Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative? Are the ‘free thinkers’ - atheists scared of som

reply to post by Deaf Alien


ki·ne·sics, noun....The study of nonlinguistic bodily movements, such as gestures and facial expressions, as a systematic mode of communication.

After all it ain't the words, its the true meaning conveyed IN REAL TIME...

reply to post by OldThinker

ki·ne·sics, noun....The study of nonlinguistic bodily movements, such as gestures and facial expressions, as a systematic mode of communication. After all it ain't the words, its the true meaning conveyed IN REAL TIME...

Ok, you want this person to be a spokeman for the church?

DA's not getting it.

You want someone who is very well versed in NLP? Isn't that what many famous religous leaders do?

Sighs, DA's not getting it and DA's a little inebriated at this time.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


You wrote quote:-

why am I conscious of myself and not you?

LOL...

You are experiencing a program through an Interface that is linked to the experience The life and times of Mr. X

the Interface I will explain to you and provide the processing system in detail..

On the other hand I am experiencing the same Outer program through a common network but a separate "Partition" of The All and linked to the sub program of Mr. Y.

We can cross communicate through the network once you know how!

Because The All or Life, being Consciousness or Awareness, was once singular, it was lonely, so it constructed a Partition map thus dividing its Self into like droplets of an Ocean yet remaining as a single entity.

So the True Mind is Interacting with its Self.. LOL.

There is only One I know No other So I and All are One.

My Friends are Me and My enemies are also Me.

And I am them.

So your Conscious state is looking from the Centre of the Program you are experiencing..

Because there is Two ends to your Mind, the Inner knows Nothing but the Outer being the Opposite Knows All.

While you view from the Inside you desire the outside but when you are on the Outside you desire the Inner. LOL...

Soon you shall understand.

From The Gospel of Thomas...

1. And He said,

“Whoever finds the interpretation
of these sayings
will Not experience death.”

2. Jesus said,

“Let him who seeks.
continue seeking.
until he finds.

When he finds,
he will become troubled.

When he becomes troubled,
he will be astonished,
and he will rule over The All.”

And....

77. Jesus said,

“It is I who Am The Light
which is above them all.

It is I who Am The All.
From Me did The All come forth,
and unto Me did The All extend.

Split a piece of wood,
and I am there. (Not Human)

Lift up the stone,
and you Will Find Me there.” (Not Human)

And....

From Verse 3.

When you come to know yourselves,
then you will become known,
and you will realise,
that it is you
who are the sons,
of The Living Father.

If you will not know yourselves,
you dwell in poverty,
and it is you,
who are that poverty.”

reply to post by Deaf Alien



Go back tomorrow and read the list again...

We'll talk then....its how i feel...
otout! Good night all...great job posting today!

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


Believe me. I've thought about that. Even went near psychosis.

Still, my question remain.

Let's say for example I am on World of Warcraft. I have two characters.

Those two characters both act independently of each other. Both are not conscious of each other. I, the designer of the game and the characters know what is going on.

If I am forgetful of the other character for even one moment, the other character would not exist. If I am forgetful of the game I designed, the game would cease to be.

Sure you can say that you have designed and left the game running on it's own, but it would not exist WITHOUT YOU.

See what I am saying?

ok i'm back. apologies ot
Bill Maher might or might not be funny, but he had the guts to confront those unfunny people of the moral majority and any fundamentalist organization

reply to post by Deaf Alien
that dosn't take guts.

I am glad to have a guy like him in the media.

just another mouth piece for the nwo.
to answer the on topic question ot. i'm not sure they are afraid of anything.
but i would say politly, they do have alot to be afraid of.

goodnite ot. i like your thread .


[edit on 19-8-2009 by randyvs]

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by rken2

 

Why are creationism and evolution mutually exclusive. The truth usually lies between the extreme. Why could there not be a force in nature call it god if you like,, that guides the flow of evolution. There is you know so why don't both sides at least accept it as a possibility and be done with all this squabling.

What do you mean by Creationism? Do you mean that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago? Created by a Judeo-Christian God? What?

You have to pick a god and a story and then present evidence.

BUT, if you are arguing for ID, then I am with you.

Yes creationism is usually refered to creation being created by god.

Take your pick. Lets just say an intelligent force that prevades its creations.

Yes intelligent design would be the balance point between creationism and a blind non directed evolution. So sounds like we are on the same team.


To answer some other posters questions about hate, death and the whys of so called evil in the world. It depends on your perspective. If you view pain, death, and a host of other calmities that befall man from a human perspective then you would say that anything that causes pain etc,, for the individual or society would be evil. But viewed from an experiencial point of view that of an intellegence manifesting through all form evil does not exist. For the consciousness only desires to have the experience of expressing it self or having an experience of non-self. It does not care or judge the experience. It is self aware that death is an illusion, enegy, matter, consciousness cannot be destoyed only transformed and all things experienced are held in the consciousness.

Peace

If evolution is only a theory then creationism is tantamount to a shared assumption - as is any religion.

By the way, somethign can no longer be a theory, if there exists progressive evidence to support it. Ergo - evolution is NOT a theory and therefore cannot be a theory.

Ergp - Creationism ("Look at the pretty butterfly, someone HAD to create that") is, at best, just a theory.

Jeeez!!!

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

If you don't ask you won't find out!

