creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

reply to post by swoop1234


You are creating your own personal religion (unknown consciousness, etc.)...hell, you even admit you don't know if your claims are true. So until you present objective evidence supporting your claim, you are speculating, nothing more, and nothing less.

First let me warn you all to put on your helmets so that when you head explodes the people around you are protected from the slivers of shattered bone and brain matter. Read beyond this point carefully with as closed a mind as you can. I dont wish to allow mystics or religious ANY room in the pitifull things they believe without the desire to shatter their own hope.

im going to step out on the thinest logical limb right now and express a veiwpoint which could allow for a section of the fractal reality in which we reside being the body of a living organism..

There is logical path of thought that comes from some new theorys... many of which purpose a fractal structure. If the univerese and all of reality follows such a pattern, then inevitibly we may arrive at a fractal resolution where the birthplace of our universe resides within a living organism on a planet with thoughts and feelings. Although it is also logical to say that even a grain of sand fractaly may have the potential to harrbor life at some impossible distance from the place we call the center. Of course this is all rediculous theorizing.

With that said. the extent at which we interact with the fractal resolutions within us... is undecided. It would be logical with the path of thought that reality is fractal in structure that if indeed the smallest particles at some resolution contain life... then the amount of potential life would be infinte.. and even trying to pinpoint a single place or thing would be nearly technologically impossible.

There is also another line of thinking which could lead you to a concept of an articifial intelligence network being the most efficient design for an "organism" which could share information between and across infinte resolutions.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by swoop1234

 

You are creating your own personal religion (unknown consciousness, etc.)...hell, you even admit you don't know if your claims are true. So until you present objective evidence supporting your claim, you are speculating, nothing more, and nothing less.

I'm using logic to think this:

Universe exists
Life exists in the universe
Human Beings exist and are somewhat intelligent.


There is life that is less intelligent that cannot comprehend Human Beings.
There is life that is more intelligent that Human Beings cannot Comprehend.

And I don't take this all to seriously. If one day I think that a different belief makes more sense to me, then so be it. I say that I don't know if they're true because I understand that there are things that go in in existance that we cannot comprehend as current Human Beings. I embrace the fact that we don't know everything.

reply to post by swoop1234

Universe exists
Life exists in the universe
Human Beings exist and are somewhat intelligent.
There is life that is less intelligent that cannot comprehend Human Beings.
There is life that is more intelligent that Human Beings cannot Comprehend.

Given the size of the universe, it's conceivable that life exists elsewhere, and that some of that life is probably more intelligent by our standards, or beyond our comprehension...sure.

But are you claiming those things created the universe and us? Because the subject of the thread has to do with creationism, not whether or not aliens exist

Also, even if it's not unlikely that other life exists...we simply have no evidence of it. So the correct answer is "we don't know" and not "I believe that..." and then claiming your belief is based on logic...because it clearly isn't. You are speculating

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by LikeDuhObviously

 

No... this is nature showing us what perfection is. My brain, although it physically has some sacred geometry within its structure, does not equate my mind, which has zero structure.

But thanks anyway.

Your brain is what interprets what "perfection" is. You cannot be arguing against this ?
You are about to get in over your head. I highly recommend you take the time to research before continuing.

Originally posted by LikeDuhObviously
Your brain is what interprets what "perfection" is.

Really? My brain is responsible for seeing the perfection in a conch shell, a beehive or a tree leaf (among a million other examples of sacred geometry in nature? Remarkable. Science studies nature and finds amazing geometric unity and it's all because of my mind. I'm flattered.

You cannot be arguing against this ?

I can and will. The hexagons in which bees store their honey is related mathematically to the structure of fish scales, feathers, and physical human dimensions. When this remarkable formula was discovered by scientists in those long-ago days of pre-Christian scientific discovery, it was done by observing nature, much like scientists do today.

That 'perfection' is not 'interpreted', as you say... it 'pre-existed' and was 'discovered'. That's quite a departure from 'interpretation' which allows for conflicting theories. The Golden Mean is no mere theory which has variables.

You are about to get in over your head.

Fine. I stand to be corrected. Wouldn't be the first time.

I highly recommend you take the time to research before continuing.

And I also suggest you do some research as well, in particular as to what sacred geometry is all about.

hint: It didn't come out of anyone's meditations but existed before this planet formed from a gaseous cloud because it is a universal law regulating atomic structure.

reply to post by masqua

Originally posted by masqua
Really? My brain is responsible for seeing the perfection in a conch shell, a beehive or a tree leaf (among a million other examples of sacred geometry in nature? Remarkable. Science studies nature and finds amazing geometric unity and it's all because of my mind. I'm flattered.

Not sacred geometry, useful geometry. It's a shape that lends itself to survival. And for all of the examples of geometric uniformity you can give I can give you many thousands more examples of asymmetry. Like...humans.

I can and will. The hexagons in which bees store their honey is related mathematically to the structure of fish scales, feathers, and physical human dimensions.

Oh, do go on. I didn't know that human physical dimensions were all so universally uniform that they could be mathematically related to a hexagon.

