Darwinism is made up

[defendor]

There was one question I'm most curious about.  To know what your background in this field is, do you have a degree or formal education in applied sciences?

[TheJackel]

So if the facts become more factual, then were they ever facts to begin with?  The earth being flat is not a fact, so it was never a fact.  So when facts came out supporting a spherical earth, the old 'facts' were not regarded as facts.

Could a 'conscious energy' be a definition of a god

This went over your head like a high flying airplane..

The body of facts that supported the idea that the Earth was flat also support the realization that the Earth is an oblate sphere!. When people don't have all the facts or misunderstand the data they have, it's obvious that new data and facts can prove that the Earth wasn't flat and still retain all the data that supported the flat Earth without any problems. It's how the evolution of knowledge works. Your idea of knowledge is pure assumption to which makes no effort to correct itself, investigate, or even attempt to validate itself. Pure assumptions are generally disingenuous, and can lead to the ignoring of information and data that proves them wrong.. Kinda like what religions do.. Facts don't matter, and anything that contradicts them is simply ignored because they don't care. It's where belief becomes more important than reality. And thus the denial of reality ensues.. Kinda like what you see in Flat Earthers.

[TheJackel]

There was one question I'm most curious about.  To know what your background in this field is, do you have a degree or formal education in applied sciences?

My field deals with the study of chaotic systems.. And I am a first year student thanks And this would be completely irrelevant because people don't need a deep education into the sciences to grasp the basics. Thus I am plenty capable of understanding many areas of science, just like anyone else here is. It seems like you are looking for a credibility plea.. And it's not hard to actually take the time to open up a science book, or go to the library.. Gibbs free energy is rather well explained, and it seems like theist like to snuggle the 2nd law of thermodynamics because they magically believe the Universe is a "closed system" when it's not...

This might help you understand why we are in an open system and not a closed system

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=124151

[The Magic Pudding]

So the facts change and your world view doesn't, does that mean your world view is not based on facts? or do you bias the facts to fit your world view?

It would have to be a pretty big fact to change my world view, maybe finding the creators four billion year old lab on Europa, complete with documentation of how the first single cell organisms would evolve into me, that might do it. But I would still be suspicious and a technological explanation would still be more likely than some magic man.

My world view is partly based on these facts:
*people lie
*they don't want to die
*they have created many different stories to deny death
*being gods representative is a lucrative job

[LegendarySandwich]

So if the facts become more factual, then were they ever facts to begin with?  The earth being flat is not a fact, so it was never a fact.  So when facts came out supporting a spherical earth, the old 'facts' were not regarded as facts.

Could a 'conscious energy' be a definition of a god

If you want to get technical, there are no such things as "facts". We don't know anything to be one-hundred percent true -- there's always a chance that it may be wrong.

There are no facts, only interpretations.

[defendor]

Ya a formal education would be far more credible.  Anyone can get online and spout out anything they want to and because you find someone who says something that agrees with you does not mean it's truth.  Going to a library or cracking open a physics book might help in understanding the basics.

If there are no facts or facts aren't a part of your world view, what are you arguing?

I can just easily say you're wrong and I dont have to prove it.

Btw, is the statement "there are no facts" factual?

[Whitney]

Ya a formal education would be far more credible.  Anyone can get online and spout out anything they want to and because you find someone who says something that agrees with you does not mean it's truth.  Going to a library or cracking open a physics book might help in understanding the basics.

Anyone can sit through class and manage to pass yet not know anything about how to practically apply the knowledge.

If people are providing you with information and with supporting links that is enough...to deny what they say by questioning their credibility is not acceptable and would fall under ad hom.  

What is non credible is someone making random wild claims then not having a bit of care to address anyone's comments in a thoughtful and serious manner.  It's ridiculous, if you want to continue to post here you need to start participating in discussions rather than just shifting the goal posts every time you are caught making incorrect statements.  And, yes, this is your final warning.

[defendor]

The problem with quoting links to wikipedia and other blog websites are that it's not reliable.  So who am I going to trust as an expert in this matter? I'll quote schrodinger

How would we express in terms of the statistical theory the marvelous faculty of a living organism, by which it delays the decay into thermodynamical equilibrium (death)?... the device by which an organism maintains itself stationary at a fairly high level of orderliness... really consists in continually sucking orderliness from its environment.

The observing mind is not a physical system, it cannot interact with any physical system. And it might be better to reserve the term "subject" for the observing mind. ... For the subject, if anything, is the thing that senses and thinks. Sensations and thoughts do not belong to the "world of energy."