Yea and I asked for verification of you insane story. It would've made a ripple in the medical community if a group of people experienced it. And you're offended by my asking when I have no reason to believe you.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

reply to post by TailoredVagabond

If evolution is only a theory then creationism is tantamount to a shared assumption - as is any religion.

The everyday definition of theory...

Contemplation or speculation.


The scientific definition of Theory.

A hypothesis that both explains a phenomenon or phenomena while making accurate predictions.

You don't get a higher status of factuality in science.

Tell you what, if creationism can have observable evidence and testable evidence, approved peer reviewed papers by scientists, and goes by the scientific method, THEN we can teach it. Until then, it's so low, it doesn't even deserve the term pseudoscience.

We can argue about this forever, but the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence for biblical creation. None.

You can quote all the scripture you like, but none of that can be tested or verified, so it's moot.

reply to post by DisappearCompletely



"Discovery" inherantly has times of doubt, furthering more research....enjoy the journey my scientist friend.


(Hebrews 4:12-13) For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.




[edit on 19-8-2009 by OldThinker]

Originally posted by otto octavius
Tell you what, if creationism can have observable evidence and testable evidence, approved peer reviewed papers by scientists, and goes by the scientific method, THEN we can teach it. Until then, it's so low, it doesn't even deserve the term pseudoscience.

Physical evidence supporting creation would include both physical evidence that directly supports creation and physical evidence that refutes biological macroevolution. This statement is true because either life evolved via a random natural process or life was created by an intelligent designer who we refer to as God. Any evidence for one is evidence against the other.

Also, any evidence that supports the truth of the Bible also supports creation. Alternatively, evidence that shows that parts of the Bible are not true supports evolution and not creation. In addition, any evidence that supports a young earth is consistent with the Bible and inconsistent with evolutionary theory.

The best evidence for creation and design is within all of us. It is our reality. It is what we see, feel, touch, smell and our overall consciousness. It is knowing what it is like to be me. Generally, it is very easy for us to distinguish between natural and created items. Even the staunchest evolutionists admit that living things appear designed. That is why evolutionist Richard Dawkins wrote the book titled “The Blind Watchmaker.”

The Bible states in Romans 1:20 (NKJV): “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.”

more: www.allaboutcreation.org...

Originally posted by TailoredVagabond
If evolution is only a theory then creationism is tantamount to a shared assumption - as is any religion.

By the way, somethign can no longer be a theory, if there exists progressive evidence to support it. Ergo - evolution is NOT a theory and therefore cannot be a theory.

Ergp - Creationism ("Look at the pretty butterfly, someone HAD to create that") is, at best, just a theory.

Jeeez!!!

Lack of Transitional Fossils. Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record.
Lack of a Natural Mechanism. Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, proposed Natural Selection to be the mechanism by which an original simple-celled organism could have evolved gradually into all species observed today, both plant and animal. Darwin defines evolution as "descent with modification." However, Natural Selection is known to be a conservative process, not a means of developing complexity from simplicity. Later, with our increased understanding of genetics, it was thought perhaps Natural Selection in conjunction with genetic mutation allowed for the development of all species from a common ancestor. However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far.
Time Constraints. Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree that if evolution is at all possible, there needs to be an excessive (if not infinite) amount of time. For much of the 20th century, it was thought evolutionists had all the time they needed. If the earth ever looked too young for certain evolutionary developments to have occurred, the age was pushed back in the textbooks. In 1905, the earth was declared to be two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was determined to be 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth had become 4.6 billion years old. However, Young Earth advocates have identified quite a few Young Earth chronometers in recent years. Currently, there are approximately five times more natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" than an "Old Earth." Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth. Each Limiting Factor is distinct. If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest. Furthermore, there are Limiting Factors constraining the possible age of the universe, such as spiral galaxies where they're maintaining their spiral shapes despite their centers spinning faster than their extremities.
Unacceptable Model of Origins. The Big Bang Theory is the accepted source of Origins among the majority of Evolutionists, and is taught in our public schools. However, the Big Bang does not explain many things, including the uneven distribution of matter that results in "voids" and "clumps," or the retrograde motion that must violate the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Furthermore, the Big Bang does not address the primary question at hand, "where did everything come from?" Did nothing explode? How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion observed in recorded history causes disorder and disarray?

source: www.allaboutcreation.org...

Remember folks, in 2001, Dr. John F. Ashton, a fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, published a compilation of 50 essays written by 50 Ph.D. scientists who profess faith in young-earth creationism based upon evidence for creation. Dr. Ashton’s In Six Days is available in book stores. In 2002, Dr. Ashton published a sequel entitled On the Seventh Day in which he presented 42 more essays written by 42 more Ph.D. scientists who present the evidence for creation.

Research!!!!

reply to post by OldThinker


But why don't you do your research? How many science journals have you read? How many books by biologists and biochemist? Have you read the God Delusion? Dawkins is a Professor in Zoology.

I want you to explain what you believe evolution to be. I'm willing to bet that you don't know.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Welfhard]

Can someone explain to me what are the practical applications in science of Intelligent Design?
What does it predict? What fields will it be used? In which industry will it be applied? Basically what are we getting out of it?

Originally posted by Welfhard
.....
I want you to explain what you believe evolution to be. I'm willing to bet that you don't know....

????

Would that make me "out of the ordinary?" No one KNOWS, that's the Null Hypothesis....

OT

reply to post by OldThinker


I'll make a deal with ya, if creationism can be taught as if it is science, which it isn't, then all creation myths should be taught including the FSM.