Religions > Bible > What has creation science added to man's knowledge?
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"AcesLucky" |
| Date: |
05 Dec 2006 02:47:03 PM |
| Object: |
What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
What has creation science added to man's knowledge?
Please give an example of "creation science" as opposed to
science. And what useful, functional discoveries have
creation science offered to the fields of science?
How has creation science benefited us in the areas of:
Electronics
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
Astronomy
Computer technology
Medicine
Mathematics
Geology
Pick something! And explain how creation science has added
to any field of scientific endeavor.
--
I have a theory: There's no such thing as creation science.
Like faith, it relies on "make believe" and adds nothing to
the body of knowledge for the benefit of Man.
AcesLucky
.
|
|
| User: "Code Programmer" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
05 Dec 2006 04:26:22 PM |
|
|
"AcesLucky" <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cVkdh.11007$Zb5.431@newsfe13.phx...
What has creation science added to man's knowledge?
Please give an example of "creation science" as opposed to science. And
what useful, functional discoveries have creation science offered to the
fields of science?
How has creation science benefited us in the areas of:
Electronics
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
Astronomy
Computer technology
Medicine
Mathematics
Geology
Pick something! And explain how creation science has added to any field of
scientific endeavor.
--
I have a theory: There's no such thing as creation science. Like faith, it
relies on "make believe" and adds nothing to the body of knowledge for the
benefit of Man.
AcesLucky
I do not endorse this "creation science".
However...
The evolution with the Big Bang theory which I have heard about says that we
all came from all matter and energy condensed into a mass which then
promptly one day decided to explode. (Universe Egg)
That seems to take more faith to believe that everything could exist in that
mass
in the first place.
And then there is the thought of, well where did that come from in the first
place?
Science tells us energy cannot be created nor destroyed only transformed.
That all matter is energy in a different form.
Likewise matter cannot be destroyed, but only transformed into energy.
This is stating that all energy is eternal.
Consider that this eternal energy is all present, in all things, through all
things, the source of all things.
Lets say the search for TRUTH as science seeks to do independantly of
religion, has also been effected by religion. In that they are fighting
religion, instead of seeking pure truth. That is not being very scientific.
It is being just as biased as any religious fanatic. And science too has
it's heretics which are publicly and professionally humiliated. And then
eventually after they have lost all credibility and die, some years later
their work is believed and accepted as truth.
The search for Truth, must never assume anything.
To assume opposition is a bias.
The way the mind works must be noted. It seeks goals. If the goal is to do
the opposite, it will put blinkers on other factors.
Truth can only be found when it is sought with all the searcher's heart.
And then it must be tested for consistency.
A big bang from a "universe egg" just does not gel. Perhaps if you can show
us the goose which laid the egg?
PS Religion is the antichrist.
PEace
Ray
.
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
06 Dec 2006 01:22:16 AM |
|
|
Code Programmer wrote:
"AcesLucky" <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cVkdh.11007$Zb5.431@newsfe13.phx...
What has creation science added to man's knowledge?
Please give an example of "creation science" as opposed to science. And
what useful, functional discoveries have creation science offered to the
fields of science?
How has creation science benefited us in the areas of:
Electronics
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
Astronomy
Computer technology
Medicine
Mathematics
Geology
Pick something! And explain how creation science has added to any field of
scientific endeavor.
--
I have a theory: There's no such thing as creation science. Like faith, it
relies on "make believe" and adds nothing to the body of knowledge for the
benefit of Man.
AcesLucky
I do not endorse this "creation science".
However...
The evolution with the Big Bang theory which I have heard about says that we
all came from all matter and energy condensed into a mass which then
promptly one day decided to explode. (Universe Egg)
That seems to take more faith to believe that everything could exist in that
mass
in the first place.
Scientists came up with the big bang theory because the
matter in space is expanding away from a central point
(location).
Once you observe this phenomena and confirm it through
factual analysis year after year, all over the astronomical
field for any student to personally measure...
One can conclude whatever they like, but they cannot deny
the factual data of expansion from a central location.
The fact that the matter is propelled from this location
suggests an explosion. No other known laws of physics
contradict inertia, so explosion is a natural conclusion.
That doesn't take faith. It takes an understanding of simple
astronomical data.
And then there is the thought of, well where did that come from in the first
place?
Science tells us energy cannot be created nor destroyed only transformed.
That all matter is energy in a different form.
Likewise matter cannot be destroyed, but only transformed into energy.
This is stating that all energy is eternal.
Consider that this eternal energy is all present, in all things, through all
things, the source of all things.
I'm not understanding why that's an issue.
Lets say the search for TRUTH as science seeks to do independantly of
religion, has also been effected by religion. In that they are fighting
religion, instead of seeking pure truth. That is not being very scientific.
It's also not the case. Science has no consciousness of
religion, or anything else. Science is a "method" of seeking
the truth. And good science has no bias whatsoever. ANY type
of bias in science, especially any form of confirmation
bias, is the arch enemy of science.
So science doesn't fight religion, it's just that religion
brings with it it's own set of biases, which simply is not
allowed when seeking truth.
(It would be like going before a judge where the judge
already believes you're guilty, whether you're innocent or
not, evidence be damned.)
It is being just as biased as any religious fanatic. And science too has
it's heretics which are publicly and professionally humiliated. And then
eventually after they have lost all credibility and die, some years later
their work is believed and accepted as truth.
Bias about what? See, if a scientist BELIEVES something and
reports a scientific conclusion, he openly invites challenge
for the purpose of dis-proving the conclusion, the method of
study, the right protocols, everything.
The last thing she wants to be is "wrong" but it's her duty
to subject it to every challenge to its veracity. She simply
cannot afford to allow bias to cloud her judgment.
The search for Truth, must never assume anything.
Agreed. (That's why religion is disallowed. It's conclusions
are set long before the experimentation begins.)
To assume opposition is a bias.
The way the mind works must be noted. It seeks goals. If the goal is to do
the opposite, it will put blinkers on other factors.
Truth can only be found when it is sought with all the searcher's heart.
And then it must be tested for consistency.
A big bang from a "universe egg" just does not gel. Perhaps if you can show
us the goose which laid the egg?
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking where did
the matter come from?
Answer: So far we cannot observe something from nothing, and
vise versa. So if it is true that energy only changes state
(can neither be destroyed nor created), then matter/energy
is an eternal system. Quite simply, it has always been here.
It is a constant.
PS Religion is the antichrist.
PEace
Ray
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
06 Dec 2006 09:15:43 AM |
|
|
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in
news:Jcudh.4070$lL6.475@newsfe08.phx:
Code Programmer wrote:
"AcesLucky" <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cVkdh.11007$Zb5.431@newsfe13.phx...
What has creation science added to man's knowledge?
Please give an example of "creation science" as opposed to science.
And what useful, functional discoveries have creation science
offered to the fields of science?
How has creation science benefited us in the areas of:
Electronics
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
Astronomy
Computer technology
Medicine
Mathematics
Geology
Pick something! And explain how creation science has added to any
field of scientific endeavor.
--
I have a theory: There's no such thing as creation science. Like
faith, it relies on "make believe" and adds nothing to the body of
knowledge for the benefit of Man.
AcesLucky
I do not endorse this "creation science".
However...
The evolution with the Big Bang theory which I have heard about says
that we all came from all matter and energy condensed into a mass
which then promptly one day decided to explode. (Universe Egg)
That seems to take more faith to believe that everything could exist
in that mass
in the first place.
