Creation by the Numbers - An Evolutionists Elemental Nightmare

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Misleading is to imply that my title, "Creation by the Numbers - An Evolutionists Elemental Nightmare" is somehow implying a happy message for evolution. On the contrary, the title is in a Creationists forum with a title that says that the Evolutionist will have a nightmare because of the truth in this thread. I think I have been more than transparent from word one. Creation.

Well, technically evolution has nothing to do with origins or creationism either. You guys just love to dispute it and throw silly insults at so called "evolutionists", as if they would even be bothered. First, evolutionist is a term made up by creationists to downplay the science involved. The proper term is evolutionary biologist. 2nd, there is no reason anyone who agrees with the hard science behind evolution would have nightmares over a silly forced number theory. Biologists certainly won't blink an eye at that. Some may find it interesting, but again still separate from evolution and it doesn't even come close to disputing it.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters

Evolutionists have NEVER stated there is no creator. They merely show the mechanical and biological processes that allowed life to evolve and flourish on this planet. They never even attempt to address what started all of that.

That is your opening for a creator, why there is something instead of nothing. Science tries to address this, but with intangible, and untestable, theories.

But at least people using science tend to understand the science, instead of, well, to put it bluntly, MAKING CRAP UP.

Like this video? Care to comment? This video implies the Creationist side of the debate. It also implies that we are witness to a reality of information that constructs the governing processes of the reality we inhabit. There is no need to address this beyond the simple implication that we are living in a created construct. We then verify this by our own creations. As we can readily see that all of nature is a fractal above and below, it is not a giant leap to then notice that man mirrors his creator. Science need nothing other than pure reason and rationality to see the writing on the wall. You are accusing me of making CRAP UP. On the contrary, I am merely pointing to the obvious. Again, please comment on the video.

Our own virtual creations of silicone and digital information is the reflecting point for what is produce by God on a grand scale.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

The leading research on this is in Russia.

No fake scientific discoveries have ever come out of Russia. Maybe you should go back to the thread you lifted that video from, and actually READ it. Nah, scratch that, we both know you won't.

You can't manipulate science, ignoring some while modifying others, to make it fit. That's not how it works.

Incredulity is a sure sign you are lacking anything of meaningful value to add. George Thompson, in his book verbal judo, notes the following: Bias builds ground for the other person to stand against you and rise above. The best approach is to think for the other person in the manner in which they should be thinking for themselves.

Insults to me, apart from the context and content to back it up, is merely incredulity. Every reply so far from the evolutionary side has been an attempt to shoot arrows at me rather than speak clearly to the subject with science and words supporting a position. Why the bias? All I have done is provided relationships between observations about the elemental nature of reality and what is presented in the Bible. If you have a better perspective, aim your comments toward the subject instead of the object delivering the message. This allows us both to communicate on equal ground.

Taking pot shots is not a platform to stand on. Try showing context. Paint a word picture with credible observations and relationships. Show me by examples. Preserve dignity--yours and mine.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Iason321

 

That's really amazing. I never considered the descendants being variations on the tree. Consider this video of the 6 days as I describe them.

THREAD

Thanks for that video. It resonates with me vary strongly, not really sure why though. Oh btw, thanks for the minor seizure i got towards the end too,lol, i was not expecting that. But well worth it...

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Uh oh, creation by numbers... don't tell me my consistent references towards numbers, numerology, and the stories of the bible being a complex story of numbers is wearing off on you LOL.

JK, you were already making close assumptions long before I posted on any relating threads.

As to Genesis and Numbers... I like how you brought the idea of elements to the conversation(as you always do), but I think that you may be jumping the gun a little big. As to bringing forth numbers such as 11, or 111 into the picture right away.

I would suggest, that starting at one, and so forth will bring more sustenance to the argument for god, and is reflected in the texts themselves.

As to what the intent of this thread is to address, I will include some parts of a writing I composed a while back.

