Anyone up for a private debate on the merits of creationism as a science?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Simonius This does not seem to be a logical start, The question appears to be what theory accounts for the form that life takes, not the ultimate source of matter. But all you have posted appears to simply be religious philosophy, instead of just looking at evidence and making rational theories you have come up with interesting and elaborate theory and description of a creator, its very nice but it is putting the cart before the horse surely?

I am not claiming to be doing a scientific theory that was properly peer reviewed and published. ( gew wiz, I am in enough trouble with Gallo already to even attempt making that claim).

I used the word "explaination" - not theory.

What theory accounts for the form that life takes, you asked.

For that answer I must jump ahead of prior events. This is what I would propose in principle might have happened.

The piror events being the establishment of

1. thought ( the mind and intelligence ).

2. Time or a force field of motion.

3, Energy.

4. Matter.

I would propose that life is not the next stage of evolutionary events but rather the coming together of those four primary qualities into a unit of oneness. In other words, life is a combination of thought, time, energy, and matter that is united together to become a life form.

All life has some sort of ability for consciousness. All life has some sort of built in biological time clock

that is detected by growth and as age. All life contains energy and of course matter that can take shape as it's body. This does not mean that all life has a head with a brain or that all life can think logical thoughts like humans do. But they are smart enough to react to stemulents, etc.

Some people would contest that idea saying that plants do not have consciousness, but some scientific tests have suggested that they can recieve and react to thoughts.

Chemical combinations provided a medium for the reception of thoughts such that codes could be established as DNA within the creature, as one of the aspects of such a complex make up.

The micro organisms appear to be one of the first examples of life on planet earth. With directional impulses simular to thought which causes them to react to stemulation and to reproduce their self. Temperature and environment also play a role in all of this. As "organizational fields" called the environment. Energy discribed as motion and ages of growth that represents time.

Needless to say the micro organizems appeared in the design of the circle, in the image of "O". Even if the circle might not be perfectly round looking.

And so "O" represents the concept of no-thing, it represents the concept of circular motion, it represents the shape of most things in nature and the universe. "O" as a name for God is written on everything and is like a big footprint clue. Likewise the center letter in the commonly used word for G - O - D. and the center letter of NOW. and the part of the word know. k-now. The pattern and the design of the circle, both as a directive for motion and as a shape is everywhere and represents and endless supply of evidence for my proposed explaination.
The universe and nature is autographed with the name "O" in a wide range of ways. Say "oh" and if you know.

O say can you see - the o in you.

Of course more elaboraton which might take a chapter or two of writing to relate would be more supportive of this notion. But that is a "brief outline".

In the beginning thought was, and thought was God. And.. all things were created in the image of O or in it's likeness. Thought is self evident but also non physical in nature. Much later thought could be expressed as the word which sometimes is discribed as circular reasoning. oh.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: SoylentGreen And there you go tech, You now have a second opinion that you have difficulty understanding the difference between a meta-physical concept and physics. It is as said, a an interesting an elaborate theory that you have only alluded to a source of fact to back up without actually presenting any. So far I am of the opinion that you are just polluting a relatively good scientific evolutionary theory with some meta-physical make believe.

Gee you sound like a preacher I once knew shouting "can I get a witness".

I do not know if I used meta physics or physics because I am not trained to do ether. But I did use simple math. I did not invent the order of the symbals used for numbering. 0 1 2 3 4 etc. But in that order 0 comes before 1. In the idea of random selection you would toss all the numbers out and see how the land, so in your case the order might be 3 2 4 0 for all I know.

The other poster made no complaint about physics so how did you see that as evidence that you got a witness to say "amen"?

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. And for the most part reality is an opinon anyway.

Now my explaination was not a theory just an explaination. If you wish to discribe it as a religious philosophy then I cannot object because anything having to do with creationsim could be linked to something religious. What else would you expect? So that complaint is mute from the get go. None the less you will not hear what I am saying at any Sunday school or Bible class. So far my experience has been they do not like my explainations. The last Bible Class I attended they got right down rude and said I was poluting the truth of the Bible.

My basic philosophy can be and is supported by evidence and by other related ideas that came ahead of my own. In my opinon.