Scientists came up with the big bang theory because the
matter in space is expanding away from a central point
(location).
Uh, actually not. All the points are expanding away from each other.
There is no CENTRAL point IN the universe.
Once you observe this phenomena and confirm it through
factual analysis year after year, all over the astronomical
field for any student to personally measure...
One can conclude whatever they like, but they cannot deny
the factual data of expansion from a central location.
The fact that the matter is propelled from this location
suggests an explosion. No other known laws of physics
contradict inertia, so explosion is a natural conclusion.
That doesn't take faith. It takes an understanding of simple
astronomical data.
True, at least on the simplest level. On a more profound level, it also
requires a good grasp of general relativity.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
06 Dec 2006 02:40:37 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in
news:Jcudh.4070$lL6.475@newsfe08.phx:
Code Programmer wrote:
"AcesLucky" <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cVkdh.11007$Zb5.431@newsfe13.phx...
What has creation science added to man's knowledge?
Please give an example of "creation science" as opposed to science.
And what useful, functional discoveries have creation science
offered to the fields of science?
How has creation science benefited us in the areas of:
Electronics
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
Astronomy
Computer technology
Medicine
Mathematics
Geology
Pick something! And explain how creation science has added to any
field of scientific endeavor.
--
I have a theory: There's no such thing as creation science. Like
faith, it relies on "make believe" and adds nothing to the body of
knowledge for the benefit of Man.
AcesLucky
I do not endorse this "creation science".
However...
The evolution with the Big Bang theory which I have heard about says
that we all came from all matter and energy condensed into a mass
which then promptly one day decided to explode. (Universe Egg)
That seems to take more faith to believe that everything could exist
in that mass
in the first place.
Scientists came up with the big bang theory because the
matter in space is expanding away from a central point
(location).
Uh, actually not. All the points are expanding away from each other.
There is no CENTRAL point IN the universe.
Thank you. I was just commenting on that. I admit, I'm not
sure I can conceive well what the universe looks like as a
contraction except by what I explain below.
It gets smaller but the distance between matter gets closer,
and so the idea of direction seems (in my mind) to force a
location (not on the surface, but in the direction of
deflation). I've brought my own bias to the table, because
as the balloon deflates, every area on the surface maintains
a direction of contraction. (Not from relative distance of
object to object, but of state A to state B.]
Following that vector points to a location. [Not on the
balloon surface, but the surface at state A compared with
the surface at state B (deflated)]. And in this sense, there
would be a definite location or direction to which
everything deflates.
Feel free to correct my thinking on this.
Once you observe this phenomena and confirm it through
factual analysis year after year, all over the astronomical
field for any student to personally measure...
One can conclude whatever they like, but they cannot deny
the factual data of expansion from a central location.
The fact that the matter is propelled from this location
suggests an explosion. No other known laws of physics
contradict inertia, so explosion is a natural conclusion.
That doesn't take faith. It takes an understanding of simple
astronomical data.
True, at least on the simplest level. On a more profound level, it also
requires a good grasp of general relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
07 Dec 2006 12:04:11 PM |
|
|
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in
news:aVFdh.6797$ej3.5359@newsfe16.phx:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in
news:Jcudh.4070$lL6.475@newsfe08.phx:
Code Programmer wrote:
"AcesLucky" <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cVkdh.11007$Zb5.431@newsfe13.phx...
What has creation science added to man's knowledge?
Please give an example of "creation science" as opposed to
science. And what useful, functional discoveries have creation
science offered to the fields of science?
How has creation science benefited us in the areas of:
Electronics
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
Astronomy
Computer technology
Medicine
Mathematics
Geology
Pick something! And explain how creation science has added to any
field of scientific endeavor.
--
I have a theory: There's no such thing as creation science. Like
faith, it relies on "make believe" and adds nothing to the body of
knowledge for the benefit of Man.
AcesLucky
I do not endorse this "creation science".
However...
The evolution with the Big Bang theory which I have heard about
says that we all came from all matter and energy condensed into a
mass which then promptly one day decided to explode. (Universe Egg)
That seems to take more faith to believe that everything could
exist in that mass
in the first place.
Scientists came up with the big bang theory because the
matter in space is expanding away from a central point
(location).
Uh, actually not. All the points are expanding away from each other.
There is no CENTRAL point IN the universe.
Thank you. I was just commenting on that. I admit, I'm not
sure I can conceive well what the universe looks like as a
contraction except by what I explain below.
It gets smaller but the distance between matter gets closer,
and so the idea of direction seems (in my mind) to force a
location (not on the surface, but in the direction of
deflation). I've brought my own bias to the table, because
as the balloon deflates, every area on the surface maintains
a direction of contraction. (Not from relative distance of
object to object, but of state A to state B.]
Following that vector points to a location. [Not on the
balloon surface, but the surface at state A compared with
the surface at state B (deflated)]. And in this sense, there
would be a definite location or direction to which
everything deflates.
Feel free to correct my thinking on this.
This direction is, however, at right angles to anything on the balloon's
surface. The "central point" isn't ON the balloon's surface at all and
therefore isn't IN the ballon universe at all. There is no two-dimension
surface vector on the balloon that can point to it, either directly or
along a balloon geodesic.
I refer you to Mr. A. Square from Flatland.
(Flatland--an excellent book about 2, 3 and 4-dimensional topologies for
the lay person, by the way)
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
07 Dec 2006 06:12:31 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in
news:aVFdh.6797$ej3.5359@newsfe16.phx:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in
news:Jcudh.4070$lL6.475@newsfe08.phx:
Code Programmer wrote:
"AcesLucky" <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cVkdh.11007$Zb5.431@newsfe13.phx...
What has creation science added to man's knowledge?
Please give an example of "creation science" as opposed to
science. And what useful, functional discoveries have creation
science offered to the fields of science?
How has creation science benefited us in the areas of:
Electronics
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
Astronomy
Computer technology
Medicine
Mathematics
Geology
Pick something! And explain how creation science has added to any
field of scientific endeavor.
--
I have a theory: There's no such thing as creation science. Like
faith, it relies on "make believe" and adds nothing to the body of
knowledge for the benefit of Man.
AcesLucky
I do not endorse this "creation science".
However...
The evolution with the Big Bang theory which I have heard about
says that we all came from all matter and energy condensed into a
mass which then promptly one day decided to explode. (Universe Egg)
That seems to take more faith to believe that everything could
exist in that mass
in the first place.
Scientists came up with the big bang theory because the
matter in space is expanding away from a central point
(location).
Uh, actually not. All the points are expanding away from each other.
There is no CENTRAL point IN the universe.
Thank you. I was just commenting on that. I admit, I'm not
sure I can conceive well what the universe looks like as a
contraction except by what I explain below.
It gets smaller but the distance between matter gets closer,
and so the idea of direction seems (in my mind) to force a
location (not on the surface, but in the direction of
deflation). I've brought my own bias to the table, because
as the balloon deflates, every area on the surface maintains
a direction of contraction. (Not from relative distance of
object to object, but of state A to state B.]
Following that vector points to a location. [Not on the
balloon surface, but the surface at state A compared with
the surface at state B (deflated)]. And in this sense, there
would be a definite location or direction to which
everything deflates.
Feel free to correct my thinking on this.