**some of the following includes information from sources in which I did not note, so to be fair, some of the following is taken from others, but none of the connections I made are, just the supporting details.**

FIRST DAY - Layer 1



Hydrogen Plasma:

Plasma is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles (i.e. the overall charge of a plasma is roughly zero). It is important to note that although they are unbound, these particles are not ‘free’. When the charges move they generate electrical currents with magnetic fields, and as a result, they are affected by each other’s fields. This governs their collective behavior with many degrees of freedom.

Genesis 1: 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Notice here the similarities between a hydrogen plasma beginning, and the description in the texts. There was no form, and everything was dark.

Like gas, plasma does not have a definite shape or a definite volume unless enclosed in a container; unlike gas, under the influence of a magnetic field, it may form structures such as filaments, beams and double layer.

Also, Jeremiah 4:23 I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void; And to the heavens, and they had no light.

Again, another reference to the hydrogen plasma state of the universe, previous to the creation and collecting of masses, that were later to become stars, from which we receive light. Or even before the conditions of the Universe that would allow for the propagation or emission of photons.

Genesis 1: 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.



The young universe indeed lived in darkness for hundreds of thousands of years after the big bang because it was too hot for electrons to combine with hydrogen and helium nuclei. This prevented the photons, in other words light, from propagating through space. Therefore, the entire universe was plunged into total darkness during this time. Only after sufficient expansion and cooling could the universe emit light invisible and visible to the human eye, and became transparent so that it could have been observed if humans had been around at this time. There was not much visible light at this point, however, because the universe was only illuminated with the formation of the first stars.


Also, Jeremiah 4:23 I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void; And to the heavens, and they had no light.


Genesis 1: 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.


This is in reference to the separation of heavier elements(non photon emitting elements and isotopes)


In physical cosmology, galaxy filaments, also called supercluster complexes or great walls, are, so far, the largest known cosmic structures in the universe. They are massive, thread-like structures with a typical length of 50 to 80 megaparsecs h-1 that form the boundaries between large voids in the universe.[1] Filaments consist of gravitationally-bound galaxies; parts where a large number of galaxies are very close to each other are called superclusters.

SECOND DAY - Layer 2 - 2



6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”

7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.

8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.



Isotopes of Hydrogen Begin to form during the Second Day.

1H is the most common hydrogen isotope with an abundance of more than 99.98%. Because the nucleus of this isotope consists of only a single proton, it is given the descriptive but rarely used formal name protium.

2H, the other stable hydrogen isotope, is known as deuterium and contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. Deuterium is not radioactive, and does not represent a significant toxicity hazard. Water enriched in molecules that include ....

THIRD DAY - Layer 3 - 4


9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.

10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.

12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.



The Creation of Heavier Elements:


4 - Be, Beryllium

8 Be has a very short half-life of about 7×10−17 s that contributes to its significant cosmological role, as elements heavier than beryllium could not have been produced by nuclear fusion in the Big Bang.

This is due to the lack of sufficient time during the Big Bang's nucleosynthesis phase to produce carbon by the fusion of 4He nuclei and the very low concentrations of available beryllium-8. The British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle first showed that the energy levels of 8Be and 12C allow carbon production by the so-called triple-alpha process in helium-fueled stars.

***The gathering of elements and the dry ground appearing and such.., is a reference towards the creation of heavier elements with in and from stars. Their 'gathering' is a reference towards the force of gravity, and the pressures of stars, compressing elements into heavier ones***

***Also to be noted, there is seemingly 3 creation stories with in genesis, and they do have transcendent qualities that link them all together. This is where conceptual metaphors and such can become confusing. For the consistent use of such words like water, seeds, beasts and such become increasingly difficult in their representing of something else. While still confined to the aspect of creation, confusion sets in once other concepts enter the equation.***

To further back the notion of there being an aspect of science behind the texts, especially that of Genesis... To draw a conclusion that the universe is a construct of water, is not far fetched. And actually, a very accurate statement, if one were to dumb it down a bit, excluding some quantum physics and other things...

Think about the roles of hydrogen, and even the root of the word... hydro. It's role in life, stars, and the creation of heavier elements. It is everything, this is why I assume there is the reference towards waters in the first place.

