Evolution v. Creationism

[Cardinal Carminative]

Sounds like you're scared.

People who threaten others, even online, is scary stuff. I hope some police or something is coming to help you with your problems.

 

[surada]

People who threaten others, even online, is scary stuff. I hope some police or something is coming to help you with your problems.

He may be a juvenile.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

He may be a juvenile.

Yeah he reads more like a poorly done "Poe" (Poe's Law) with his over-the-top stuff. I assume he's not serious, just pleasuring himself with whatever these posts are.

 

[james bond]

He may be a juvenile.

No, premonitions are scientific. You don't have to buy it.

The Science of Premonitions

Ever had a feeling something was about to happen, and then it did? You're not alone, says author and scientist Dr. Larry Dossey.

www.guideposts.org

Now, this one's pretty far out so I understand. I just had to get it off my chest as one has disappeared. Otherwise, I would've kept it to myself. Just ignore me and I'll keep it to myself.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Evolution 'vs' Creation​

SUBTOPIC: Keeping it in "Good Science"
⁜→ James Bond, et al,

​

The mission of the Institute of​

Noetic Sciences​

is to reveal the interconnected nature of reality through​

scientific exploration and personal discovery.​

Article by: Dr Cassandra Vieten, Consciousness Matters, Psychology Today Posted May 10, 2011 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

No, premonitions are scientific. You don't have to buy it.

The Science of Premonitions

Ever had a feeling something was about to happen, and then it did? You're not alone, says author and scientist Dr. Larry Dossey.

www.guideposts.org

Now, this one's pretty far out so I understand. I just had to get it off my chest as one has disappeared. Otherwise, I would've kept it to myself. Just ignore me and I'll keep it to myself.

(COMMENT)

"What can science do to help us understand more about these phenomena?
I would simply say to a skeptical scientist, one way to resolve the debate is simply to do good science. Don’t filter it, don’t obstruct it, be open to wherever it leads."

The Science of Premonitions​

We talk to Dr. Larry Dossey, author, scientist and renowned expert on premonitions.
by Adam HunterFrom Posted in Miracles, Jul 29, 2014

I may have mentioned this before. This is under the umbrella of Metaphysics (the study of ultimate reality).

Most Respectfully,
R
.

 

[james bond]

RE: Evolution 'vs' Creation​

SUBTOPIC: Keeping it in "Good Science"
⁜→ James Bond, et al,

​

The mission of the Institute of​

Noetic Sciences​

is to reveal the interconnected nature of reality through​

scientific exploration and personal discovery.​

Article by: Dr Cassandra Vieten, Consciousness Matters, Psychology Today Posted May 10, 2011 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan


(COMMENT)

"What can science do to help us understand more about these phenomena?
I would simply say to a skeptical scientist, one way to resolve the debate is simply to do good science. Don’t filter it, don’t obstruct it, be open to wherever it leads."

The Science of Premonitions​

We talk to Dr. Larry Dossey, author, scientist and renowned expert on premonitions.
by Adam HunterFrom Posted in Miracles, Jul 29, 2014

I may have mentioned this before. This is under the umbrella of Metaphysics (the study of ultimate reality).

Most Respectfully,
R
.

I wouldn't put premonitions under science either and I'll keep it to myself in the future as atheists disappear. It's just SUCH A STRONG feeling with me and I could be WRONG.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Evolution 'vs' Creation​

SUBTOPIC: Keeping it in "Good Science"
⁜→ James Bond, et al,
.
INTRODUCTION: When we talking about "knowledge" → are we talking about something we can hold in your hand? (RHETORICAL) When we talk about "reality," are we talking about something in a box? (RHETORICAL). If I had up a glass of knowledge, would you recognize it? (RHETORICAL)
.

I wouldn't put premonitions under science either and I'll keep it to myself in the future as atheists disappear.