This direction is, however, at right angles to anything on the balloon's
surface. The "central point" isn't ON the balloon's surface at all and
therefore isn't IN the ballon universe at all. There is no two-dimension
surface vector on the balloon that can point to it, either directly or
along a balloon geodesic.
I refer you to Mr. A. Square from Flatland.
(Flatland--an excellent book about 2, 3 and 4-dimensional topologies for
the lay person, by the way)
Yes, my father introduced me to Flatland when I was in grade
school. (His major was physics.)
And I do see your point. I can only approach what I'm
thinking (as an explanation) by saying 'there is a "place"
even on our 'surface' that is expanding at a slower rate
than at another place.' Such a place (the slower) would be
closer to the location I am inappropriately describing as
"the center", than another place on the surface.
If we ever had the tools to measure huge distances like that
(and their expansion rates), we could eventually discover a
point of expansion even though it may not be a surface
description.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
09 Dec 2006 02:02:08 PM |
|
|
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in
news:S52eh.10390$ej3.372@newsfe16.phx:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in
news:aVFdh.6797$ej3.5359@newsfe16.phx:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in
news:Jcudh.4070$lL6.475@newsfe08.phx:
Code Programmer wrote:
"AcesLucky" <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cVkdh.11007$Zb5.431@newsfe13.phx...
What has creation science added to man's knowledge?
Please give an example of "creation science" as opposed to
science. And what useful, functional discoveries have creation
science offered to the fields of science?
How has creation science benefited us in the areas of:
Electronics
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
Astronomy
Computer technology
Medicine
Mathematics
Geology
Pick something! And explain how creation science has added to
any field of scientific endeavor.
--
I have a theory: There's no such thing as creation science. Like
faith, it relies on "make believe" and adds nothing to the body
of knowledge for the benefit of Man.
AcesLucky
I do not endorse this "creation science".
However...
The evolution with the Big Bang theory which I have heard about
says that we all came from all matter and energy condensed into a
mass which then promptly one day decided to explode. (Universe
Egg)
That seems to take more faith to believe that everything could
exist in that mass
in the first place.
Scientists came up with the big bang theory because the
matter in space is expanding away from a central point
(location).
Uh, actually not. All the points are expanding away from each
other.
There is no CENTRAL point IN the universe.
Thank you. I was just commenting on that. I admit, I'm not
sure I can conceive well what the universe looks like as a
contraction except by what I explain below.
It gets smaller but the distance between matter gets closer,
and so the idea of direction seems (in my mind) to force a
location (not on the surface, but in the direction of
deflation). I've brought my own bias to the table, because
as the balloon deflates, every area on the surface maintains
a direction of contraction. (Not from relative distance of
object to object, but of state A to state B.]
Following that vector points to a location. [Not on the
balloon surface, but the surface at state A compared with
the surface at state B (deflated)]. And in this sense, there
would be a definite location or direction to which
everything deflates.
Feel free to correct my thinking on this.
This direction is, however, at right angles to anything on the
balloon's surface. The "central point" isn't ON the balloon's
surface at all and therefore isn't IN the ballon universe at all.
There is no two-dimension surface vector on the balloon that can
point to it, either directly or along a balloon geodesic.
I refer you to Mr. A. Square from Flatland.
(Flatland--an excellent book about 2, 3 and 4-dimensional topologies
for the lay person, by the way)
Yes, my father introduced me to Flatland when I was in grade
school. (His major was physics.)
And I do see your point. I can only approach what I'm
thinking (as an explanation) by saying 'there is a "place"
even on our 'surface' that is expanding at a slower rate
than at another place.' Such a place (the slower) would be
closer to the location I am inappropriately describing as
"the center", than another place on the surface.
Well, there may be places where the expansion SEEMS slower, but I'm not
sure that they are anything but local movements.
If we ever had the tools to measure huge distances like that
(and their expansion rates), we could eventually discover a
point of expansion even though it may not be a surface
description.
Actually, the pure model simply doesn't have such a point IN the
universe.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
09 Dec 2006 04:57:12 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in
news:S52eh.10390$ej3.372@newsfe16.phx:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in
news:aVFdh.6797$ej3.5359@newsfe16.phx:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in
news:Jcudh.4070$lL6.475@newsfe08.phx:
Code Programmer wrote:
"AcesLucky" <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cVkdh.11007$Zb5.431@newsfe13.phx...
What has creation science added to man's knowledge?
Please give an example of "creation science" as opposed to
science. And what useful, functional discoveries have creation
science offered to the fields of science?
How has creation science benefited us in the areas of:
Electronics
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
Astronomy
Computer technology
Medicine
Mathematics
Geology
Pick something! And explain how creation science has added to
any field of scientific endeavor.
--
I have a theory: There's no such thing as creation science. Like
faith, it relies on "make believe" and adds nothing to the body
of knowledge for the benefit of Man.
AcesLucky
I do not endorse this "creation science".
However...
The evolution with the Big Bang theory which I have heard about
says that we all came from all matter and energy condensed into a
mass which then promptly one day decided to explode. (Universe
Egg)
That seems to take more faith to believe that everything could
exist in that mass
in the first place.
Scientists came up with the big bang theory because the
matter in space is expanding away from a central point
(location).
Uh, actually not. All the points are expanding away from each
other.
There is no CENTRAL point IN the universe.
Thank you. I was just commenting on that. I admit, I'm not
sure I can conceive well what the universe looks like as a
contraction except by what I explain below.
It gets smaller but the distance between matter gets closer,
and so the idea of direction seems (in my mind) to force a
location (not on the surface, but in the direction of
deflation). I've brought my own bias to the table, because
as the balloon deflates, every area on the surface maintains
a direction of contraction. (Not from relative distance of
object to object, but of state A to state B.]
Following that vector points to a location. [Not on the
balloon surface, but the surface at state A compared with
the surface at state B (deflated)]. And in this sense, there
would be a definite location or direction to which
everything deflates.
Feel free to correct my thinking on this.
This direction is, however, at right angles to anything on the
balloon's surface. The "central point" isn't ON the balloon's
surface at all and therefore isn't IN the ballon universe at all.
There is no two-dimension surface vector on the balloon that can
point to it, either directly or along a balloon geodesic.
I refer you to Mr. A. Square from Flatland.
(Flatland--an excellent book about 2, 3 and 4-dimensional topologies
for the lay person, by the way)
Yes, my father introduced me to Flatland when I was in grade
school. (His major was physics.)
And I do see your point. I can only approach what I'm
thinking (as an explanation) by saying 'there is a "place"
even on our 'surface' that is expanding at a slower rate
than at another place.' Such a place (the slower) would be
closer to the location I am inappropriately describing as
"the center", than another place on the surface.
Well, there may be places where the expansion SEEMS slower, but I'm not
sure that they are anything but local movements.
If we ever had the tools to measure huge distances like that
(and their expansion rates), we could eventually discover a
point of expansion even though it may not be a surface
description.
Actually, the pure model simply doesn't have such a point IN the
universe.
Even to this day, I can rarely coax myself out of a
Euclidean viewpoint of looking at things. So when I imagine
our universe being represented, for example, as a 3-D
surface (on a balloon, nevertheless), I still want to
imagine the center of the balloon (the center of the sphere
with air in it) as another dimension that DOES have the
center we are really looking for, though not represented on
the surface.
