Proof Creationism Is BS

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

Well , There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Xtrozero , than are dreamt of in your philosophy .

Maybe... One thing we need to also understand is that everything in our brains is created by chemicals. If one disagrees just do acid or D M T and see how your reality changes. Our brains also fake us out in about 10 different ways that also shape our sense of reality. When a flower dies where does that reality of the flower go? Same with all other life forms...

We are special because we tell ourselves we are special and hope there is more to the chemical process we call life, but I truly doubt there is, and I don't see that as a bad thing.

Again, we go back to atoms and the quantum world. The flower's atoms are still there, they are just transformed. Did the flower has an essence beyond it's chemical/physical reality? Some say flowers do have an awareness, now why would they say that?

originally posted by: quintessentone

Again, we go back to atoms and the quantum world. The flower's atoms are still there, they are just transformed. Did the flower has an essence beyond it's chemical/physical reality? Some say flowers do have an awareness, now why would they say that?

It is true that matter and heat are still there in some form... But as your body turns into dust and back into the earth, and your heat dissipates out into randomness does your conscience stay intact with zero matter or heat? As I said, people hope there is more, but maybe nothing is better...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: quintessentone

Again, we go back to atoms and the quantum world. The flower's atoms are still there, they are just transformed. Did the flower has an essence beyond it's chemical/physical reality? Some say flowers do have an awareness, now why would they say that?

It is true that matter and heat are still there in some form... But as your body turns into dust and back into the earth, and your heat dissipates out into randomness does your conscience stay intact with zero matter or heat? As I said, people hope there is more, but maybe nothing is better...

They say the memories we create in our brains are chemical atoms. Do atoms ever lose their energy?

originally posted by: quintessentone

They say the memories we create in our brains are chemical atoms that we have created. Do atoms ever lose their energy?

So you have atoms floating freely with nothing to bind them to maintain a memory unless you are suggesting the memory is embedded in the atom. Atoms are neutral and if put together one way you get a chemical or compound, a slight change and you get something totally different. What you are suggesting is after all the changes there is still the original thing, and that just does not happen with anything in the universe.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: quintessentone

They say the memories we create in our brains are chemical atoms that we have created. Do atoms ever lose their energy?

So you have atoms floating freely with nothing to bind them to maintain a memory unless you are suggesting the memory is embedded in the atom. Atoms are neutral and if put together one way you get a chemical or compound, a slight change and you get something totally different. What you are suggesting is after all the changes there is still the original thing, and that just does not happen with anything in the universe.

If atoms are made of chemicals and memories are chemical atoms then it is a newly created atom, so a one of a kind atom, is it not? Floating freely or is anything really floating freely in the universe. Isn't everything connected by filaments and dark matter and dark energy? There is no nothing, supposedly.

Just like a seed, when we die we grow and turn into a flower producing more seeds.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

So you have atoms floating freely with nothing to bind them to maintain a memory unless you are suggesting the memory is embedded in the atom. Atoms are neutral and if put together one way you get a chemical or compound, a slight change and you get something totally different. What you are suggesting is after all the changes there is still the original thing, and that just does not happen with anything in the universe.

Don't forget the magical force that allows the existence of atoms at all. It is unbelievable and a huge monkey wrench in a universal theory of everything that the electrons orbiting the nucleus do not collapse in an instant. Think about it, negatively charged particles orbiting around a positively charged nucleus? Absurd, they should attract with immediacy. The current idea is that it is the spin state of the electron that prevents this collapse, but this causes a huge magnitude discrepancy between intramolecular forces and gravity.

Regardless, atoms are much more complex than dumb inert nanoscopic balls of matter. They are mostly empty space, yet they perpetuate with such consistency according to such precise laws that they can be organized into a periodic table (that's an indicator of intelligent design). Atoms are more properly described as interactive quantum energy units, rather than mindless small balls of matter.

originally posted by: quintessentone

If atoms are made of chemicals and memories are chemical atoms then it is a newly created atom, so a one of a kind atom, is it not? Floating freely or is anything really floating freely in the universe. Isn't everything connected by filaments and dark matter and dark energy? There is no nothing, supposedly.

You are really reaching... My point is that anything that was once you is no longer even if your atoms and heat are still there but now something else.

I understand the concept you are trying to explain. A good example is homeopathic dilution where some feel the more dilution the stronger the medicine is and that the essence of the medicine remains to make it more powerful even when there isn't a molecule left.

originally posted by: cooperton

Regardless, atoms are much more complex than dumb inert nanoscopic balls of matter. They are mostly empty space, yet they perpetuate with such consistency according to such precise laws that they can be organized into a periodic table (that's an indicator of intelligent design). Atoms are more properly described as interactive quantum energy units, rather than mindless small balls of matter.

We are trying to discuss something we all really have no clue about. It's like trying to explain what a ghost is made up of if they are actually real. I'm sure we all believe in other dimensions no matter what we name them, but I don't think an xtrozero force will remain once I'm physically gone. Might be something else, but I doubt I will wake up after death and say wow this is new.