(COMMENT)
.
A great amount of human activity revolves around a construct of that which you can hold in you hand, or place in a box, or even see in a glass. These are a part of reality. These are thing subject to power understand of basic chemical-physics. Element (assembled by stellar activity) into molecules, molecules into materials, and materials into constructs, We normally think of it as some sort of holism; but we recognise them construct by name (house, car, plane, motors, etc). Chemical-physics deconstruction is in the opposite direction. Molecules, molecules into elements, protons and neutrons made from arranges of quarks, leptons guage-bosons and Higgs boson. This is a kind of reductions into actual particles of physics.

Animal Lifeforms, as far as we know, are made from all the same components just assembled in different arrangements quantities and fashioned together in accordance with the instructions of genetic codes. A scientist can mix all this properties in a beaker, in the right proportions, and still not create a lifeforms. In a manner of speaking, a life-force is not something a scientist can creatively achieve.
The magic of a life-force, necessary to make a lifeforms, Is not something we can synthesize.

This is just one example of the Metaphysics, the study beyond the a level of reality. In a way, what we have touched upon here is a "Supernatural Process" - meaning a process beyond the understanding of human scientific processes and the laws of nature.
.

It's just SUCH A STRONG feeling with me and I could be WRONG.

(COMMENT)
.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
"The limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible."

My thought is that you are not entirely wrong (not entirely wrong at all).

The singular honour of being the key equation of existence goes to Euler’s Formula, also called the Euler identity, dating back to the 1740s:

.The God Equation by Mike Hockney Published by Hyperreality Books Copyright © Mike Hockney 2012
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[james bond]

RE: Evolution 'vs' Creation​

SUBTOPIC: Keeping it in "Good Science"
⁜→ James Bond, et al,
.
INTRODUCTION: When we talking about "knowledge" → are we talking about something we can hold in your hand? (RHETORICAL) When we talk about "reality," are we talking about something in a box? (RHETORICAL). If I had up a glass of knowledge, would you recognize it? (RHETORICAL)
.

(COMMENT)
.
A great amount of human activity revolves around a construct of that which you can hold in you hand, or place in a box, or even see in a glass. These are a part of reality. These are thing subject to power understand of basic chemical-physics. Element (assembled by stellar activity) into molecules, molecules into materials, and materials into constructs, We normally think of it as some sort of holism; but we recognise them construct by name (house, car, plane, motors, etc). Chemical-physics deconstruction is in the opposite direction. Molecules, molecules into elements, protons and neutrons made from arranges of quarks, leptons guage-bosons and Higgs boson. This is a kind of reductions into actual particles of physics.

Animal Lifeforms, as far as we know, are made from all the same components just assembled in different arrangements quantities and fashioned together in accordance with the instructions of genetic codes. A scientist can mix all this properties in a beaker, in the right proportions, and still not create a lifeforms. In a manner of speaking, a life-force is not something a scientist can creatively achieve.
The magic of a life-force, necessary to make a lifeforms, Is not something we can synthesize.

This is just one example of the Metaphysics, the study beyond the a level of reality. In a way, what we have touched upon here is a "Supernatural Process" - meaning a process beyond the understanding of human scientific processes and the laws of nature.
.

(COMMENT)
.

My thought is that you are not entirely wrong (not entirely wrong at all).

The singular honour of being the key equation of existence goes to Euler’s Formula, also called the Euler identity, dating back to the 1740s:

View attachment 638558
.The God Equation by Mike Hockney Published by Hyperreality Books Copyright © Mike Hockney 2012
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks, RoccoR . This one is such a NEGATIVE ONE, so I hesitate and will keep this premonition and any future ones to myself. What's weird is if it happens, then I have no guilt and would be happy in a sense. Is that because of being right? Or feeling that some kind of justice was done? I think atheists have to take responsibility for their religious beliefs. We have a history of wars and religious people dying for their beliefs. Why should atheism be any different?

 

[james bond]

I'll also do this. I'll check to see about these people who are gone already -- 8 Atheist and Agnostic Scientists Who Changed the World. Maybe they did pay for their atheism.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Evolution 'vs' Creationism (Science "vs" Faith-Based)
SUBTOPIC: Keeping it in "Good Science"
⁜→ James Bond, et al,

Science and Faith-Based Concepts are never at odds with one another; unless some antagonistic force pushes them into a collision.

