Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Rían]

OK, I double-checked my length of time thingy in general messages, and it was set to "last 100 days" - grrr, what's up? I keep setting it to "beginning" and it resets?

Anyway, I did the search again and got 34 threads with those keywords, which seems about right, and 354 posts with those keywords. 116 seems very off, and even 354 posts seems off, given I have almost 6k posts now. Maybe you used another keyword, but I can't see 350-plus different THREADS. Sometimes I've noticed when I do a search, then do another search right after it, the keywords have been blanked out, and maybe that's what happened to you - it just tried to show all of my posts, no matter what the content was. Anyway, could you please re-check your search?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
ob·serv·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-zûrvr)
n.

1. One that observes
2. One who keeps any law, custom, regulation, rite, etc.
3. 3. One who fulfills or performs

2 is obviously not what we are discussing, since electrons have no culture.

How do you know they have no culture? To use what you said earlier, ' "Are you absolutely sure that the light goes off when you close the refrigerator door" is about the strongest hint I'll give you here.'

What's good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander

Originally posted by Blackheart
[more definitions...]

I repeat that IMO, a common definition of "observer" would not be an atom. Now you can go from definition to definition all you want to, but to me, it seems obvious that the mere fact that you have to go thru multiple definitions to try to support your claim only further illustrates that an atom as an observer is NOT a common definition.

Let me illustrate - the United Nations sometimes sends observers to watch over voting in countries that tend to try to settle things violently and unfairly. Do you think those voters would be happy to be told "hey, there's an atom in that chair that will act as your observer!"? I doubt it.

Anyway, you're free to choose the definition that you think are appropriate, and so am I. And now that it is obvious to me which definitions you like, I will choose to not participate in the conversation, as it's not an interesting one to me.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Also, observer is the common scientific term for a particle in this position. Since there is a scientific discussion ongoing, it might be thought disingenious to claim that you were surprised that a common scientific term used in such a context mislead you into thinking that there was chicanery going on...

You didn't mention "particle" in your original post, which consisted of one short sentence.

Yes, "it might be thought disingenious"; it also might NOT be thought disingenious; it also might be thought sincere; it also might be thought many other things. What do YOU think, since you didn't say? Whatever you think, I'll tell you that it was NOT disingenuous on my part. You can choose to believe that or not believe it, obviously. But I tell the truth, altho obviously I can't prove it to you. And as you specifically claim to be "bad", this makes me think you like to deceive, so I won't worry about your hints any further, and will just hope that you can change.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
You are getting rather cryptic then.

I don't think I'm getting cryptic, but it's obvious that we are not understanding each other (or another possibility is that given your claim to being "bad", you're just giving me a hard time). Instead of trying to de-tangle, I'll just re-state.

You said: "That's because I haven't had time to point out the fact that "creationism" is flawed from the viewpoint that it posits that creation is over and done with. "

This leads me to believe 2 things:

1. You believe that creationism posits that "creation is over and done with".

2. You believe that creationism is flawed from the viewpoint that it posits that creation is over and done with.


Am I right in these 2 points?

You are either claiming that creationism does not contain this precept, or perhaps that I am wrong in my claim, which I haven't yet had a chance to present. Since I haven't yet had a chance to put it forward in a cogent form, I doubt that that is the case, unless you've just jumped the gun.

What, am I not free to hold thought-out opinions unless I've heard the arguments of everyone in the world (or at least you?) You obviously hold opinions without having heard the arguments of everyone else in the world (or at least me), and I choose to do the same.

I never said I disagreed with your arguments (which, yes, you have not yet put forth); I only said "I disagree with your claim". (and to make things hopefully clear - I consider your claim to be what you said earlier - ' "creationism" is flawed from the viewpoint that it posits that creation is over and done with.') I'm not jumping the gun; or if I'm jumping the gun, then so are you, because you haven't heard my arguments yet.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Anyway, could you please re-check your search?

Try searching the body of the posts instead of just the topic or thread title.

Is this your only response to my post?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Try searching the body of the posts instead of just the topic or thread title.

I did. Would you try it again, please? I still think you must have put in a common word accidentally.

Is this your only response to my post?

I thought I had responded to everything - what did I miss?

(and I don't appreciate your use of the and the - I sincerely try to respond to everyone's points, but sometimes I miss things.)

[Rían]

ps - and YOU, buckaroo , don't respond to all MY posts, either.


And I repeat my request for you to please re-do your search

[Blackheart]

Back from my secret mission to mars.

To cut to the chase, You're telling me that creationism, as it is generally put forward, states that creation is ongoing.

Which would seem to contradict the statement in Genesis that on the seventh day god rested, looked at what he had created, and was generally pleased... Implying that he was done, and now it's time to play around and see what happens with the new toys.

When I have enough time I'll post what I can understand of the cyclic membrane theory of cosmology, the implications it has for how we understand subatomic and macro observer interactions, and the implications of time as a non-limited axis.

The idea that creation is cyclic and continues forever without end doesn't generally hold with creationism as it is laid out by most people who take a literal interpretation of the bible. There are of course apologists, but I don't actually consider them anything but wafflers. I find the claims of people who state that god made everything to look like evolution happened to fool unbelievers more credible than apologists who want to argue about interpretations of what these particular theories mean.

At some point intelligent design will get mentioned, at which time you're no longer talking about creationism, but a different (metaphysical) idea of cosmology.

Also- When I use the term observer, it includes macro and subatomic interactions. An observer is an observer, whether electrons have cultures and opinions and walmarts or not.
If these things mattered, I would have used the word perciever.

You, as a human, observe thousands of things every second that you do not percieve. In the sense of the word that I am using, perception is not neccesary to observe. It doesn't HAVE to percolate up to your conciousness. Conciousness is not required.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Blackheart
To cut to the chase, You're telling me that creationism, as it is generally put forward, states that creation is ongoing.

If by "you" you mean me, then I guess we just can't communicate. I thought I cleared that one up, but let me try again:

IMO, creationism, as it is generally put forward, states that creation is NOT ongoing.

(and also as I stated before, I'm not interested in your definitions of observer, perceiver, etc., so go ahead and hold that conversation without me )

[Rían]

I came across a quote yesterday that was both extremely perceptive and hysterically funny, and was very appropriate for this thread, so here it is, for your reading enjoyment!

(by Robert Wilensky, whoever he is)
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.