And where did I get this idea as I presented it? Did I learn it from a church? From a science book or a philosophy book? No. You cannot find this idea as I related it in any book or other worldly source. Did this idea come to me from out of nowhere?
Hmm? Prove that this idea as I related it did not just ocur out of nothing, otherwise take it as evidence.

[Simonius]

Technosoul, for me you are just approaching the subject from a strange angle thats all. It seems like you have put a lot of thought into it, and it might make a lot of sense but it is pure philosophy and not science.

[BorisTheFerret]

Quote by: Simonius It is a religious belief, but that does not mean that it can not be subjected to scientific process. It does rely on a number of scientific or pseudo-scientific evidence. There exists no scientific evidence against it. Though you do type well for a ferret.

There exists no scientific evidence against it? WTF?!?

What about the fossil record? The sheer number of different fossils which have been found covering hundreds of millions of years, and clearly exhibiting countless developments and differences between species to which evolution is the only credible answer so far devised?

What about the numerous laboratory tests, and examples in the field, observed by scientists which clearly show the process of microevolution within a short space of time among life forms including fruit flies, galapagos finches, mosquitos and antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

What about the discovery of various hominid fossils dating from between five million and 100,000 years ago, with features progressively less apelike and more human as one steps closer towards the present day? The vast majority of such discoverys came after the theory of evolution was first postulated, were predicted by the theory of evolution, and can currently be explained only by the theory of evolution. How does this not count as verifiable, measurable evidence in favour of evolution?

The fact is that the measurable scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, and to say that it doesn't is not just stupid, but dishonest. If you're going to enter into a debate, at least stick to arguments which aren't patently false.

[Simonius]

Quote by: BorisTheFerret There exists no scientific evidence against it? WTF?!? What about the fossil record? The sheer number of different fossils which have been found covering hundreds of millions of years, and clearly exhibiting countless developments and differences between species to which evolution is the only credible answer so far devised?

The fossils merely show a diversity of life, they do not prove that one species developed from another. Such a conclusion might be reasonable, but it is hardly concrete and proven. Episodic creation or design would fit with the fossil record just as logically as evolution.

Quote by: BorisTheFerret What about the numerous laboratory tests, and examples in the field, observed by scientists which clearly show the process of microevolution within a short space of time among life forms including fruit flies, galapagos finches, mosquitos and antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

What about it? That merely shows that micro-evolution has occured, not that macro-evolution has and does not show that all forms of life are ultimately caused by macro-evolution. You are just making assumptions.

Quote by: BorisTheFerret What about the discovery of various hominid fossils dating from between five million and 100,000 years ago, with features progressively less apelike and more human as one steps closer towards the present day? The vast majority of such discoverys came after the theory of evolution was first postulated, were predicted by the theory of evolution, and can currently be explained only by the theory of evolution. How does this not count as verifiable, measurable evidence in favour of evolution?.

It counts as weak evidence in favour of evolution, not concrete evidence against creation or design

Quote by: BorisTheFerret The fact is that the measurable scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, and to say that it doesn't is not just stupid, but dishonest. If you're going to enter into a debate, at least stick to arguments which aren't patently false.

You are simply not looking at the evidence in a truely open minded and scientific method. The scientific evidence does not conflict with evolution, creationism or design. Show me one example where it can be proven that an ancient species did not appear from the ether, or was the example of pre-human genetic manipulation.

You can't... its a silly challenge to propose.

[BorisTheFerret]

[quote=Simonius;504472]The fossils merely show a diversity of life, they do not prove that one species developed from another. Such a conclusion might be reasonable, but it is hardly concrete and proven. Episodic creation or design would fit with the fossil record just as logically as evolution.

Rubbish. The fossils do not just show diversity of life, if you take them in the context of their varying ages you see clear progression down thousands of different branches, involving hundreds of thousands of different species. Furthermore, comparison of the DNA patterns of animals alive today, with the DNA patterns of the animals from which evolution says they evolved, demonstrates uncanny similarities wherever you would expect to find them if looking from an evolutionary angle. We're talking about long DNA sequences, the odds of which being repeated by chance are so long as to be effectively nil.

You're saying all of that's a coincidence, that all species were put on the earth at essentially the same time by God, and that it's just a matter of chance that all the fossils which evolution predicts date from within the last 50 million years, are indeed younger than 50 million years, and that all the fossils which evolution predicts date from 200 million years, do date from 200 million years.