​

The symbol is a "Sigil." You should keep it. It is a sign that implies: Negative Thought Evaporate from my Mind. Put in a more traditional way: → It is the equivalent of saying: " think positive and not negatively."

This is just one example of the Metaphysics, the study beyond the a level of reality. In a way, what we have touched upon here is a "Supernatural Process" - meaning a process beyond the understanding of human scientific processes and the laws of nature.

This one is such a NEGATIVE ONE, so I hesitate and will keep this premonition and any future ones to myself. What's weird is if it happens, then I have no guilt and would be happy in a sense. Is that because of being right?

---

(REFERENCE)

Parapsychology:

Branch of psychology that deals with extranormal events and behavioural phenomena that are not accounted for or explained by the tenets and laws of present-day conventional science.​

◈ Examples include (but not limited to):​

• Clairvoyance may (depending on the form of study) divided into several associated forms: classes:
• 
  [*]retrocognition
  [*]premonition; perceiving past and future events; and perception of contemporary events happening at
  may include psychometry, second sight, crystal gazing and prophecy
  [*]precognition,
  [*]​
• telepathy,
• psychokinesis.

CHANCE or COINCIDENTAL:​

​

Precognition ( occult). The occult belief that one can possess the power to peer into the future.​

Premonition Visions • past and • future respectively.​

(COMMENT)
.
All the descriptions (good, evil, dark, white, angelic, demonized, etc...) are all subjective labels. They are mental suggestions, depending on the personality having the mental event. If you have what is considered an apparition or premonition/precognitive event, you can change that image. The image at the opening is a good visual sigil (Courtesy of Daily Sigil) to focus on to change.

It is my opinion that you should dump any mentally harmful images as soon as possible. .

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Evolution 'vs' Creationism (Science "vs" Faith-Based)
SUBTOPIC: Keeping it in "Good Science"
⁜→ James Bond, et al,

(AS A SIDE ISSUE)

All the Abrahamic Religions, though they don't like to admit it, have an element of the supernatural embedded in their rituals.

So, believing in an alternative faith is not any different. Or, not believing in Supreme Being is no different. It is a cultural adaptation. Metaphysics does not necessarily promote change. It investigates events and happenings. It looks to detect footprints of some source of power.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[james bond]

Here's what I found about the 8 atheist scientists. Their lives and accomplishments were remarkable, but James Watson and Francis Crick have controversy. I have to question their accomplishments and came away loathing them. The only death that was notable and strange was Alan Turing.

Thus, life is what you make of it and what people remember you for. Afterward, the atheists and ags and their beliefs are on their own.

********

Stephen Hawking lived a full life - died of ALS at 76, beat early death at 21.

His first wife, Jane Hawking was a Christian and said, "When I think that it has been 52 years since Stephen was first diagnosed, that to me is a miracle. OK, it may be a miracle of modern medicine and Stephen's own courage and perseverance but it is also quite simply a miracle."

Alan Turing - Considered the father of computer science who played pivotal role in breaking the WW II Enigma code. He was a WW II hero, but also socially banished for his homosexuality.

"How did Alan Turing die?

Turing pleaded guilty to the gross indecency charge and opted for chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones.

The pioneering mathematician was rendered impotent and his security clearance was removed - barring him for continuing his work with GCHQ.

He died two years later from cyanide poisoning in an apparent suicide - though there have been suggestions his death was an accident."

Alfred Kinsey - Pneumonia and heart ailment. Brought up in strict Christian home, was an Eagle Boy Scout, loved the YMCA, outdoors and camping. He became well known in entomology, but became most famous for the Kinsey Reports in sexology. Became a bisexual.

Neil deGrasse Tyson - Still alive. Killed by internet death hoax. Thinks he is agnostic, but may as well be an atheist.