The scientific world-picture vouchsafes a very complete understanding of all that happens â€" it makes it just a little too understandable. It allows you to imagine the total display as that of a mechanical clockwork which, for all that science knows, could go on just the same as it does, without there being consciousness, will, endeavor, pain and delight and responsibility connected with it â€" though they actually are. And the reason for this disconcerting situation is just this: that for the purpose of constructing the picture of the external world, we have used the greatly simplifying device of cutting our own personality out, removing it; hence it is gone, it has evaporated, it is ostensibly not needed.
In particular, and most importantly, this is the reason why the scientific worldview contains of itself no ethical values, no esthetical values, not a word about our own ultimate scope or destination, and no God, if you please. Whence came I and whither go I?


"God knows I am no friend of probability theory, I have hated it from the first moment when our dear friend Max Born gave it birth. For it could be seen how easy and simple it made everything, in principle, everything ironed and the true problems concealed. Everybody must jump on the bandwagon [Ausweg]. And actually not a year passed before it became an official credo, and it still is."
13th of June, 1946, in a letter to Albert Einstein, as quoted by Walter Moore in Schrödinger: Life and Thought (1989) ISBN

that's schrodinger writing to Einstein.

"I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously."

as well as "Nature has no reverence towards life. Nature treats life as though it were the most valueless thing in the world.... Nature does not act by purposes."

[Tank]

The problem with quoting links to wikipedia and other blog websites are that it's not reliable.  

So don't use them then, use something better.

[Whitney]

The problem with quoting links to wikipedia and other blog websites are that it's not reliable.  

So don't use them then, use something better.

He's just making up excuses...I linked him to Talk Origins a couple pages ago to explain the 2nd law issue wasn't really an issue and he completely ignored it in favor of babbling on; and talk origins is written by scientists and lists references.

Defendor...I'm going to stick you into the Restricted Area...if you can play nice in there:  (meaning you'll have to figure out how to interact with people here without preaching or attempting to discuss god) then I'll let you out.  The only other way out of that is for a lot of members to request to continue trying to reason with you.

[TheJackel]

The observing mind is not a physical system, it cannot interact with any physical system. And it might be better to reserve the term "subject" for the observing mind. ... For the subject, if anything, is the thing that senses and thinks. Sensations and thoughts do not belong to the "world of energy."

Try feeling something without physically feeling something And under your argument, we should not be affected by physical forces for our state of consciousness.. Such as G-forces, or the dependency of Oxygen ect. Nor do you understand that computers display the primitive attributes of cognitive dynamics.

http://pinktentacle.com/2008/12/scienti ... rom-brain/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12037941/

[youtube:znukkwfr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-0eZytv6Qk[/youtube:znukkwfr]
[youtube:znukkwfr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9Ci3QCgPxg[/youtube:znukkwfr]

or we can explore G-lock:

[youtube:znukkwfr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUBrH1ER7K0[/youtube:znukkwfr]
[youtube:znukkwfr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK8U8RZyzsM[/youtube:znukkwfr]

Emergent property in essence is the emerging end product, or result. For example, information being processed through your computers CPU and Graphics card is an emerging property to which results as the displayed image before you on your computer screen. It is like that, a material physical process to where our thoughts, feelings, emotions, ideas, or images in our heads are all material physical end products, patterns, or behaviors.. This deals with emergence of pattern, and behaviors according to chaos theory, or sublime order from a chaotic abstract system.

What many people don't realize is that we are not aware of the emerging property until it has become the observable end product, or phenomenon we can call pain, emotion, feelings, morality, action, reaction, or behavioral pattern. So we are not aware of which neuron fired first to create a 2D image in our head, nor are we consciously aware of the entire process. We can only be consciously aware of the end result.. Only when we study the human brain do we begin to understand the material physical processes at play, and that can be incredibly complicated.

[Stevil]

Nature does not act by purposes.

Yes, agree to some degree. Humankind is part of nature, and we don't have an overarching purpose.
In Nature, with regards to living creatures, sometimes the purpose is to get food, or to protect the family. You could say the overall purpose is to survive. Which of course overtime is futile as we all must die.
But, whilst we are here, we try to survive.

[DirtyLeo]

You could say the overall purpose is to survive...

Survive in order to procreate so the end goal is the survival of the genes.

[Ulver]

If you want to get technical, there are no such things as "facts". We don't know anything to be one-hundred percent true -- there's always a chance that it may be wrong.

There are no facts, only interpretations.

I've seen this Nietzsche quote used by many a creationist as support for teaching both evolution and creationism in schools because "only the heart knows what is true, there is no right or wrong in the the creation of life". Since then, the quote annoys me. It is interesting to see it used a different way.