That, to me, is a location from where the expansions and
contractions emanate. In there, somewhere, is a place (a
physical location) that doesn't move..in relation to
everything else, even though it too is moving, but stays
centered about everything else.
I also cannot imagine, (just because it is not accessible to
our senses or instrumentation), that there is anything
actually outside the universe.
There is nothing "not here" that exists. ("here" being
existence) Any thing "outside" the universe merely admits
the universe is larger than we observed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
12 Dec 2006 05:15:35 PM |
|
|
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in news:dbHeh.110099$JA.91825
@newsfe11.phx:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in
news:S52eh.10390$ej3.372@newsfe16.phx:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in
news:aVFdh.6797$ej3.5359@newsfe16.phx:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
AcesLucky <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in
news:Jcudh.4070$lL6.475@newsfe08.phx:
Code Programmer wrote:
"AcesLucky" <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cVkdh.11007$Zb5.431@newsfe13.phx...
What has creation science added to man's knowledge?
Please give an example of "creation science" as opposed to
science. And what useful, functional discoveries have creation
science offered to the fields of science?
How has creation science benefited us in the areas of:
Electronics
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
Astronomy
Computer technology
Medicine
Mathematics
Geology
Pick something! And explain how creation science has added to
any field of scientific endeavor.
--
I have a theory: There's no such thing as creation science.
Like
faith, it relies on "make believe" and adds nothing to the body
of knowledge for the benefit of Man.
AcesLucky
I do not endorse this "creation science".
However...
The evolution with the Big Bang theory which I have heard about
says that we all came from all matter and energy condensed into
a
mass which then promptly one day decided to explode. (Universe
Egg)
That seems to take more faith to believe that everything could
exist in that mass
in the first place.
Scientists came up with the big bang theory because the
matter in space is expanding away from a central point
(location).
Uh, actually not. All the points are expanding away from each
other.
There is no CENTRAL point IN the universe.
Thank you. I was just commenting on that. I admit, I'm not
sure I can conceive well what the universe looks like as a
contraction except by what I explain below.
It gets smaller but the distance between matter gets closer,
and so the idea of direction seems (in my mind) to force a
location (not on the surface, but in the direction of
deflation). I've brought my own bias to the table, because
as the balloon deflates, every area on the surface maintains
a direction of contraction. (Not from relative distance of
object to object, but of state A to state B.]
Following that vector points to a location. [Not on the
balloon surface, but the surface at state A compared with
the surface at state B (deflated)]. And in this sense, there
would be a definite location or direction to which
everything deflates.
Feel free to correct my thinking on this.
This direction is, however, at right angles to anything on the
balloon's surface. The "central point" isn't ON the balloon's
surface at all and therefore isn't IN the ballon universe at all.
There is no two-dimension surface vector on the balloon that can
point to it, either directly or along a balloon geodesic.
I refer you to Mr. A. Square from Flatland.
(Flatland--an excellent book about 2, 3 and 4-dimensional topologies
for the lay person, by the way)
Yes, my father introduced me to Flatland when I was in grade
school. (His major was physics.)
And I do see your point. I can only approach what I'm
thinking (as an explanation) by saying 'there is a "place"
even on our 'surface' that is expanding at a slower rate
than at another place.' Such a place (the slower) would be
closer to the location I am inappropriately describing as
"the center", than another place on the surface.
Well, there may be places where the expansion SEEMS slower, but I'm
not
sure that they are anything but local movements.
If we ever had the tools to measure huge distances like that
(and their expansion rates), we could eventually discover a
point of expansion even though it may not be a surface
description.
Actually, the pure model simply doesn't have such a point IN the
universe.
Even to this day, I can rarely coax myself out of a
Euclidean viewpoint of looking at things. So when I imagine
our universe being represented, for example, as a 3-D
surface (on a balloon, nevertheless), I still want to
imagine the center of the balloon (the center of the sphere
with air in it) as another dimension that DOES have the
center we are really looking for, though not represented on
the surface.
That, to me, is a location from where the expansions and
contractions emanate. In there, somewhere, is a place (a
physical location) that doesn't move..in relation to
everything else, even though it too is moving, but stays
centered about everything else.
It need not be anything real at all, though. Just a mathematical
abstraction.
I also cannot imagine, (just because it is not accessible to
our senses or instrumentation), that there is anything
actually outside the universe.
Actually, that part doesn't bother me much. If there is something beyond
the universe it is (as are parts that are IN the universe) forever
excluded from our view by a very hard event horizon.
There is nothing "not here" that exists. ("here" being
existence) Any thing "outside" the universe merely admits
the universe is larger than we observed.
And it could be. But we have no way, as yet, of knowing.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jo" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
06 Dec 2006 08:50:26 AM |
|
|
AcesLucky wrote:
Scientists came up with the big bang theory because the
matter in space is expanding away from a central point
(location).
Just on a point of fact...the expansion is not from "a central point". Think
of dots drawn the surface of an expanding balloon. Those dots are all
expanding away from each other, not away from any particular point. So it is
with the observable universe.
This doesn't detract from your...er...point, though.
Once you observe this phenomena and confirm it through
factual analysis year after year, all over the astronomical
field for any student to personally measure...
Yes, I'm an amateur astronomer and could easily observe and measure red
shift first hand if I assembled some simple equipment.
Jo
.
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
06 Dec 2006 02:16:21 PM |
|
|
Jo wrote:
AcesLucky wrote:
Scientists came up with the big bang theory because the
matter in space is expanding away from a central point
(location).
Just on a point of fact...the expansion is not from "a central point". Think
of dots drawn the surface of an expanding balloon. Those dots are all
expanding away from each other, not away from any particular point. So it is
with the observable universe.
This doesn't detract from your...er...point, though.
Once you observe this phenomena and confirm it through
factual analysis year after year, all over the astronomical
field for any student to personally measure...
Yes, I'm an amateur astronomer and could easily observe and measure red
shift first hand if I assembled some simple equipment.
Jo
But your findings wouldn't be different if you where a
"creation scientist" would it?
Ah, but your interpretation of the data might lead you to
different conclusions, but why? Only so they could conform
to preconceived beliefs. That's the baggage. And it obscures
the truth.
But as a good scientist yourself, you wouldn't think of
doing that, would you?
BTW, thanks for the correction above. I did have astronomy
in college and I loved it. Most people, however, were
extremely bored. (I'm a closet nerd.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jo" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
07 Dec 2006 06:12:03 AM |
|
|
AcesLucky wrote:
Yes, I'm an amateur astronomer and could easily observe and measure
red shift first hand if I assembled some simple equipment.
Ah, but your interpretation of the data might lead you to
different conclusions, but why? Only so they could conform
to preconceived beliefs. That's the baggage. And it obscures
the truth.
But as a good scientist yourself, you wouldn't think of
doing that, would you?
I interpret red shift as a Doppler effect because the Doppler effect is an
easily verifiable process to explain this phenomena. Doppler shifting of
light is routinely used in laser speed detectors, for example. Right now, I
have no reason to believe that the light from distant objects behaves any
differently from any other light in this respect.
The reddening can easily be distinguished from reddening by selective
absorption because the spectral emission and absorption lines are also
shifted.
Furthermore, the amount of red-shift increases with distance, on average.
Google 'Hubble Constant' for details. Naturally, there are some objects that
have appreciable velocity vectors toward/away from us and will therefore
show anomalous shifts.
