non zero probability. Is that a fairly accurate summary of cosmic intelligence?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


Would you mind telling us who these philosophers were and how they "solved" the problem?

Plato was the first I read.

Something cannot come from nothing.
Something exists.
This means Something was never nothing, and therefore never needed to be created.

This he supposed was the founder of the universe.

Plato believed in many gods. The first problem with your answer is that you talk of "God" with a capital G. This doesn't exist to Plato, and for that matter in ancient greek litterature, because God is not the name of a person but a common noun. Thus Plato speaks of "the gods (hoi theoi), or "the god (ho theos)", in some cases of "god", but then in the same way he would talk of "man". To plato the gods were the same as people they lived, loved and some even died.

Now the other problem is Platos belief that in order to say that something "is", is to say nothing at all until you say "how" it exist. In other words everything has to be created at some point and you cant prove it exists until you can explain how it came to be. In greek literature they explain how their gods were created something you are unabled to do.

originally posted by: dragonridr


Plato believed in many gods
The first problem with your answer is that you talk of "God" with a capital G. This doesn't exist to Plato

He refers to the Creator of the universe as the Craftsman inTimaeus. this account refers to the creator as "God". Singular and capitalized. So yes He believes in a Monad just like Christ.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Virtual particles, spacetime bubbles and cosmic inflation with a dash of non zero probability. Is that a fairly accurate summary of cosmic intelligence?

The sun moon and stars forego like clockwork. The sun consistently gives us a stable amount of energy since all of known history. Yeah it works very well. They perpetuate according to very precise laws that keep them in proper motion.

a reply to: cooperton

Plato turned out to be wrong. No one knows if "something came from nothing" - not Plato and not you.

a reply to: cooperton

They perpetuate according to very precise laws that keep them in proper motion.

And what laws would they be??

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: dragonridr


Plato believed in many gods
The first problem with your answer is that you talk of "God" with a capital G. This doesn't exist to Plato

He refers to the Creator of the universe as the Craftsman inTimaeus. this account refers to the creator as "God". Singular and capitalized. So yes He believes in a Monad just like Christ.

Why would you expect there NOT to be a singular form of the word used for gods?
Also, your link leads to a commentary about Timaeus, not to the usage in the Dialogue. While it's true that the character Timeaus refers to a "craftsman," that craftsman is the personalization of intellect itself. It (according to the character Timaeus) actually instructed the Greek gods to create men. It is also not to be found in the standard mythology of the Greeks.

Connecting this cold, calculating pure intellect with any Judeo-Christian tradition is ludicrous on its face. What you linked to shows a certain amount of cultural bias, even though it does not make the claim that you do.


Harte

originally posted by: Harte

Why would you expect there NOT to be a singular form of the word used for gods?

I didnt expect otherwise. I was showing dragonridr that Plato believes in a Monad. This Craftsman is not plural because it was the original unbegotten founder of the Universe.

Also, your link leads to a commentary about Timaeus, not to the usage in the Dialogue. While it's true that the character Timeaus refers to a "craftsman," that craftsman is the personalization of intellect itself.

You forgot to capitalize Craftsman. And yeah if you read Plato's other works he insists that the World of Forms is the deeper underlying reality which Timeaeus is referring to here as the unchanging blueprint that was used to create the material world. Meaning it is not some trivial matter, but instead more fundamental than matter itself.

originally posted by: Phantom423

And what laws would they be??

Relativity theory is the closest we have at the moment

No one knows if "something came from nothing"

All things have always come from some other thing, and never from nothing. So it's safe to say something does not come from nothing

originally posted by: cooperton

You forgot to capitalize Craftsman. And yeah if you read Plato's other works he insists that the World of Forms is the deeper underlying reality which Timeaeus is referring to here as the unchanging blueprint that was used to create the material world. Meaning it is not some trivial matter, but instead more fundamental than matter itself.

I didn't forget to capitalize craftsman. I didn't see it capitalized in the Greek. But maybe I missed it. I don't read Greek that well since I don't know the language, just the letters and sounds - so I have to look up the meanings of most of the words.

It wouldn't have been significant anyway. Theos (god) was capitalized sometimes when referring to a particular god, just as the names of the gods were capitalized. It really has no significance and is entirely unrelated to any Judeo-Christian theology.

On top of that, you have Timaeus making the argument in the dialogue, not Plato. And regarding what Plato thought, he also thought atoms were made up of the two perfect triangles - the 45-45-90 triangle and the 30-60-90 triangle. What significance does that hold for you?

Harte

a reply to: Harte

I pointed out earlier he just picks and chooses what he believes with very little factual evidence. He misquotes and often misunderstands things. As I said Greeks believe in multiple gods thought they credit Gaea or the earth itself with creating the universe. And well giving rise to the titans as well.

