|
|
Post by quest on Feb 2, 2019 17:01:00 GMT -5
For obvious reasons I conclude that evolutionists are required to pervert the concept of Logic, and that is a sham/(shame) , IMO the main reasoning being the concept of “random” (or should we try to conceive “haphazardness”?) whatever angle you take you run into a Logic dead end, IMO. most evolutionists are offended by using “haphazard” events (probably cause they cannot Invoke the elusive doctrine of probabilities?) if that is a debatable hypothesis, please enunciate a Logical offense/defense to that comment? Thank you . when dealing with probabilities, we look for “random sequences of base 10 numbers “ (0-9) which is technically drawing on a hazardous proposition, mainly that “random” sequences will logically follow from a base 10 paradigm. what would rule out a sequence that involves a ”infinite” base ? That would truly give an infinite possibility of even getting the first digit in the sequence to be Logical(correct) ....and defining a probability that small would require “infinite time” and “infinite conception “ ✅. Which pretty much eliminates a “rationed” (rational) hypothesis to act as a catalyst to initiate a finite probability. (As all probability would essentially be —>zero(non existent), IMO thats way over my head. ! thank you [/ IMO, the higher possibilities of events actually materializing seems to be related to the need for more “dimensions “, IMO Once the possible events have been exhausted, the Next possible event would have to occur in the next higher dimension, for example , consider the possibilities in a 1 dimension, and then a 2 dimension paradigm, then a 3 dimension paradigm, ....we can visualize that when those possibilities are exhausted, we need another dimension. Right? Ha, then we can postulate that we exhaust the possibilities in a 4 dimension paradigm, and move into the 5th dimension.... oh , wait....I’m going to google the 5th dimension! (Just joking, ha) |
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 2, 2019 18:43:30 GMT -5
To follow up.
Consider the 3 commonly observed dimensions, ok? Got that much
figured out !!
Now comes the conceptualizing? Which dimension
should be “labeled “ the first dimension?
Or 2nd or 3rd ?
If we do not have a mechanism for initiating the numbering of the common
dimensions, how can we perceive which dimension
would logically be enumerated in the sequence?
As some logic might postulate either the 4th or 5th
dimension would / could be interchanged (with vibration being considered
either , and time being necessary, also)
Yet I cringe to consider numbering any dimension.
Why? Because however many are necessary for
existence, likely were simultaneously created. Right?
Thank you,
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 2, 2019 18:58:11 GMT -5
And for a human mind that lacks creativity, or creative thinking
how can one such postulate about the unknown/unknowable
(to human minds) anything past a fifth dimension ,
I have to accept (on “faith”) that there are millions or more
dimensions, unless someone can postulate what the
Known “upper limit “ can be set At!!
And then we can only image! If you can imagine that?
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 3, 2019 0:22:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 3, 2019 0:47:23 GMT -5
Oh, I have pondered some about what nature
Could possibly benefit from giving blind chance
and no purpose for an infinite paradigm of
possible events. I have personally experienced
the dilemma of having to choose from many
possible choices, and if I am certain that the choice
Is not a vital important choice, and I might make a reasoned choice that
considers the convenience of one choice over the others
possible choices, thus it’s reasonable to consider
“Convienience of choice” over the hypothetical “blind chance”
I do not consider “convenience” to be synonymous
With “blind” chance (choice).... a blind choice may not
Be a “convenient” choice , yet if a choice needs to be
made, “convenience “ likely plays a very important role
(As contemplating for millions of centuries to make a “blind
Choice” (for no real purpose?) certainly would be
Extremely inconvenient, right? And that’s the way
i deal with choices that might look right, but cannot
be demonstrated to be thus. hmmm
Ok?
Thank you,
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 3, 2019 12:06:12 GMT -5
What you see as random looking backwards in time is just a series of evolution that have ended up looking like what we see today. We are a product of our environment. A different environment would have us being something quite different.