Of course, it is possible that the red shift arises from an, as yet unknown,
mechanism which could cause us to revise our conclusions about universal
expansion and the Big Bang. If such a mechanism were suggested then I would
be very interested. The repercussions in the field of cosmology would be
fascinating.
But that hasn't happened yet. Do you have any suggestions for an alternative
red-shifting process ?
Jo
.
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
07 Dec 2006 08:03:33 AM |
|
|
Jo wrote:
AcesLucky wrote:
Yes, I'm an amateur astronomer and could easily observe and measure
red shift first hand if I assembled some simple equipment.
Ah, but your interpretation of the data might lead you to
different conclusions, but why? Only so they could conform
to preconceived beliefs. That's the baggage. And it obscures
the truth.
But as a good scientist yourself, you wouldn't think of
doing that, would you?
I interpret red shift as a Doppler effect because the Doppler effect is an
easily verifiable process to explain this phenomena. Doppler shifting of
light is routinely used in laser speed detectors, for example. Right now, I
have no reason to believe that the light from distant objects behaves any
differently from any other light in this respect.
The reddening can easily be distinguished from reddening by selective
absorption because the spectral emission and absorption lines are also
shifted.
Furthermore, the amount of red-shift increases with distance, on average.
Google 'Hubble Constant' for details. Naturally, there are some objects that
have appreciable velocity vectors toward/away from us and will therefore
show anomalous shifts.
Of course, it is possible that the red shift arises from an, as yet unknown,
mechanism which could cause us to revise our conclusions about universal
expansion and the Big Bang. If such a mechanism were suggested then I would
be very interested. The repercussions in the field of cosmology would be
fascinating.
But that hasn't happened yet. Do you have any suggestions for an alternative
red-shifting process ?
Jo
Nope. But I think it's wonderful that as a scientist you can
change your idea of the world with new and improved evidence
without any blow to your ego.
How wonderful would it be too if religious people did the
same. Conclusions should be based on the available data, not
a rigid faith that rejects any current evidence to the
contrary. Which is really my point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Code Programmer" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
07 Dec 2006 10:48:42 AM |
|
|
"AcesLucky" <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:fbVdh.5721$un3.1476@newsfe14.phx...
Jo wrote:
AcesLucky wrote:
Yes, I'm an amateur astronomer and could easily observe and measure
red shift first hand if I assembled some simple equipment.
Ah, but your interpretation of the data might lead you to
different conclusions, but why? Only so they could conform
to preconceived beliefs. That's the baggage. And it obscures
the truth.
But as a good scientist yourself, you wouldn't think of
doing that, would you?
I interpret red shift as a Doppler effect because the Doppler effect is
an easily verifiable process to explain this phenomena. Doppler shifting
of light is routinely used in laser speed detectors, for example. Right
now, I have no reason to believe that the light from distant objects
behaves any differently from any other light in this respect.
The reddening can easily be distinguished from reddening by selective
absorption because the spectral emission and absorption lines are also
shifted.
Furthermore, the amount of red-shift increases with distance, on average.
Google 'Hubble Constant' for details. Naturally, there are some objects
that have appreciable velocity vectors toward/away from us and will
therefore show anomalous shifts.
Of course, it is possible that the red shift arises from an, as yet
unknown, mechanism which could cause us to revise our conclusions about
universal expansion and the Big Bang. If such a mechanism were suggested
then I would be very interested. The repercussions in the field of
cosmology would be fascinating.
But that hasn't happened yet. Do you have any suggestions for an
alternative red-shifting process ?
Jo
Nope. But I think it's wonderful that as a scientist you can change your
idea of the world with new and improved evidence without any blow to your
ego.
How wonderful would it be too if religious people did the same.
What you actually mean is for religious people to become englightened
spiriutally so they grow in knowledge.
And likewise those who think God does not exist. They too should learn the
spiritual truths of inner peace, love, kindness, the meaning of life and
happiness.
Do not mistaken the religoius God with the real God. God is love. God is
just and kind and righteous. IT means everyone gets a fair go based on their
hearts intentions. It means one persons sin, is not sin to another, as their
heart was differing. It means that a good deed can be done with a sinful
heart of the wrong attitude.
While we are not perfect. We are trying to overcome our flaws so we dont
kill each other off.
--
PEace
www.worldpeace.mail333.com
Ray M O'Keeffe
An open mind has eyes to see and ears to hear.
If you don't get to the end because you dont like the message, then dont be
surprised when it all goes south and you didnt see it coming.
God loves everyone. Remember that.
Blessed are the peace makers they shall be called the sons of God.
Many 666 Signs Point to 1 man...
http://beast666.faithweb.com/signs666.htm
5th Trumpet Fulfilled (Iraq) Pictures show prophecies.
http://beast666.faithweb.com/FifthTrumpet.htm
911 Foreknown by God points to Beast in Power
http://www.id-chip.4t.com/
www.angelfire.com/oz/zen/prophecy/
http://watchman888.land.ru/images/
http://beast666.faithweb.com/
Conclusions should be based on the available data, not
a rigid faith that rejects any current evidence to the contrary. Which is
really my point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
08 Dec 2006 03:06:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 03:48:42 +1100, "Code Programmer"
<raymokeeffe@hotmail.com> wrote:
It means that a good deed can be done with a sinful
heart of the wrong attitude.
What does this mean? Could you explain?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Code Programmer" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
08 Dec 2006 10:13:52 AM |
|
|
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:kjain2d0nj73k3k1gspk95nu70uaacrol2@4ax.com...
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 03:48:42 +1100, "Code Programmer"
<raymokeeffe@hotmail.com> wrote:
It means that a good deed can be done with a sinful
heart of the wrong attitude.
What does this mean? Could you explain?
Someone can give with a begrudging attitude. While the outward deed is good
and even the fruits of that deed for those which receive it is good, the
person doing it is robbing themselves of any blessing. That is
psychologically at the least, and spiritually, as it hinders their spiritual
growth and life and life more abundantly.
Sin is not always death, but harm, which if kept up leads to death. If we
are not growing we are dying. There is relative variations in one direction
or the other.
With that in mind the other aspect I mentioned about sin to one is different
to another, was of Paul saying food sacrificed to idols is not a sin unless
you believe it is. As there are no such things as other gods. And that all
things a cleansed with the giving of thanks. Likewise Jesus says of what
goes into a man is not what makes him unclean, but what comes out of him,
(ie the mouth speaks forth the abundance of the heart [proverbs])
There are many striving. When the idea is to love God and His ways, and seek
to understand their practical application and the life and life more
abundantly there is in the benefits of such. Without this, truly it is dead
religion. Without the love as the motivator, it is based on fear, and as
such is the old ways that bring death as in the Old Testament. The ways of
life are based on love and giving love, and in doing so, God can replenish
us with His love in the flow of the eternal spirit to all as an overflowing
well.
--
PEace
www.worldpeace.mail333.com
Ray M O'Keeffe
An open mind has eyes to see and ears to hear.
If you don't get to the end because you dont like the message, then dont be
surprised when it all goes south and you didnt see it coming.
God loves everyone. Remember that.
Blessed are the peace makers they shall be called the sons of God.