What you are conceptualising initially with this post is that an atom is an electrically polarised field.

In fact that whole post is inferring that as a fact.

a reply to: cooperton

originally posted by: cooperton

Don't forget the magical force that allows the existence of atoms at all.

The limitless.

originally posted by: quintessentone

Some say flowers do have an awareness, now why would they say that?

Some options (a combination of these options is also possible):

1. because that's what they want to believe
2. because that's what they want others to believe
3. because they know that's what others want to hear, something that intrigues or entertains, making it more advantageous to make that claim (just like it works in the entertainment industry if you can cater to your potential market, give them what they want), it's something that tickles their ears as described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4:

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.”

No doubt, those are not the only options. And more details concerning motive could be discussed, such as those involving the habit of blurring the lines between plants, animals and humans, downplaying the uniqueness of human beings compared to these other groups of living organisms in an effort to get people to overlook the observable evidence for the phrase in Genesis that talks about God creating human beings in his image (and the Creation account in Genesis in general), all to acquisce to evolutionary philosophies that also teach that humans are animals. Hence the blurring of the lines.

Chapter Four: How Unique You Are! (Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?)

...

Nonetheless, each of us experiences consciousness. For example, our vivid memories of past events are not mere stored facts, like computer bits of information. We can reflect on our experiences, draw lessons from them, and use them to shape our future. We are able to consider several future scenarios and evaluate the possible effects of each. We have the capacity to analyze, create, appreciate, and love. We can enjoy pleasant conversations about the past, present, and future. We have ethical values about behavior and can use them in making decisions that may or may not be of immediate benefit. We are attracted to beauty in art and morals. In our mind we can mold and refine our ideas and guess how other people will react if we carry these out.

Such factors produce an awareness that sets humans apart from other life-forms on earth. A dog, a cat, or a bird looks in a mirror and responds as if seeing another of its kind. But when you look in a mirror, you are conscious of yourself as a being with the capacities just mentioned. You can reflect on dilemmas, such as: ‘Why do some turtles live 150 years and some trees live over 1,000 years, but an intelligent human makes the news if he reaches 100?’ Dr. Richard Restak states: “The human brain, and the human brain alone, has the capacity to step back, survey its own operation, and thus achieve some degree of transcendence. Indeed, our capacity for rewriting our own script and redefining ourselves in the world is what distinguishes us from all other creatures in the world.”

Man’s consciousness baffles some. The book Life Ascending, while favoring a mere biological explanation, admits: “When we ask how a process [evolution] that resembles a game of chance, with dreadful penalties for the losers, could have generated such qualities as love of beauty and truth, compassion, freedom, and, above all, the expansiveness of the human spirit, we are perplexed. The more we ponder our spiritual resources, the more our wonder deepens.” Very true. Thus, we might round out our view of human uniqueness by a few evidences of our consciousness that illustrate why many are convinced that there must be an intelligent Designer, a Creator, who cares for us.

Art and Beauty

...

That's what some people want to distract you from (see bolded part). Also to make it sound more plausible that humans evolved from some apelike ancestor, because they're supposedly so similar to apes. And they promote that idea by mitigating or downplaying the gigantic gap between humans and any animal or plant, including apes.

What About Those “Ape-Men”? (Awake!—1973)

... The Bible shows the simple reason why no links exist today: they have never existed.

Gigantic Gap

It is undeniable that among living things today we observe a gigantic gap between the human kind and any animal. In Populations, Species and Evolution, Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, an evolutionist, states:

“No more tragic mistake could be made than to consider man ‘merely an animal.’ Man is unique; he differs from all other animals in many properties, such as speech, tradition, culture, and an enormously extended period of growth and parental care.”

Man’s uniqueness cannot be explained by evolution, for that process should certainly have resulted in at least a few other living things having qualities somewhat like humans. But that is not the case. Of all creatures on earth, only humans are capable of abstract reasoning, using complex languages, accumulating and building on knowledge and transmitting the improvement to their children. Only humans invent and improve on tools. Only they appreciate beauty, compose music and paint pictures. [whereislogic: read the box "You Can Do More Than Doodle" from the previous article if you have been given the false impression that elephants can paint pictures because of that youtube video where they taught an elephant a few tricks, much like you can teach a dog to do various tricks. In the words of Professors R. S. and D. H. Fouts quoted there: “And animals do not, which may be highly significant, draw representational pictures. At best they only doodle.”]

In addition, in contrast with animals, only humans have an inborn moral sense. True, they can distort it or even work against it, but they still have the faculty of conscience. That is why in all human societies, even godless ones, there are laws protecting morals, human life, property and other rights. But nowhere do we see such conscience at work among the animals.

Yes, it is generally admitted that this gigantic gap between mankind and animals does exist today. But was it always that way? What about those “ape-men” who were supposed to have lived in the past?