When this remarkable formula was discovered by scientists in those long-ago days of pre-Christian scientific discovery, it was done by observing nature, much like scientists do today.

They cannot truly be called scientists because they really didn't...well...do science. They made observations, sure, but they were not scientists. Natural philosophers would be more accurate. About the only things they got right were mathematics and the notion of a spherical Earth.

That 'perfection' is not 'interpreted', as you say... it 'pre-existed' and was 'discovered'. That's quite a departure from 'interpretation' which allows for conflicting theories. The Golden Mean is no mere theory which has variables.

The 'golden mean' is a ridiculous notion that life arises into shapes and ratios rather than shapes and ratios becoming predominant

You are about to get in over your head.

Fine. I stand to be corrected. Wouldn't be the first time.

That's a very healthy attitude.

I highly recommend you take the time to research before continuing.

And I also suggest you do some research as well, in particular as to what sacred geometry is all about.

I have...thought it was interesting, found that it was just a result of the human brain running a program that often misapplies itself. That whole 'pattern recognition' thing that has us make out shapes in clouds and see religious icons in food.

hint: It didn't come out of anyone's meditations but existed before this planet formed from a gaseous cloud

Well, to call it 'gaseous' would be a bit wrong. It was a cloud, but it wasn't all gas. Iron in a vacuum is not gaseous. There was iron in this cloud. It was a cloud of particles, but it wasn't a gas.

reply to post by swoop1234


That actually isn't logical. You're falling into an analogy trap that doesn't make sense at all. Is it possible that life that's more complex/intelligent/advanced exists?

Yes.

Does it necessarily follow logically that it exists because less complex/intelligent/advanced life exists?

No.

You're really only arguing for a possibility rather than a necessity.

Originally posted by uva3021
You are embarrassing yourself guy.

No you are embarrassing your self. It's quite hilarious that you can't see it too. You just claimed that everything is Hydrogen... you should feel pretty embarrassed because that is wrong. Light is not hydrogen... magnetism is not hydrogen.....

Originally posted by uva3021
And someone who disagrees with your fantastical beliefs is by no means lashing out.

I didn't say you were lashing out because you don't agree with me. You are lashing out because your science is based on flawed observations and you don't even realize it, or even have the guts to admit it. It is quite pathetic really. You would think someone like you would understand that you don't know anything and either does your religion erh science...

Your science is your religion and when someone attacks your religion you lash out like you have been doing.

I do not have "fantastical beliefs" and everything I have ever said is based on 1000's of years of solid logic and science with plenty of evidence... If you took the time to see past your ego you might have learned something from me... When talking to special cases like you, I tend to use your science against you, so I made sure everything I have ever said could be backed with science.

Originally posted by uva3021
You keep stating what you believe, belief is meaningless without evidence.

Just because someone uses the word "believe" it doesn't mean they don't have evidence... Gosh man... you are reallllly embarrassing your self.

Maybe I should clarify why I believe what I believe.... I HAVE EVIDENCE. So thanks for making assumptions and embarrassing your self.

Originally posted by uva3021
I'm not stating what I believe, I'm merely reiterating assertions of scientific fact. I've already "conceited" that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Beyond our horizon there is nothing, an empty void, which is obviously traveling faster than the speed of light because it is beyond light.

You are not stating what you believe??..... but then you go and claim beyond our horizon there is nothing.... HAHAHAH how embarrassing for you. You have no evidence there is nothing beyond our horizon..... unless you call your blindness and inability to see beyond the horizon evidence.

Originally posted by uva3021
However, it doesn't matter. Emptiness is not an information spectrum, and thus in terms of quantifying matter, emptiness doesn't exist.

If emptiness does not exist, then you just contradicted your religion erh science. Maybe you should get your facts straight before you debate.

I'm kinda of getting annoyed, so I am done here... no need to reply....

Good day.

reply to post by MrXYZ

We cloned sheep from scratch, and nothing but laws stops us from doing the same with humans

Cloning ? Really Mr.X ? You couldn't tell, that no one else was grabbing at that straw for a reason. Cloning is not creating life from scratch. I know you know that so get to the point ?

Of course I do...every time I go to bed and switch of all lights it's dark. So yeah, darkness exists

Darkness is not something. It is the absence of something . All kinds of different light exists to make darkness
to dim or brighten it altogether. Light exists darkness does not. Darkness is merely a word to describe the absence light. Light exists because it was created.

How about cold ? Does cold exist ?

Immorality, Injustice ?

Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

because every argument for creationism and intelligent design has been soundly refuted

so, please
admit scientific defeat
sure, creationism can be philosophically sound
but you have lost in the realm of science

because every argument for science and evolution has been soundly refuted

so, please
admit creationist defeat
sure, science can be factually sound
but you have lost in the realm of faith


(PS this was meant to be taken as serious sarcasm, because most of these posts are loaded as all hell. the battle is already won with impossible rule sets placed before anything is said. congratulations at putting a puzzle together and asking someone to piece it together with imaginary pieces after it has already been completed)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Oh, do go on. I didn't know that human physical dimensions were all so universally uniform that they could be mathematically related to a hexagon.