Many 666 Signs Point to 1 man...
http://beast666.faithweb.com/signs666.htm
5th Trumpet Fulfilled (Iraq) Pictures show prophecies.
http://beast666.faithweb.com/FifthTrumpet.htm
911 Foreknown by God points to Beast in Power
http://www.id-chip.4t.com/
www.angelfire.com/oz/zen/prophecy/
http://watchman888.land.ru/images/
http://beast666.faithweb.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
08 Dec 2006 03:23:59 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 03:13:52 +1100, "Code Programmer"
<raymokeeffe@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:kjain2d0nj73k3k1gspk95nu70uaacrol2@4ax.com...
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 03:48:42 +1100, "Code Programmer"
<raymokeeffe@hotmail.com> wrote:
It means that a good deed can be done with a sinful
heart of the wrong attitude.
What does this mean? Could you explain?
Someone can give with a begrudging attitude. While the outward deed is good
and even the fruits of that deed for those which receive it is good, the
person doing it is robbing themselves of any blessing. That is
psychologically at the least, and spiritually, as it hinders their spiritual
growth and life and life more abundantly.
Interesting perspective, but I still doubt it is possible. It may not
be difficult to imagine such situation, but does it really happen in
real life? Do you know any examples?
Sin is not always death, but harm, which if kept up leads to death. If we
are not growing we are dying. There is relative variations in one direction
or the other.
With that in mind the other aspect I mentioned about sin to one is different
to another, was of Paul saying food sacrificed to idols is not a sin unless
you believe it is. As there are no such things as other gods. And that all
things a cleansed with the giving of thanks. Likewise Jesus says of what
goes into a man is not what makes him unclean, but what comes out of him,
(ie the mouth speaks forth the abundance of the heart [proverbs])
There are many striving. When the idea is to love God and His ways, and seek
to understand their practical application and the life and life more
abundantly there is in the benefits of such. Without this, truly it is dead
religion. Without the love as the motivator, it is based on fear, and as
such is the old ways that bring death as in the Old Testament. The ways of
life are based on love and giving love, and in doing so, God can replenish
us with His love in the flow of the eternal spirit to all as an overflowing
well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Code Programmer" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
08 Dec 2006 07:58:12 PM |
|
|
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:ljljn2tpp6aohk61pvgu9d32jtad10e78j@4ax.com...
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 03:13:52 +1100, "Code Programmer"
<raymokeeffe@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:kjain2d0nj73k3k1gspk95nu70uaacrol2@4ax.com...
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 03:48:42 +1100, "Code Programmer"
<raymokeeffe@hotmail.com> wrote:
It means that a good deed can be done with a sinful
heart of the wrong attitude.
What does this mean? Could you explain?
Someone can give with a begrudging attitude. While the outward deed is
good
and even the fruits of that deed for those which receive it is good, the
person doing it is robbing themselves of any blessing. That is
psychologically at the least, and spiritually, as it hinders their
spiritual
growth and life and life more abundantly.
Interesting perspective, but I still doubt it is possible. It may not
be difficult to imagine such situation, but does it really happen in
real life? Do you know any examples?
Giving donations because you fear what others may think.
Praying in public so you get seen to so HOLY.
Judging others as less than you (got be amongst similar people for this to
blend in)
Sin is not always death, but harm, which if kept up leads to death. If we
are not growing we are dying. There is relative variations in one
direction
or the other.
With that in mind the other aspect I mentioned about sin to one is
different
to another, was of Paul saying food sacrificed to idols is not a sin
unless
you believe it is. As there are no such things as other gods. And that all
things a cleansed with the giving of thanks. Likewise Jesus says of what
goes into a man is not what makes him unclean, but what comes out of him,
(ie the mouth speaks forth the abundance of the heart [proverbs])
There are many striving. When the idea is to love God and His ways, and
seek
to understand their practical application and the life and life more
abundantly there is in the benefits of such. Without this, truly it is
dead
religion. Without the love as the motivator, it is based on fear, and as
such is the old ways that bring death as in the Old Testament. The ways of
life are based on love and giving love, and in doing so, God can replenish
us with His love in the flow of the eternal spirit to all as an
overflowing
well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
09 Dec 2006 03:02:06 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 12:58:12 +1100, "Code Programmer"
<raymokeeffe@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:ljljn2tpp6aohk61pvgu9d32jtad10e78j@4ax.com...
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 03:13:52 +1100, "Code Programmer"
<raymokeeffe@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:kjain2d0nj73k3k1gspk95nu70uaacrol2@4ax.com...
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 03:48:42 +1100, "Code Programmer"
<raymokeeffe@hotmail.com> wrote:
It means that a good deed can be done with a sinful
heart of the wrong attitude.
What does this mean? Could you explain?
Someone can give with a begrudging attitude. While the outward deed is
good
and even the fruits of that deed for those which receive it is good, the
person doing it is robbing themselves of any blessing. That is
psychologically at the least, and spiritually, as it hinders their
spiritual
growth and life and life more abundantly.
Interesting perspective, but I still doubt it is possible. It may not
be difficult to imagine such situation, but does it really happen in
real life? Do you know any examples?
Giving donations because you fear what others may think.
Praying in public so you get seen to so HOLY.
Judging others as less than you (got be amongst similar people for this to
blend in)
Are they really good things?
Sin is not always death, but harm, which if kept up leads to death. If we
are not growing we are dying. There is relative variations in one
direction
or the other.
With that in mind the other aspect I mentioned about sin to one is
different
to another, was of Paul saying food sacrificed to idols is not a sin
unless
you believe it is. As there are no such things as other gods. And that all
things a cleansed with the giving of thanks. Likewise Jesus says of what
goes into a man is not what makes him unclean, but what comes out of him,
(ie the mouth speaks forth the abundance of the heart [proverbs])
There are many striving. When the idea is to love God and His ways, and
seek
to understand their practical application and the life and life more
abundantly there is in the benefits of such. Without this, truly it is
dead
religion. Without the love as the motivator, it is based on fear, and as
such is the old ways that bring death as in the Old Testament. The ways of
life are based on love and giving love, and in doing so, God can replenish
us with His love in the flow of the eternal spirit to all as an
overflowing
well.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Code Programmer" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
08 Dec 2006 07:59:58 PM |
|
|
and also see the rest of my post it explains the stituation as part of that
context
Jesus came to show us peace ways, not perpetuate the violent murder of the
OT.
--
PEace
www.worldpeace.mail333.com
Ray M O'Keeffe
An open mind has eyes to see and ears to hear.
If you don't get to the end because you dont like the message, then dont be
surprised when it all goes south and you didnt see it coming.
God loves everyone. Remember that.
Blessed are the peace makers they shall be called the sons of God.
Many 666 Signs Point to 1 man...
http://beast666.faithweb.com/signs666.htm
5th Trumpet Fulfilled (Iraq) Pictures show prophecies.
http://beast666.faithweb.com/FifthTrumpet.htm
911 Foreknown by God points to Beast in Power
http://www.id-chip.4t.com/
www.angelfire.com/oz/zen/prophecy/
http://watchman888.land.ru/images/
http://beast666.faithweb.com/
"Code Programmer" <raymokeeffe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eld57e$pk3$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:ljljn2tpp6aohk61pvgu9d32jtad10e78j@4ax.com...
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 03:13:52 +1100, "Code Programmer"
<raymokeeffe@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Eric Brze" <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in message
news:kjain2d0nj73k3k1gspk95nu70uaacrol2@4ax.com...
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 03:48:42 +1100, "Code Programmer"
<raymokeeffe@hotmail.com> wrote:
It means that a good deed can be done with a sinful
heart of the wrong attitude.