...

originally posted by: Dalamax
What you are conceptualising initially with this post is that an atom is an electrically polarised field.

In fact that whole post is inferring that as a fact.

a reply to: cooperton

Why would you interpret a magical force as a polarised field? You can't explain creation.

a reply to: whereislogic

But, whereislogic, they are living too, just as we are. They are living differently, does that make them subject to a lesser form in the scheme of things?

a reply to: quintessentone

Plants and flowers were made by God to nourish and sustain us (both physically and spiritually, as in we can enjoy their beauty, and use our God-given intellect to learn more about them, and in the process learn more about our Creator*, using our minds what they were made for in order to enjoy life and the wonders of Creation).

In that sense, they are a lesser form of life "in the scheme of things", as you put it.

*: “His [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.” (Rom. 1:20)

Can Life Arise by Chance? (1978)
“Perceived by the Things Made” (2nd page)

If crude stone tools prove the existence of a designer, with far greater force do not living creatures of intricate design declare the existence of a wise and powerful Creator?

IF THERE is a rockslide in the mountains, we expect to see a jumble of boulders where it comes to rest at the bottom. We would not believe our eyes if all the boulders came to rest in the form of a beautiful rock house​—for a house requires design and purposeful work. And there is no design without a designer, or purposeful work without an intelligent worker. This agrees with the Bible’s statement at Hebrews 3:4: “Every house is constructed by someone.”

A scientist digs in the rubble of the earth and finds a round, oblong stone that is smooth and has a groove circling the middle. He has no doubt but that it was shaped by a primitive man. He is convinced that it was attached to a stick by a leather thong and used as a hammer or a weapon. Similarly, he finds a flat stone with a sharp edge and is sure that it was made by a “Stone Age” man for use as a knife or a scraper. Or, a small piece of sharp flint shaped like an arrowhead convinces him that it was designed by man to use on the tip of an arrow or a spear. Such purposeful, designed things, the scientist concludes, are not products of chance.

The work reflects the worker. These tools and weapons are crude. Hence, their makers are considered primitive, for apes do not make weapons, and those of modern man are of ingenious design. So the scientist places the man who made the stone items in a stone age, and speculates that his appearance and brainpower must be somewhere between ape and modern man. Hence, he envisions a stoop-shouldered, low-browed, shuffling, hairy ape-man. This one’s creations reflect more purpose and design than the stick the ape might pick up, but far less than the things modern man creates. The scientist sees the worker through his works, and judges his qualities from his works.

THEY ABANDON THEIR OWN LOGIC

However, when it comes to the teeming plant and animal life found on the earth, most scientists reverse themselves on their view that design requires a designer. Of far greater complexity than crude stone tools are the simplest of organisms. Yes, even the single-celled protozoan cannot be considered simple. For within that single cell it has the capacity for performing all the body functions that are cared for by the many organs of a vertebrate. In itself it is a complex organism. Evolutionary scientists insist that such complex organisms had no designer but popped into existence by chance. In comparison to the protozoan’s producing itself spontaneously, it would be easy for crude stone tools to be formed by a landslide or a rushing stream, or even simplicity itself for a rock house to be built by an avalanche of boulders!

When it comes to the most complexly designed creations in the universe, is it emotional prejudice that causes many intelligent persons to abandon their logical rule that purposeful work reflects the qualities of an intelligent worker? The Bible agrees with their rule, but they shy away from the Bible’s application of it: “His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.” (Rom. 1:20) They would never accept chance as the maker of a crude stone tool, but they readily embrace it as the creator not only of protozoa but of all life on earth, man included! They balk at perceiving in these marvels of design the great Designer and Creator of the universe. Consider a few of such wonders. Ponder whether blind chance has the qualities that they reflect.

...

a reply to: quintessentone

I think the problem lies with us, not with the reality around us. We are too big for our britches since eating from the tree of knowledge.

I am not taking to myself, this was meant for you know who.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

We are trying to discuss something we all really have no clue about. It's like trying to explain what a ghost is made up of if they are actually real. I'm sure we all believe in other dimensions no matter what we name them, but I don't think an xtrozero force will remain once I'm physically gone. Might be something else, but I doubt I will wake up after death and say wow this is new.

If matter made consciousness then yeah we're doomed. But if matter derives from an intelligent consciousness then it is logically inevitable that there would be some sort of perpetuity.

originally posted by: Dalamax
What you are conceptualising initially with this post is that an atom is an electrically polarised field.

In fact that whole post is inferring that as a fact.

a reply to: cooperton

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

-Max Planck

a reply to: Peeple

To be fair, Adam never existed. Humans evolved, they weren't created separate from the animal kingdom. No such thing as a first human.

a reply to: Toothache

That's very smart. Adam must have known the same thing.

Max is using particles and vibration where field and wave fit.

And why must we assume a conscious and intelligent mind is behind the force holding an atom together? Is it Okay with Occam?

a reply to: cooperton