Evolution explains the development of species observable in the fossil record as well as in DNA. Creationism does not. Simple as.

And taking a religious story as the starting point, then working backwards with the express aim of vindicating that story, all the while ignoring any evidence which contradicts the creation story (which IS what you're doing), is NOT scientific. You can't take a religious story and dress it up as scientific theory. That's what ID does, and it's been universally and irrevocably debunked by the scientific community.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Simonius Technosoul, for me you are just approaching the subject from a strange angle thats all. It seems like you have put a lot of thought into it, and it might make a lot of sense but it is pure philosophy and not science.

It is true that we should not mask a philosophy with science. Or try to subsitute one for the other. A philosophy is simply an explaination about life the the orgins of the universe and therefore also an explaination about scientific data, and likewise upgraded as more evidence is collected for our useage.

A theory is both a collection of data as well as being a explaination about that data for the purposes of improving our understanding and for the purpose of constructing a concept. Evidence plus logic and interpretation, plus imaginaton = theory. (along with the standard peer review and publication, and being able to survive any following debate such that it can establish it's self as a popular opinion).

I do not expect my idea to do all that in this life time. But as a limited and humble visionary I give it my best shot.

However a decent philosophy about life and exsistance and related activities of same should be introduced in a science class, under the supervision of a science teacher, so that it does not wander off into some sort of radical religious idea or philosophy that would be self-distructive as were so many of the other ones being advocated to some degree.

To teach that science and philosophy must encourage thinking, thinking for your self, by providing a diversity of concepts for such concept construction agendas. To overcome the idea that we must agree to just a "one and only" potentially correct concept which would damage or flexabilty to concider new avenues of data processing. In other words, to build on fomer knowledge and fomer ideas to create better ideas and a wider range of knowledge for the consumers to munch on, a bigger field for the cows to roam around in.

To teach about the art of creating concepts for educational purposes. The horse before the wagon is about an encouragement to motivate kids to come up with new ideas that can be added to what we already have.

Concept creationalism should be the leading factor and not the wagon it is pulling around behind it. Because no horse should pull a wagon that is going to fall apart at every bump in the road.

Better wagons to empower horse sense. A good wagon needs good wheels. My concept is about "wheels" which have circular motions and the shape of the "O". (with a center of relative stillness). re-inventing the wheel is useful for the horse where as carrots and whips are only motivations to pull old wagons that are in need of construction repairs.

Idea evolution as apposed to just physical evolution as a result of adapting to a newer and larger environment of knowledge that contains diversity and a unity of that diversity.

Question authority, think for your self, and dare to be aware. Science 101. (with that "o" in the middle of 101. Natch.)

[Technosoul]

[quote=BorisTheFerret;504483]

Quote by: Simonius The fossils merely show a diversity of life, they do not prove that one species developed from another. Such a conclusion might be reasonable, but it is hardly concrete and proven. Episodic creation or design would fit with the fossil record just as logically as evolution. Rubbish. The fossils do not just show diversity of life, if you take them in the context of their varying ages you see clear progression down thousands of different branches, involving hundreds of thousands of different species. Furthermore, comparison of the DNA patterns of animals alive today, with the DNA patterns of the animals from which evolution says they evolved, demonstrates uncanny similarities wherever you would expect to find them if looking from an evolutionary angle. We're talking about long DNA sequences, the odds of which being repeated by chance are so long as to be effectively nil. You're saying all of that's a coincidence, that all species were put on the earth at essentially the same time by God, and that it's just a matter of chance that all the fossils which evolution predicts date from within the last 50 million years, are indeed younger than 50 million years, and that all the fossils which evolution predicts date from 200 million years, do date from 200 million years. Evolution explains the development of species observable in the fossil record as well as in DNA. Creationism does not. Simple as. And taking a religious story as the starting point, then working backwards with the express aim of vindicating that story, all the while ignoring any evidence which contradicts the creation story (which IS what you're doing), is NOT scientific. You can't take a religious story and dress it up as scientific theory. That's what ID does, and it's been universally and irrevocably debunked by the scientific community.