What does this mean? Could you explain?
Someone can give with a begrudging attitude. While the outward deed is
good
and even the fruits of that deed for those which receive it is good, the
person doing it is robbing themselves of any blessing. That is
psychologically at the least, and spiritually, as it hinders their
spiritual
growth and life and life more abundantly.
Interesting perspective, but I still doubt it is possible. It may not
be difficult to imagine such situation, but does it really happen in
real life? Do you know any examples?
Giving donations because you fear what others may think.
Praying in public so you get seen to so HOLY.
Judging others as less than you (got be amongst similar people for this to
blend in)
Sin is not always death, but harm, which if kept up leads to death. If we
are not growing we are dying. There is relative variations in one
direction
or the other.
With that in mind the other aspect I mentioned about sin to one is
different
to another, was of Paul saying food sacrificed to idols is not a sin
unless
you believe it is. As there are no such things as other gods. And that
all
things a cleansed with the giving of thanks. Likewise Jesus says of what
goes into a man is not what makes him unclean, but what comes out of him,
(ie the mouth speaks forth the abundance of the heart [proverbs])
There are many striving. When the idea is to love God and His ways, and
seek
to understand their practical application and the life and life more
abundantly there is in the benefits of such. Without this, truly it is
dead
religion. Without the love as the motivator, it is based on fear, and as
such is the old ways that bring death as in the Old Testament. The ways
of
life are based on love and giving love, and in doing so, God can
replenish
us with His love in the flow of the eternal spirit to all as an
overflowing
well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
09 Dec 2006 07:41:11 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 12:59:58 +1100, "Code Programmer"
<raymokeeffe@hotmail.com> wrote:
and also see the rest of my post it explains the stituation as part of that
context
I'm just a little skeptical. I would tolerate the things you have
listed, and hoping we can work on those things to improve ourselves,
but I don't feel like to call them good. As for the rest of your post,
I have no problem with them. Just trying to clear my confusion.
Thanks.
Jesus came to show us peace ways, not perpetuate the violent murder of the
OT.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jo" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
07 Dec 2006 09:24:29 AM |
|
|
AcesLucky wrote:
Of course, it is possible that the red shift arises from an, as yet
unknown, mechanism which could cause us to revise our conclusions
about universal expansion and the Big Bang. If such a mechanism were
suggested then I would be very interested. The repercussions in the
field of cosmology would be fascinating.
But that hasn't happened yet. Do you have any suggestions for an
alternative red-shifting process ?
Nope. But I think it's wonderful that as a scientist you can
change your idea of the world with new and improved evidence
without any blow to your ego.
All scientific knowledge is ultimately provisional on observation, there are
no absolute Truths or Inerrant Authorities.
How wonderful would it be too if religious people did the
same. Conclusions should be based on the available data, not
a rigid faith that rejects any current evidence to the
contrary. Which is really my point.
Point taken and agreed. But of course, if that happened religion would cease
to exist.
Jo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Code Programmer" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
06 Dec 2006 03:47:08 AM |
|
|
My point was avoid religion, and seek truth, and I mean the spirit/energy
within all things which gives things life.
You will find that while there are many a nutter in religion, there are
principles which work as real as resonant frequency in physics. Whereby an
amplifcation takes effect taking energy, seemingly from somewhere else in a
10 times amplification. I say this as an electrical trades student which
dealt with it in the lab experiments.
The mind has energy, it shows up on EEG and now with the more modern brain
mapping type machines. Combine energy in a compatible way to others and we
get the resonance effect.
But then again I have experienced flows of spiritual energy for healing and
for other things.
It is physics of the spiritual principles. The bible touches on these and
gives clues to them, as do many other recordings of spiritual searchings.
Truly Faith is required in the little things in life, like getting up and
turning on a light. It is all unconscious. But if you dont believe you can,
you will disable yourself so that you will not even try. Why waste effort
huh?
My experiences have shown me many bible believers put themselves into self
fulfilling bondage.
Truth sets free. Perspective, context and attitude are important things in
the search for truth.
Mind you religion has caused a lot of enemies with blind faith people
provoking others because they do not understand the truth. Abuse, criticise,
judge or attack anyone, and what you sow is what you will reap. Do it to
tribes which hold an eternal grudge and watch all hell break loose in the
middle-east.
--
PEace
www.worldpeace.mail333.com
Ray M O'Keeffe
An open mind has eyes to see and ears to hear.
If you don't get to the end because you dont like the message, then dont be
surprised when it all goes south and you didnt see it coming.
God loves everyone. Remember that.
Blessed are the peace makers they shall be called the sons of God.
Many 666 Signs Point to 1 man...
http://beast666.faithweb.com/signs666.htm
5th Trumpet Fulfilled (Iraq) Pictures show prophecies.
http://beast666.faithweb.com/FifthTrumpet.htm
911 Foreknown by God points to Beast in Power
http://www.id-chip.4t.com/
www.angelfire.com/oz/zen/prophecy/
http://watchman888.land.ru/images/
http://beast666.faithweb.com/
"AcesLucky" <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Jcudh.4070$lL6.475@newsfe08.phx...
Code Programmer wrote:
"AcesLucky" <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cVkdh.11007$Zb5.431@newsfe13.phx...
What has creation science added to man's knowledge?
Please give an example of "creation science" as opposed to science. And
what useful, functional discoveries have creation science offered to the
fields of science?
How has creation science benefited us in the areas of:
Electronics
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
Astronomy
Computer technology
Medicine
Mathematics
Geology
Pick something! And explain how creation science has added to any field
of
scientific endeavor.
--
I have a theory: There's no such thing as creation science. Like faith,
it
relies on "make believe" and adds nothing to the body of knowledge for
the
benefit of Man.
AcesLucky
I do not endorse this "creation science".
However...
The evolution with the Big Bang theory which I have heard about says that
we
all came from all matter and energy condensed into a mass which then
promptly one day decided to explode. (Universe Egg)
That seems to take more faith to believe that everything could exist in
that mass
in the first place.
Scientists came up with the big bang theory because the matter in space is
expanding away from a central point (location).
Once you observe this phenomena and confirm it through factual analysis
year after year, all over the astronomical field for any student to
personally measure...
One can conclude whatever they like, but they cannot deny the factual data
of expansion from a central location.
The fact that the matter is propelled from this location suggests an
explosion. No other known laws of physics contradict inertia, so explosion
is a natural conclusion.
That doesn't take faith. It takes an understanding of simple astronomical
data.
And then there is the thought of, well where did that come from in the
first
place?
Science tells us energy cannot be created nor destroyed only transformed.
That all matter is energy in a different form.
Likewise matter cannot be destroyed, but only transformed into energy.
This is stating that all energy is eternal.
Consider that this eternal energy is all present, in all things, through
all
things, the source of all things.
I'm not understanding why that's an issue.
Lets say the search for TRUTH as science seeks to do independantly of
religion, has also been effected by religion. In that they are fighting
religion, instead of seeking pure truth. That is not being very
scientific.
It's also not the case. Science has no consciousness of religion, or
anything else. Science is a "method" of seeking the truth. And good
science has no bias whatsoever. ANY type of bias in science, especially
any form of confirmation bias, is the arch enemy of science.
So science doesn't fight religion, it's just that religion brings with it
it's own set of biases, which simply is not allowed when seeking truth.