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 3, 2019 12:35:35 GMT -5
What you see as random looking backwards in time is just a series of evolution that have ended up looking like what we see today. We are a product of our environment. A different environment would have us being something quite different. Ha, yet I don't see "haphazardness" either! "Random " is a scientific "concept developed to enable theoreticalists to assign equal probabilities ,etc. i see the universe and creation as a finished work. We can better appreciate all that went into the sciences by accepting that there was a purpose for everything. "Turn, Turn, Turn" : this song explains creation thank you |
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 3, 2019 13:12:12 GMT -5
Now, here is something to ponder on a cold wintery
evening....
IF we have equal probability of an infinite possible events.,
could any of those events actually occur?
I contend (in theory) that we don’t have enough
time to measure the probability of a particular event,
and we would run out of allotted time at the same
moment the last event (of infinite events) was conceived.
It’s like trying to conceive counting to (—> approaching infinity)
is only probable if we have “—->approaching infinite Time!
IMO of course.
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 3, 2019 13:15:30 GMT -5
Thus what events happen are totally planned , and totally convienient !
IMO.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 4, 2019 20:12:44 GMT -5
What you see as random looking backwards in time is just a series of evolution that have ended up looking like what we see today. We are a product of our environment. A different environment would have us being something quite different. Maybe i should reply in a different manner? If you believe that a different environment would yield a different “product/organism” why do the origin of life experiments Involve trying to “duplicate both the environment and the elements “ that are thought to be “uncreated (by Our Creator)” Wouldn’t it be more logical to have a created Bio-Genesis ? Would your first chemically Created cell, be different If the theory of abiogenesis was theoretically in a totally different environment? In other words , would the requirement for a cell to appear from one environment be different than the requirements Of creating a cell from another “World”? Hmmm, maybe you can find a link? Thank you |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 5, 2019 12:00:52 GMT -5
What you see as random looking backwards in time is just a series of evolution that have ended up looking like what we see today. We are a product of our environment. A different environment would have us being something quite different. Maybe i should reply in a different manner? If you believe that a different environment would yield a different “product/organism” why do the origin of life experiments Involve trying to “duplicate both the environment and the elements “ that are thought to be “uncreated (by Our Creator)” Wouldn’t it be more logical to have a created Bio-Genesis ? Would your first chemically Created cell, be different If the theory of abiogenesis was theoretically in a totally different environment? In other words , would the requirement for a cell to appear from one environment be different than the requirements Of creating a cell from another “World”? Hmmm, maybe you can find a link? Thank you I don't know how to answer that. But it makes sense that if we had a different combination we would see a very different universe and possibly one with no matter at all. Everything that happened after the big bang that happened just right to cool at the right time etc. determined whether matter would exist and cluster together to make what we see. But with a different chemical 'soup' than the one our universe provides, it also makes sense that we would be a lot different than what we are. Possibly not even sentient? I don't know. It's an interesting subject as long as you don't just bring a creator into it and say "god made it'. |
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 5, 2019 15:40:20 GMT -5
Maybe i should reply in a different manner? If you believe that a different environment would yield a different “product/organism” why do the origin of life experiments Involve trying to “duplicate both the environment and the elements “ that are thought to be “uncreated (by Our Creator)” Wouldn’t it be more logical to have a created Bio-Genesis ? Would your first chemically Created cell, be different If the theory of abiogenesis was theoretically in a totally different environment? In other words , would the requirement for a cell to appear from one environment be different than the requirements Of creating a cell from another “World”? Hmmm, maybe you can find a link? Thank you I don't know how to answer that. But it makes sense that if we had a different combination we would see a very different universe and possibly one with no matter at all. Everything that happened after the big bang that happened just right to cool at the right time etc. determined whether matter would exist and cluster together to make what we see. But with a different chemical 'soup' than the one our universe provides, it also makes sense that we would be a lot different than what we are. Possibly not even sentient? I don't know. It's an interesting subject as long as you don't just bring a creator into it and say "god made it'. Hmmm. I’ll try to be brief, , .... do you have confidence that Logic would prevail over “haphazardness “ ? The theory postulates that whatever happened, happened :: without a plan or purpose! And yet now it is well known that everything is “designed/created “ for a purpose. It Cant be both? !? Right? |
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 5, 2019 15:46:00 GMT -5
When i become aware of the various purposes of
all in creation, I DO marvel , and i give credit to
to Logic of our Creator! Not to how haphazard things
will mess us a good situation??