Thanks for asking me to go on.

Let's have a look at the human body with an eye towards geometry.

First, the simple explanation:

Each section of your index finger, from the tip to the base of the wrist, is larger than the preceding one by about the Fibonacci ratio of 1.618, also fitting the Fibonacci numbers 2, 3, 5 and 8.
By this scale, your fingernail is 1 unit in length.

Curiously enough, you also have 2 hands, each with 5 digits, and your 8 fingers are each comprised of 3 sections. All Fibonacci numbers!

The ratio of the forearm to hand is Phi
Your hand creates a golden section in relation to your arm, as the ratio of your forearm to your hand is also 1.618, the Divine Proportion.

goldennumber.net...

Next, the inevitable youtube:



Then there's instructions to check it out for yourself.

There, now you would know that the human body has been constructed along the laws of Golden Geometry.

And, just to prove that hexagons, ala bees, are related, here's a fun site for playing with Hexagons and the Golden Ratio just like your hands and fingers.

Didn't you ever wonder about those amazing bees?

reply to post by Myollinir

so, please
admit scientific defeat
sure, creationism can be philosophically sound
but you have lost in the realm of science

Admit defeat to science when science is flawed ? To what end ? What would be the point ?
Yes science is flawed by the very premise of it being the study of observable phenomena.
Madness has had measurements done on his brain but who has seen it? Touched it ?
Who would want to ?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by masquaAnd I also suggest you do some research as well, in particular as to what sacred geometry is all about.

I have...thought it was interesting, found that it was just a result of the human brain running a program that often misapplies itself. That whole 'pattern recognition' thing that has us make out shapes in clouds and see religious icons in food.

Mixing pareidolia and geometry is a little bit of a stretch, mims. Honestly. I know quite a bit about pareidolia and it just does not fit well with geometry.

reply to post by masqua
our Devonian ancestors had this figured out 400 million years ago, which would explain why it persists today. Shared primitive traits with vertebrates

Originally posted by uva3021
Beyond our horizon there is nothing, an empty void, which is obviously traveling faster than the speed of light because it is beyond light.

Excuse me, but what on Earth are you talking about? How can you sit there and claim a void is traveling faster than light? Just a few posts ago you said that nothing can travel faster than light, now in this post you are saying a void is traveling faster than light?

Originally posted by uva3021
However, it doesn't matter. Emptiness is not an information spectrum, and thus in terms of quantifying matter, emptiness doesn't exist.

So how can you claim that emptiness, a void, is traveling faster than light and then after that claim the void doesn't exist? How can something that doesn't exist travel faster than light?

Originally posted by uva3021
I'm not stating what I believe, I'm merely reiterating assertions of scientific fact.

You are not stating what you believe? You are just regurgitating knowledge that was spoon fed to you by your masters...

I think you are full of it and don't have a clue what you are talking about.

reply to post by 0ne110ne

My little dirge on the speed of light was me mocking that other guy who thinks he has an argument. If you had read the posts its obvious. In his mind, the speed of light is variable because wikipedia has a small article that says there are certain conditions in quantum mechanics where making the speed of light variable is convenient for calculations. This, to him, is some sort of paradigm shift in science and the last 1000 years has backed up his wild and wacky beliefs. Its almost hard for me to follow.

Through my attempt at humor I tried to explain to him "nothing" can go faster than the speed of light, then qualified "nothing" as an actual region of space that doesn't exist anyway because no information is transferred. Apparently my approach failed. What is amazing is I'm even here typing this right now because evidently Hydrogen has nothing to do with gravity, which would mean light is moving so fast, close to speeds of infinity, that the mass of an object is no longer meaningful, and the fabric of space-time would be reduced to one-dimensional space, otherwise known as, the point.

reply to post by uva3021


Wow, I knew you were going to back peddle but I didn't think it was going to be that hilarious and pathetic.

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by 0ne110ne

 

My little dirge on the speed of light was me mocking that other guy who thinks he has an argument. If you had read the posts its obvious. In his mind, the speed of light is variable because wikipedia has a small article that says there are certain conditions in quantum mechanics where making the speed of light variable is convenient for calculations. This, to him, is some sort of paradigm shift in science and the last 1000 years has backed up his wild and wacky beliefs. Its almost hard for me to follow.

Maybe you should learn some basic reading comprehension skills before you try to debate me.

The speed of light is variable.. period.. and not because of a wikipedia entry....

Wow, you are the prime example of arrogance and ignorance... Not only do you not know how to read but you have a serious issue with reading peoples words and making asinine assumptions as to the meaning of what was said... at least try to understand interpretations, don't just make up your own.

Originally posted by uva3021
What is amazing is I'm even here typing this right now because evidently Hydrogen has nothing to do with gravity,

Wow... just wow...

I NEVER SAID "HYDROGEN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAVITY"!

Learn to read!!!!!

You just proved to everyone that you don't even know basic english! PATHETIC! You are probably the most annoying person I ever talked too.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecyThat is wrong... Gravity is not hydrogen

Its my fault for responding to a troll. Nice one you got me. Its late, should have known better