Rosalind Franklin - Watson and Crick are known for their discovery of the DNA double helix structure, but they used her data without her knowledge and giving her due credit. Watson and Crick seem like they should be destined for hell and a hurrible death. I think today, Franklin gets more credit on wikipedia and more historical DNA articles and literature.

James Watson - still alive.

From wikipedia: "Interactions with Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling

Watson and Crick's use of DNA X-ray diffraction data collected by Rosalind Franklin and her student Raymond Gosling was unauthorized. Franklin's high-quality X-ray diffraction patterns of DNA were privileged unpublished information taken without permission from a scientist working on the same subject in another laboratory.[12] Watson and Crick used some of Franklin's unpublished data—without her consent—in their construction of the double helix model of DNA.[38][45] Franklin's results provided estimates of the water content of DNA crystals and these results were consistent with the two sugar-phosphate backbones being on the outside of the molecule. Franklin told Crick and Watson that the backbones had to be on the outside; before then, Linus Pauling and Watson and Crick had erroneous models with the chains inside and the bases pointing outwards.[24] Her identification of the space group for DNA crystals revealed to Crick that the two DNA strands were antiparallel.

The X-ray diffraction images collected by Gosling and Franklin provided the best evidence for the helical nature of DNA. Watson and Crick had three sources for Franklin's unpublished data:

Her 1951 seminar, attended by Watson,[46]
Discussions with Wilkins,[47] who worked in the same laboratory with Franklin,
A research progress report that was intended to promote coordination of Medical Research Council-supported laboratories.[48] Watson, Crick, Wilkins and Franklin all worked in MRC laboratories.

In recent years, Watson has garnered controversy in the popular and scientific press for his "misogynistic treatment" of Franklin and his failure to properly attribute her work on DNA.[11] In The Double Helix, Watson later admitted that "Rosy, of course, did not directly give us her data. For that matter, no one at King's realized they were in our hands." According to one critic, Watson's portrayal of Franklin in The Double Helix was negative, giving the impression that she was Wilkins' assistant and was unable to interpret her own DNA data.[49] Watson's accusation was indefensible since Franklin told Crick and Watson that the helix backbones had to be on the outside.[24] From a 2003 piece in Nature:[11]

Other comments dismissive of “Rosy” in Watson's book caught the attention of the emerging women's movement in the late 1960s. “Clearly Rosy had to go or be put in her place [...] Unfortunately Maurice could not see any decent way to give Rosy the boot”. And, “Certainly a bad way to go out into the foulness of a [...] November night was to be told by a woman to refrain from venturing an opinion about a subject for which you were not trained.”

A review of the correspondence from Franklin to Watson, in the archives at CSHL, revealed that the two scientists later exchanged constructive scientific correspondence. Franklin consulted with Watson on her tobacco mosaic virus RNA research. Franklin's letters were framed with the normal and unremarkable forms of address, beginning with "Dear Jim", and concluding with "Best Wishes, Yours, Rosalind". Each of the scientists published their own unique contributions to the discovery of the structure of DNA in separate articles, and all of the contributors published their findings in the same volume of Nature. These classic molecular biology papers are identified as: Watson J.D. and Crick F.H.C. "A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid" Nature 171, 737–738 (1953);[40] Wilkins M.H.F., Stokes A.R. & Wilson, H.R. "Molecular Structure of Deoxypentose Nucleic Acids" Nature 171, 738–740 (1953);[50] Franklin R. and Gosling R.G. "Molecular Configuration in Sodium Thymonucleate" Nature 171, 740–741 (1953).[51]"

Francis Crick - Died of colon cancer at 88. One of discovers of the DNA double helix structure. He's another with controversy. Believed in Eugenics and was involved in sexual harassment.