The idea you expressed about DNA patterns and that we can use that evidence to link new beings with those in the past is interesting. Assuming that the fosil still contains the orginal DNA and is not just a meneral filling in of some imprint left behind.

Humans for example have close DNA matches with hairless earthworms, and as I recall, with dolpins. Which if so ( do not want to dig up any webpage links at the moment ) we could come to vision that humans and earthworms have a identity bondage that would suggest that worms and people evolved from the same ancestor "being" relative to our family trees.

A mushroom's DNA has no evolutionary link to anything else before or after it. Suggesting it is a somewhat alienated oddity in those evolution charts. However DNA is a instuctional blueprint for growth and the strand is made out of a combination of chemicals in correct order and for a pre-established and intended purpose.

The very idea that DNA is a "pattern" would suggest "design". And it is a key factor in organizing projected growth which gowth would have to reach an intelligent formation in order to survive as a living creature.

All this would suggest that the random formation of just the right chemicals to make up a DNA strand is a miracle. Unless it was in some other way oganized.

We do see a progessive momentum that does not repeat individualism and always causes a slight change. And so the notion that a god created everything all at once is nil. Like you said. However, in this post you are debating me and my explaination about creation, and not those other people and their pottery age explainations. Amimals do not reproduce clones in the natural processes of reproduction, and those changes could rightly be called an evolution. But the patterns reproduced do come close to what came before, which you also agree with, otherwise evolutionary charts could not be created. As data collecting via experience adds more "knowledge" to the DNA that is passed on, plus the fact that two different DNA doners would produce a combination from those two souces to effect a change relative to both individuals who donated. Reproduction with modifications to the pattern, but it is still one on-going pattern that is bridging those generational bridges.

So I cannot debate what other people claim who call their self "Creatonists" because such shoes do not fit my feet.

In other words we have within a given speices the ability to mix a diverstiy of individualisms from a wider gene pool then in the past. As we mix people from China with white people and with Africans and with Indians we can come up with all kinds of new "products" from that mixed gene pool. But any attempt to do the same thing with other primates would fail. Because the dna patterns cannot croos breed no matter how close you think the DNA matches up with our own. At some point diverstiy cannot unite to cause a evolutionary effect.

Because the established oganizational fields that the single cell organismes in our body are supervised by cannot survive in the organizatonal fields which other primate micros use as their envrionment. And so we have those organizational fields which represent what might be termed as metaphysical environments. And the quest would be to find out if those fields are subject to evolutionary changes that could manfiest as new and different kinds of environments.

The evolution of environments becomes the focus point for trying to comprehend any concept about evolution. As well as the more invisable organizational fields that likewise dominate the realities of living beings composed of single cell cultural establshiments as a lager body or unit of individualism.

Like ant cultures leaving chemical trails to organized the collective activities of their group we use knowledge and words. But that is novel of us. Chemical communication and chemical control is foundational to biologoical understanding. If we digest some chemicals that can even effect our thought systems, creating new doors of perception, as Huxley pointed out. The regulated release of harmones is also evidence of that.
Chemistry and creationism must go hand and hand. So I ask "can thoughts that are energized with emotions trigger chemicals that control behaviorism or body activities"? I think your answer would be "yes".

Assuming the answer is yes I would propose that Mind is the source point as an influence over the chemical creation of activity. At least, I would propose this would be a worthy avenue for more exploration, so that we can bridge the gap between mere philosophy and sound science.

Downloading an idea from out of the blue is useless if it cannot find applications to how we currently precieve our reality. That is where religions have failed. In the application of their ideals so that they can merge and become a part of the nitty gitty or everyday reality. Reality is the standard that we must find agreement with and from, to have harmonic residence. The descent of that opinon must be modified if our reality is to evolve to the next dimensional level to create (recreate) the landscapes of such an envronment. I doubt if we can raise our consciousenss to the level where we can overcome our chemical dependancy but on the other hand, anything is possible if you accept the open envelope theory. Pure consciousness verses chemically controlled consciousness is a new field of potental research which nowadays borders on being an unlawful pursuit, other then when limited to debates and explainations.

But I must point out that I am debating a wanna-be theory which I have not yet fully stated due to the distracton of defending it before getting around to fully presenting it. (theory meaning a layman's explaination, in my case).