In the beginning, there was only Chaos, the gaping emptiness. Then, either all by themselves or out of the formless void, sprang forth three more primordial deities: Gaea (Earth), Tartarus (the Underworld), and Eros (Love). Once Love was there, Gaea and Chaos – two female deities – were able to procreate and shape everything known and unknown in the universe.
Source: www.greekmythology.com...

Religion has an evolution. From the tribal deities, to local paganism, to the many-gods empire and now (several) one god worlds. At each point, those gods were the beginning and the end - until they were replaced. It will probably happen again, or more likely, will they fade out all together. Religion is dying. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it's not. I don't care.

What I do care about is false evidence being presented as fact. Not understanding a process is not evidence against it. I've read what the three creation protagonists have written in this thread and a couple others regarding the origins and evolution of life on this planet. I haven't seen a single fact presented to support their case. Not one. All I have read is disputes on the currently agreed facts. Where is the case to support their argument? If all you can do is argue against something, you are not proving YOUR case.

So, let's have the evidence for creation.

Where is the case to support their argument? If all you can do is argue against something, you are not proving YOUR case.

So, let's have the evidence for creation.

a reply to: TerraLiga

And that's the key. He always avoids providing evidence in the hope that no one will notice. That's why he's a fraud and a liar - degree in "neuro science" = lie; researched neuro science = lie; his "evidence" always points to himself and his own opinions. He repeats the same stuff over and over and expects no one to notice.

He's a fraud - and a bore.

originally posted by: Phantom423
He always avoids providing evidence in the hope that no one will notice. That's why he's a fraud and a liar

I use sources to back my claims. Literally on this very page I have provided evidence for my points. Your hyperbolic libel shows that you are the liar.

- degree in "neuro science" = lie

You have never been able to hold a debate with me. You always resort to posts like this because you can't handle actually discussing science with me. It's pathetic. I provide sources on the last page regarding a missing 2.4 million nucleotide bases on the supposed fused chromosome, and you just ignore it. You always resort to side-tracking and insult, which we all know is the tool of the loser in any argument.

He's a fraud

Where specifically have I misrepresented a fact, without correcting my self later? You see this is the difference between you and me. I admit and correct my self when I am wrong. You never admit when you're wrong, this is why your objectivity is entirely out the window.

No one knows if "something came from nothing"

Besides the Law of Conservation of energy saying energy cannot be created or destroyed. You will deny science to avoid admitting you are wrong. That is why you are quite literally the worst scientist on this forum.

a reply to: cooperton

You're a fraud. EOM

a reply to: cooperton

Well, you do show you do not understand the conservation of energy. Why am I not surprised you have problems with science. And you tend to make up things that are not true. First, this is in reference to mechanical energy and only in a system. Now what you do not understand is one system can steal energy from another. And here's the problem you cannot have zero energy it's impossible to do. It is impossible to exactly and simultaneously measure both the momentum and position of a particle. There is always an uncertainty in momentum and uncertainty in the position. More importantly, these two uncertainties cannot be reduced to zero together. So we can borrow energy from one system to another even if it's briefly. As well as remove energy like in the case of Hawking radiation which steals energy from a black hole.


Since we can never have zero energy and it must fluctuate there is always energy available. And as we learned from Einstine energy and mass are interchangeable so yes you can get something out of nothing if you don't consider energy to be something.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You're a fraud.

Fraud implies I am trying to obtain some sort of gain. I have never promoted a book or anything that would give me monetary gain. The only thing I want is for people to realize there is hope, and the conclusion of life is not meaningless. You on the other hand do not even realize you are being cucked into trying to convince people they have mutant progeny for the sake of stroking your own ego. As you have demonstrated throughout this forum time and time again, you don't care about objective science, you just want to appear to be right.

originally posted by: Phantom423

He always avoids providing evidence in the hope that no one will notice.

I need to go no further than your second sentence to show in fact you are the liar. You call me the liar, but you are actually the liar. You claim i avoid providing evidence but you quite literally ignored the evidence I posted from the genetic database on the prior page. So your claim that I always avoid providing evidence is patently false. This means you're a liar, because I know you won't apologize. If you were to admit you were wrong you wouldn't be a liar, but you double down on your deceit because your ego only allows you to pretend you are right.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton


Since we can never have zero energy and it must fluctuate there is always energy available. And as we learned from Einstine energy and mass are interchangeable so yes you can get something out of nothing if you don't consider energy to be something.

Why would you not consider energy to be something? It is literally the thing that is neither destroyed or created according to the energy conservation law. The lengths you guys go to warp fundamental scientific laws to try to prove me wrong shows you are no longer objective. You care more about trying to trap me in my words than you do about science

If you want to prove me wrong with science, show that energy can come from nothing.