Eugenie Scott - Specifically, she kicks the asses and takes the names of people who are trying to teach religious creationism in the public schools. An anthropologist by training and trade, since 1987 she has been executive director of the National Center for Science Education -- the leading organization working to keep evolution and climate science in public school science education, and working to keep creationism and climate change denial out of it. If you have kids in the public schools, she has dedicated her life to ensuring they get an actual, evidence-based science education -- and to ensuring that their religious training is left up to you, and isn't in the hands of the government. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson Eugenie Scott doesn't call herself an atheist. Instead, she calls herself a non-theist and humanist, and has said, "I believe there is nothing beyond matter and energy." That's plenty good enough for this list. Another non-believer who works like crazy to make this world a better place -- and who can inspire anyone to do the same.

Still alive. Obviously, no tears will be shed by creationists with her loss.

Andrei Sakharov - heart attack

Thomas Edison - diabetes

There's nothing really horrible in terms of atheists/ags scientists demise except for Alan Turing. They're like other people. No surprise there. What's remarkable is if they beat death and lived longer than expected. What do they if they are ill? Do they deliberately avoid prayer? Stephen Hawking may best represent the perseverance, courage and resolve in trying to stay alive and surviving. I have to give him much credit. Also, we have to give them much credit for their remarkable contributions to society.

On the flip side, the worst controversial personal views were from James Watson and Francis Crick.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Another weak link in evolutionary theory

Today, however, discoveries in molecular biology have complicated that conclusion In fact, a new paper poses one of the strongest challenges yet to the idea that all life shares common chemistry

www.christianpost.com

ANOTHER weak link in evolutionary THEORY. it's a theory forcryinoutloud.

The authors, including theoretician Sara Walker and bioinformatics analyst Dylan Gagler from Arizona State University, looked at enzyme functions across all the major groupings of life. They tallied the different functions, then plotted these against the total number of classified enzymes. They found that “as the enzyme space grows … so do the number of functions.” In other words, there are very few “specific molecules and reactions” common to all living things.

If your head just exploded, Nelson offers a helpful analogy borrowed from one of the paper’s co-authors, Chris Kempes. The English language contains many words, or synonyms, that can mean approximately the same thing. If the sky is darkened, we could just say it was “darkened.” Or, we could say that it became “murky,” “shaded,” “shadowed,” dimmed,” or “obscured.” All these words mean, more or less, the same thing but with very different spellings and histories. According to Nelson, “a strikingly similar pattern” occurs among the chemicals that make life possible.

The authors of the paper agree, writing that “[biochemical] universality cannot simply be explained due to phylogenetic relatedness.” Or, stated more simply, living things don’t look like they evolved from a common ancestor using the same basic components on a molecular level. Instead, many different enzymes are used to accomplish similar purposes. This is precisely the opposite of what Darwinism predicts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Another weak link in evolutionary theory

Today, however, discoveries in molecular biology have complicated that conclusion In fact, a new paper poses one of the strongest challenges yet to the idea that all life shares common chemistry

www.christianpost.com

ANOTHER weak link in evolutionary THEORY. it's a theory forcryinoutloud.

Wow, you still don't know what the word "theory" means in science, despite having this info spoonfed to you multiple times.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Ya don't get to go round changin' the definition of things just so you can go, 'nyah nyah nyah'. Science doesn't work like that although democrapolitics does.

Theory: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of actionher method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory

NOT evidence, i know you see 'hypothetical set of facts.....but you gotta go look up hypothetical.. get someone to help you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ya don't get to go round changin' the definition of things just so you can go, 'nyah nyah nyah'. Science doesn't work like that although democrapolitics does.

Theory: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of actionher method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory

NOT evidence, i know you see 'hypothetical set of facts.....but you gotta go look up hypothetical.. get someone to help you.

That's not the definition in science, sorry. Again, this has been spoonfed to you multiple times. You aren't making a good point. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Calypso Jones]

I said. you don't get to change the definition to suit makin' you look good.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I said. you don't get to change the definition to suit makin' you look good.

I didn't. A scientific theory is a well defined concept. I didn't define it. You embarrass yourself.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Post the definition. Let's take a look at it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Post the definition. Let's take a look at it.

No troll. This has been spoonfed to you already. Go waste a 7th grade teacher's time.