(It would be like going before a judge where the judge already believes
you're guilty, whether you're innocent or not, evidence be damned.)
It is being just as biased as any religious fanatic. And science too has
it's heretics which are publicly and professionally humiliated. And then
eventually after they have lost all credibility and die, some years later
their work is believed and accepted as truth.
Bias about what? See, if a scientist BELIEVES something and reports a
scientific conclusion, he openly invites challenge for the purpose of
dis-proving the conclusion, the method of study, the right protocols,
everything.
The last thing she wants to be is "wrong" but it's her duty to subject it
to every challenge to its veracity. She simply cannot afford to allow bias
to cloud her judgment.
The search for Truth, must never assume anything.
Agreed. (That's why religion is disallowed. It's conclusions are set long
before the experimentation begins.)
To assume opposition is a bias.
The way the mind works must be noted. It seeks goals. If the goal is to
do
the opposite, it will put blinkers on other factors.
Truth can only be found when it is sought with all the searcher's heart.
And then it must be tested for consistency.
A big bang from a "universe egg" just does not gel. Perhaps if you can
show
us the goose which laid the egg?
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking where did the matter come
from?
Answer: So far we cannot observe something from nothing, and vise versa.
So if it is true that energy only changes state (can neither be destroyed
nor created), then matter/energy is an eternal system. Quite simply, it
has always been here. It is a constant.
PS Religion is the antichrist.
PEace
Ray
.
|
|
|
| User: "AcesLucky" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
06 Dec 2006 02:00:51 PM |
|
|
Code Programmer wrote:
My point was avoid religion, and seek truth, and I mean the spirit/energy
within all things which gives things life.
You will find that while there are many a nutter in religion, there are
principles which work as real as resonant frequency in physics. Whereby an
amplifcation takes effect taking energy, seemingly from somewhere else in a
10 times amplification. I say this as an electrical trades student which
dealt with it in the lab experiments.
The mind has energy, it shows up on EEG and now with the more modern brain
mapping type machines. Combine energy in a compatible way to others and we
get the resonance effect.
But then again I have experienced flows of spiritual energy for healing and
for other things.
It is physics of the spiritual principles. The bible touches on these and
gives clues to them, as do many other recordings of spiritual searchings.
A perfect example of baggage. You are looking for a
confirmation of something you already believe.
You can get the same "touches on these" by reading any
mystical story of fantasia. Really, you can!
But what are the actual formulas, the hard "how to do it"
and exactly what it is being done, and you'll find nothing
more than horoscope talk. That's mostly what the bible is,
in its description of spiritual things, even contradictory
descriptions; they sound lofty, but offer nothing but
horoscope talk.
Consider telepathy. We all have nuanced inklings of it
working, from coincidence to faith. But test it in the lab,
over decades, and you'll find no corroborative evidence that
it really exists.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But it does mean we
haven't found any on a practical functional level.
Enter science, and you get the wonderful inventions of
telepathy...cellphones! The cellphone can deliver
clairvoyance too, pictures, even video of remote places in
real time. These are the physical things dreamed about as
spiritual things!
Yes, they are real...and they are "physical" possibilities!
Even if we learn telepathy from brain to brain, it will be
the result of /physical/ properties in our brains, because
another brain is also physical.
Truly Faith is required in the little things in life, like getting up and
turning on a light. It is all unconscious. But if you dont believe you can,
you will disable yourself so that you will not even try. Why waste effort
huh?
I don't think faith is required to get up and turn on a
light. Faith is required to believe in the unlikely.
My experiences have shown me many bible believers put themselves into self
fulfilling bondage.
Truth sets free. Perspective, context and attitude are important things in
the search for truth.
Mind you religion has caused a lot of enemies with blind faith people
provoking others because they do not understand the truth. Abuse, criticise,
judge or attack anyone, and what you sow is what you will reap. Do it to
tribes which hold an eternal grudge and watch all hell break loose in the
middle-east.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
07 Dec 2006 12:51:36 PM |
|
|
Code Programmer wrote:
"AcesLucky" <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cVkdh.11007$Zb5.431@newsfe13.phx...
What has creation science added to man's knowledge?
Please give an example of "creation science" as opposed to science. And
what useful, functional discoveries have creation science offered to the
fields of science?
How has creation science benefited us in the areas of:
Electronics
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
Astronomy
Computer technology
Medicine
Mathematics
Geology
Pick something! And explain how creation science has added to any field of
scientific endeavor.
--
I have a theory: There's no such thing as creation science. Like faith, it
relies on "make believe" and adds nothing to the body of knowledge for the
benefit of Man.
AcesLucky
I do not endorse this "creation science".
However...
The evolution with the Big Bang theory which I have heard about says that we
all came from all matter and energy condensed into a mass which then
promptly one day decided to explode. (Universe Egg)
The theory of evolution is one theory. The Big Bang theory is a
completely other theory.
Your tick of trying to combine the two into one theory is a trick that
will not fool anybody.
<snip>
************************************
God never told anybody to be stupid.
Sergeant K. D. Waugh
22nd Evac. Hosp. S. M.
Korea 1951
.
|
|
|
| User: "Code Programmer" |
|
| Title: Re: What has creation science added to man's knowledge? |
08 Dec 2006 10:16:48 AM |
|
|
I am not altogether familiar with each in complete detail.
All I know is too many people attack others.
Such only is sowing crap to come back in their face.
Scientist too often have a chip on their shoulder about religion, and I
guess they have a right to, as they have been murdered by the church for
challenging the inconsistencies which the search for truth brought up.
--
PEace
www.worldpeace.mail333.com
Ray M O'Keeffe
An open mind has eyes to see and ears to hear.
If you don't get to the end because you dont like the message, then dont be
surprised when it all goes south and you didnt see it coming.
God loves everyone. Remember that.
Blessed are the peace makers they shall be called the sons of God.
Many 666 Signs Point to 1 man...
http://beast666.faithweb.com/signs666.htm
5th Trumpet Fulfilled (Iraq) Pictures show prophecies.
http://beast666.faithweb.com/FifthTrumpet.htm
911 Foreknown by God points to Beast in Power
http://www.id-chip.4t.com/
www.angelfire.com/oz/zen/prophecy/
http://watchman888.land.ru/images/
http://beast666.faithweb.com/
<gpatton@bayou.com> wrote in message
news:1165517496.553287.52500@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
Code Programmer wrote:
"AcesLucky" <aceslucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cVkdh.11007$Zb5.431@newsfe13.phx...
What has creation science added to man's knowledge?
Please give an example of "creation science" as opposed to science. And
what useful, functional discoveries have creation science offered to
the
fields of science?
How has creation science benefited us in the areas of:
Electronics
Chemistry
Biology
Physics
Astronomy
Computer technology
Medicine
Mathematics
Geology
Pick something! And explain how creation science has added to any field
of
scientific endeavor.
--
I have a theory: There's no such thing as creation science. Like faith,
it
relies on "make believe" and adds nothing to the body of knowledge for
the
benefit of Man.
AcesLucky
I do not endorse this "creation science".
However...
The evolution with the Big Bang theory which I have heard about says that
we
all came from all matter and energy condensed into a mass which then
promptly one day decided to explode. (Universe Egg)
The theory of evolution is one theory. The Big Bang theory is a
completely other theory.
Your tick of tryi | | | |