Right?
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 6, 2019 12:28:19 GMT -5
I don't know how to answer that. But it makes sense that if we had a different combination we would see a very different universe and possibly one with no matter at all. Everything that happened after the big bang that happened just right to cool at the right time etc. determined whether matter would exist and cluster together to make what we see. But with a different chemical 'soup' than the one our universe provides, it also makes sense that we would be a lot different than what we are. Possibly not even sentient? I don't know. It's an interesting subject as long as you don't just bring a creator into it and say "god made it'. Hmmm. I’ll try to be brief, , .... do you have confidence that Logic would prevail over “haphazardness “ ? The theory postulates that whatever happened, happened :: without a plan or purpose! And yet now it is well known that everything is “designed/created “ for a purpose. It Cant be both? !? Right? I don't agree that everything was designed/created. There are far too many flaws for a perfect creator to have done it. |
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Feb 6, 2019 12:35:04 GMT -5
Contrary to an “explosion” , with intentionality, there is a ‘Chosen method’ of creation, which is like (methods of creation) or simply laws of creation (known as scientific laws) Our Creator is a Supreme Master Chemical Mechanical Biological Engineer! Hmmm, IMO (And a Physician’s Physician)too And also Infinite In Life, and Knowledge Yes, I am sure I missed many many of our Creators talents, They are what they are. IMO Thank you If your Creator was such a great "Physician’s Physician" why didn't he/she teach his/her "people" how to cure disease, and stay healthy. Maybe even how they should wash their hands? |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 6, 2019 13:25:08 GMT -5
Contrary to an “explosion” , with intentionality, there is a ‘Chosen method’ of creation, which is like (methods of creation) or simply laws of creation (known as scientific laws) Our Creator is a Supreme Master Chemical Mechanical Biological Engineer! Hmmm, IMO (And a Physician’s Physician)too And also Infinite In Life, and Knowledge Yes, I am sure I missed many many of our Creators talents, They are what they are. IMO Thank you If your Creator was such a great "Physician’s Physician" why didn't he/she teach his/her "people" how to cure disease, and stay healthy. Maybe even how they should wash their hands? Or give us backs that stood up to bipedal walking better! |
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 6, 2019 15:53:39 GMT -5
Hmmm. I’ll try to be brief, , .... do you have confidence that Logic would prevail over “haphazardness “ ? The theory postulates that whatever happened, happened :: without a plan or purpose! And yet now it is well known that everything is “designed/created “ for a purpose. It Cant be both? !? Right? I don't agree that everything was designed/created. There are far too many flaws for a perfect creator to have done it. So I can believe our Creator is perfect . He is far far more perfect than us. (we humans can’t even figure out how to create an “imperfect DNA. “) If we really want a perfect DNA, we should live Perfectly. Right? To begin with , we need perfect logic! And that is way above our heads! (literally and figuratively!) Hmmmm Thank you |
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 6, 2019 19:05:52 GMT -5
Contrary to an “explosion” , with intentionality, there is a ‘Chosen method’ of creation, which is like (methods of creation) or simply laws of creation (known as scientific laws) Our Creator is a Supreme Master Chemical Mechanical Biological Engineer! Hmmm, IMO (And a Physician’s Physician)too And also Infinite In Life, and Knowledge Yes, I am sure I missed many many of our Creators talents, They are what they are. IMO Thank you If your Creator was such a great "Physician’s Physician" why didn't he/she teach his/her "people" how to cure disease, and stay healthy. I will ask Adam , he should know..... i think he was warned? Hmmmm thank you |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 7, 2019 12:10:55 GMT -5
I don't agree that everything was designed/created. There are far too many flaws for a perfect creator to have done it. So I can believe our Creator is perfect . He is far far more perfect than us. (we humans can’t even figure out how to create an “imperfect DNA. “) If we really want a perfect DNA, we should live Perfectly. Right? To begin with , we need perfect logic! And that is way above our heads! (literally and figuratively!) Hmmmm Thank you Actually, we have created two new letters in the DNA code. We're not as dumb as you think. I'm not sure god is logical. There are many things that don't appear to be logical about the human body and it's just one small part of all that is. |