Did anybody else consider this to be true?

hales' most famous belief was his cosmological thesis, which held that the world started from water. Aristotle considered this belief roughly equivalent to the later ideas of Anaximenes, who held that everything in the world was composed of air. The best explanation of Thales' view is the following passage from Aristotle's Metaphysics.[17] The passage contains words from the theory of matter and form that were adopted by science with quite different meanings. "That from which is everything that exists and from which it first becomes and into which it is rendered at last, its substance remaining under it, but transforming in qualities, that they say is the element and principle of things that are." And again: "For it is necessary that there be some nature (φύσις), either one or more than one, from which become the other things of the object being saved... Thales the founder of this type of philosophy says that it is water."[18] Aristotle's depiction of the problem of change and the definition of substance is clear. If an object changes, is it the same or different? In either case how can there be a change from one to the other? The answer is that the substance "is saved", but acquires or loses different qualities (πάθη, the things you "experience"). A deeper dip into the waters of the theory of matter and form is properly reserved to other articles. The question for this article is, how far does Aristotle reflect Thales? He was probably not far off, and Thales was probably an incipient matter-and-formist. The essentially non-philosophic Diogenes Laertius states that Thales taught as follows: "Water constituted (ὑπεστήσατο, 'stood under') the principle of all things."

en.wikipedia.org...

Ahhh Thales, a freakin genius! It's remarkable that one could conclude that...

"For it is necessary that there be some nature (φύσις), either one or more than one, from which become the other things of the object being saved... Thales the founder of this type of philosophy says that it is water."

This concept of the power of water, and/or waters is a powerful one, and as being used as a metaphor is no stranger to biblical texts.

from an old writing of mine...

Waters and Water: When referenced today, we comprehend that the word 'Waters' is to apply to something with in the context of H2O, while in it's use in ancient texts, especially the Torah and many others, this does not apply. Rather, the use of the word 'Waters' pertains to a collective group of distinct characteristics of many sub-groups. One example of this, would be to exchange the word 'Waters'(Plural) for the term "Electromagnetic Spectrum", and then to exchange the word "Water" (singular) for such denotations in terminology that pertain such as ELF, SLF, NUV, EUV. One more example; Waters = Hydrogen(In which all heavier elements are derived from, and created through the death of stars to keep it simple). Also the word Waters in this context may apply to the collective of all elements, somewhat like referencing the Periodic Table of Elements, and Water = Any number of elements or element(Singular) that are a construct from the original Hydrogen element, resulting from the cycles, functions, and relational influences their masses have on one another.

This is not to be directly applied, as it is dependent on the context, but still communicates the underlying premise of waters in the bible.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


Ironically, I can only give you one star for that description of the universe. I wish I could give more. Great work.

Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
THIRD DAY - Layer 3 - 4


9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.

10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.

12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.



The Creation of Heavier Elements:


4 - Be, Beryllium

8 Be has a very short half-life of about 7×10−17 s that contributes to its significant cosmological role, as elements heavier than beryllium could not have been produced by nuclear fusion in the Big Bang.

This is due to the lack of sufficient time during the Big Bang's nucleosynthesis phase to produce carbon by the fusion of 4He nuclei and the very low concentrations of available beryllium-8. The British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle first showed that the energy levels of 8Be and 12C allow carbon production by the so-called triple-alpha process in helium-fueled stars.

***The gathering of elements and the dry ground appearing and such.., is a reference towards the creation of heavier elements with in and from stars. Their 'gathering' is a reference towards the force of gravity, and the pressures of stars, compressing elements into heavier ones***

***Also to be noted, there is seemingly 3 creation stories with in genesis, and they do have transcendent qualities that link them all together. This is where conceptual metaphors and such can become confusing. For the consistent use of such words like water, seeds, beasts and such become increasingly difficult in their representing of something else. While still confined to the aspect of creation, confusion sets in once other concepts enter the equation.***

I'm sure the entire periodic table is encoded into the Torah. We are only scratching the surface. God is Amazing!!!

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


What you quote takes us back to this video. Water is the all seeing ability of God in the universe. All particles are entangled and everywhere at once. The entire thing is connected by the whole. God then sees it all from beginning to end.