Note: due to limited time on my part this post was not edited for misspellings and so you will just have to deal with it as is.

[Simonius]

Quote by: BorisTheFerret Rubbish. The fossils do not just show diversity of life, if you take them in the context of their varying ages you see clear progression down thousands of different branches, involving hundreds of thousands of different species..

Have you ever actually reviewed the fossil record? I dont think you have because it is rather devoid of records of 'clear progression'. Instead what we have are generally brief snap shots, millions of years apart, representing drastically different lifeforms. If you don't believe me then look into the evolutionary evidence of a relatively recent creature that is paramount in our concerns... humans.

Quote by: BorisTheFerret Furthermore, comparison of the DNA patterns of animals alive today, with the DNA patterns of the animals from which evolution says they evolved,.

No it doesn't, it says that in genetic terms they are very similar and suggests that evolution may have occurred. It does not mean that evolution is the only explanation. Similar creatures would have similar DNA if they had a shared evolution, were created, or were the result of alien genetic manipulation because they are similar. That argument is a bit of a no-brainer.

Quote by: BorisTheFerret You're saying all of that's a coincidence, that all species were put on the earth at essentially the same time by God, and that it's just a matter of chance that all the fossils which evolution predicts date from within the last 50 million years, are indeed younger than 50 million years, and that all the fossils which evolution predicts date from 200 million years, do date from 200 million years.

Nope... never said a single word of that.

Quote by: BorisTheFerret Evolution explains the development of species observable in the fossil record as well as in DNA. Creationism does not. Simple as.

But the development of species is not obervable in the fossil record, look at it, the fossil record merely suggests the possibility of evolution it does not prove it. This absence which you will find if you look at the evidence rationally suggests the possibility of creationism. Go back to the evidence.

Quote by: BorisTheFerret And taking a religious story as the starting point, then working backwards with the express aim of vindicating that story, all the while ignoring any evidence which contradicts the creation story (which IS what you're doing), is NOT scientific. You can't take a religious story and dress it up as scientific theory. That's what ID does, and it's been universally and irrevocably debunked by the scientific community..

Firstly I did not do that, I have merely realised that the fossil record with its lack of intermediary lifeforms suggests the possibility of creationism. A number of things now taken as fact have previously been debunked by the scientific community, not scientist who is true to the scientific method discounts facts and theories because they are unpopular. The fact is what I have said stands up to scientific rigour, and if you did some research instead of relying on your school taught assumptions you would realise that.

[Technosoul]

Some explainations used a long time ago can be dropped due to current evidence. But newer explainations can still maintain the foundational idea of creation, even it the newer explaination does not conform to a biblical story or some other old orgins explaination. However currently no one explaination based on current knowledge can distroy or disporve the other explainations which are also kept updated.

[Simonius]

Quote by: Technosoul Some explainations used a long time ago can be dropped due to current evidence. But newer explainations can still maintain the foundational idea of creation, even it the newer explaination does not conform to a biblical story or some other old orgins explaination. However currently no one explaination based on current knowledge can distroy or disporve the other explainations which are also kept updated.

That is possibly the only thing you have said that I would agree with!

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Simonius That is possibly the only thing you have said that I would agree with!

We have about 4 or 5 good explainations that can be developed and related. The hang up is that each group is demanding proof that cannot yet be fully delivered on. We have no need for a big rush to seal up the deal for one group or another, because we can survive well enough with a diversity of explanations.

But people fear or they dislike a state of confusion about this topic. They want to pursue some mass agreement that can unite everyone under one roof.

At this point there is no reason to all agree. And each group does not have to be open minded and they each can concentrate on what they do the best to improve their own opinons.

I find research on "concept construction" interesting. I find evolution interesting, and I find nature based ideas interesting, and I.Q creationism related in a new ager way of interest. I like diversity and find debating fun. And yes, mythology is interesting along with ways to apply it. And also I pursue ways to explore the limitations of faith and ritual. But that is just me and clearly not what everyone else is into. I am not drawn towards an interest in phyics.

But hey, it is not like we are having a election to see which explaination will win the popular vote to become the president of ideas.

I will however continue my explaination about creationism in my next postings. Why? Because some preacher told me it would be impossible to do when I was a teenager, and that rebel is still alive and wants to kick some butt.