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 7, 2019 15:04:12 GMT -5
So I can believe our Creator is perfect . He is far far more perfect than us. (we humans can’t even figure out how to create an “imperfect DNA. “) If we really want a perfect DNA, we should live Perfectly. Right? To begin with , we need perfect logic! And that is way above our heads! (literally and figuratively!) Hmmmm Thank you Actually, we have created two new letters in the DNA code. We're not as dumb as you think. I'm not sure god is logical. There are many things that don't appear to be logical about the human body and it's just one small part of all that is. Hmmm, was it “logical” that Adam sinned against the stated “logic” as he was presented, when our Creator Instructed him (Adam) . If you wish to deny the Logic that our Creator possesses , we need to address Both sides of the breech, namely where did Adam deviate from truth and obey the “voice” of death/separation ? Just my thoughts Thank you |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Feb 7, 2019 15:15:27 GMT -5
There is no need to adress anything about the mythical figure Adam
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 7, 2019 15:19:55 GMT -5
It follows that (in “your opinion” ) that the formative
mechanism for building proteins, etc. was based on
“haphazard event horizons “ ? Hmmmm, ( in other words: No Logic Involved?). I think we need Logic to build up to an organism, (why?) its only Logical for it to be so. Without Logic, we couldn’t be rationally minded!!
IMO
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 7, 2019 15:21:41 GMT -5
There is no need to adress anything about the mythical figure Adam Really? That’s news to me! Nevertheless Thank you ( ) |
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 7, 2019 15:28:29 GMT -5
There is no need to adress anything about the mythical figure Adam Really? That’s news to me! Nevertheless Thank you ( ) It reminds me of a time (long long ago) that only eight humans knew the difference between “myth and reality” * sigh , I guess the more things change the more they don’t change? Right? Thank you |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Feb 7, 2019 16:44:20 GMT -5
More myth. Try researching fact and back it up with verifiable evidence instead of endlessly repeating mythology in a vain hope that by repeating it often enough it will become true. For instance you reference the flood. There is not one shred of evidence of a world wide flood but you still believe the biblical story. Show me the fossil record of penguins, kangaroos, kiwis, kakapo that are found on the way to and from the ark.
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 7, 2019 22:52:11 GMT -5
More myth. Try researching fact and back it up with verifiable evidence instead of endlessly repeating mythology in a vain hope that by repeating it often enough it will become true. For instance you reference the flood. There is not one shred of evidence of a world wide flood but you still believe the biblical story. Show me the fossil record of penguins, kangaroos, kiwis, kakapo that are found on the way to and from the ark. Let’s begin with the “fossil record” being a notorious Exercise in circular reasoning? Sorry to say, it’s not a verifiable timeline in any way, except to perpetuate an illogical premise (aka : a myth ) IMO. Thank you |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Feb 7, 2019 23:25:45 GMT -5
More myth. Try researching fact and back it up with verifiable evidence instead of endlessly repeating mythology in a vain hope that by repeating it often enough it will become true. For instance you reference the flood. There is not one shred of evidence of a world wide flood but you still believe the biblical story. Show me the fossil record of penguins, kangaroos, kiwis, kakapo that are found on the way to and from the ark. Let’s begin with the “fossil record” being a notorious Exercise in circular reasoning? Sorry to say, it’s not a verifiable timeline in any way, except to perpetuate an illogical premise (aka : a myth ) IMO. Thank you Only someone who does not have any understanding of geology and paleontology would say that. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 8, 2019 17:42:24 GMT -5
I don't agree that everything was designed/created. There are far too many flaws for a perfect creator to have done it. So I can believe our Creator is perfect . He is far far more perfect than us. (we humans can’t even figure out how to create an “imperfect DNA. “) If we really want a perfect DNA, we should live Perfectly. Right? Like much of what is written here it is wrong. At Scripps Research Institute Romesberg and his team expanded the genetic code from four letters to six. |
|
