Happy Atheist Forum

Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, then consciousness has a hand in matter.  Can they be separated?  Since matter is shaped by consciousness, then is it safe to assume that consciousness pre-exists matter or can matter pre-exist consciousness? 

My second problem with evolution is found when considering entropy in information theory.  Since a bit of information can have an expectation of degradation over time, then DNA should not be able to work against this entropy.  How do we explain this when viewing the complexity and unity in purpose when viewing nature?  And yes, I believe we are designed.  Religion aside, how do we explain these very clear paradoxes?

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AM
Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, then consciousness has a hand in matter.  Can they be separated?  Since matter is shaped by consciousness, then is it safe to assume that consciousness pre-exists matter or can matter pre-exist consciousness?

I don't think it's safe to assume anything. The mind generates a good deal of the reality everybody experiences.

QuoteMy second problem with evolution is found when considering entropy in information theory.  Since a bit of information can have an expectation of degradation over time, then DNA should not be able to work against this entropy.  How do we explain this when viewing the complexity and unity in purpose when viewing nature?  And yes, I believe we are designed.  Religion aside, how do we explain these very clear paradoxes?

One of the defining characteristics of life is that it does counter entropy (to some extent, but much more so than if it were a dead mass), expect that it needs and uses energy to do this. There is no violation of any physical laws in this.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 26, 2011, 02:30:14 AM

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AM
Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, then consciousness has a hand in matter.  Can they be separated?  Since matter is shaped by consciousness, then is it safe to assume that consciousness pre-exists matter or can matter pre-exist consciousness?

I don't think it's safe to assume anything. The mind generates a good deal of the reality everybody experiences.

QuoteMy second problem with evolution is found when considering entropy in information theory.  Since a bit of information can have an expectation of degradation over time, then DNA should not be able to work against this entropy.  How do we explain this when viewing the complexity and unity in purpose when viewing nature?  And yes, I believe we are designed.  Religion aside, how do we explain these very clear paradoxes?

One of the defining characteristics of life is that it does counter entropy (to some extent, but much more so than if it were a dead mass), expect that it needs and uses energy to do this. There is no violation of any physical laws in this.

I do agree that life defies entropy in energy, but I was referencing entropy in information.  This is a far different subject.  No energy can defy entropy in information apart form choice and logic.

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:41:38 AM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 26, 2011, 02:30:14 AM

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AM
Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, then consciousness has a hand in matter.  Can they be separated?  Since matter is shaped by consciousness, then is it safe to assume that consciousness pre-exists matter or can matter pre-exist consciousness?

I don't think it's safe to assume anything. The mind generates a good deal of the reality everybody experiences.

QuoteMy second problem with evolution is found when considering entropy in information theory.  Since a bit of information can have an expectation of degradation over time, then DNA should not be able to work against this entropy.  How do we explain this when viewing the complexity and unity in purpose when viewing nature?  And yes, I believe we are designed.  Religion aside, how do we explain these very clear paradoxes?

One of the defining characteristics of life is that it does counter entropy (to some extent, but much more so than if it were a dead mass), expect that it needs and uses energy to do this. There is no violation of any physical laws in this.

I do agree that life defies entropy in energy, but I was referencing entropy in information.  This is a far different subject.  No energy can defy entropy in information apart form choice and logic.

Life doesn't defy entropy in energy (your choice of word makes it look like it's unnatural) it just actively uses energy to go against it, but again, within the laws of physics (living beings are not closed systems).

I don't really get what you mean. DNA is digital (as in not analogue) and does suffer mutations. ???

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 26, 2011, 02:50:44 AM

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:41:38 AM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 26, 2011, 02:30:14 AM

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AM
Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, then consciousness has a hand in matter.  Can they be separated?  Since matter is shaped by consciousness, then is it safe to assume that consciousness pre-exists matter or can matter pre-exist consciousness?

I don't really get what you mean. DNA is digital (as in not analogue) and does suffer mutations. ???

DNA is digital is yet an additional level of the same problem for evolution from my understanding.  As you view this, understand that the structure of DNA is digital, but what DNA accomplishes is based on a specific task to a purpose.  This is information of a differing nature to just digitally structured sequences.  Information of the type that would succumb to entropy in information involves the type that specifies behavior.  Genes are specified for behavior by the digital code making up the gene regulatory network.  Layer after layer of purpose building the layers and layers of life working in unison for equilibrium.  This is astounding and beyond just digital or analog information.  This needs to have a third category of designed.  It is really very obvious.   

As for entropy in energy, we are still talking about systems using the energy by being governed.  There is no need to debate entropy in energy since we do not have a fundamental idea in science as to where the massive energy in an atom originates.  Laws that govern require a governor. 

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 03:25:44 AM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 26, 2011, 02:50:44 AM

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:41:38 AM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 26, 2011, 02:30:14 AM

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AM
Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, then consciousness has a hand in matter.  Can they be separated?  Since matter is shaped by consciousness, then is it safe to assume that consciousness pre-exists matter or can matter pre-exist consciousness?

I don't really get what you mean. DNA is digital (as in not analogue) and does suffer mutations. ???

DNA is digital is yet an additional level of the same problem for evolution from my understanding.  As you view this, understand that the structure of DNA is digital, but what DNA accomplishes is based on a specific task to a purpose.  This is information of a differing nature to just digitally structured sequences.  Information of the type that would succumb to entropy in information involves the type that specifies behavior.  Genes are specified for behavior by the digital code making up the gene regulatory network.  Layer after layer of purpose building the layers and layers of life working in unison for equilibrium.  This is astounding and beyond just digital or analog information.  This needs to have a third category of designed.  It is really very obvious.   

As for entropy in energy, we are still talking about systems using the energy by being governed.  There is no need to debate entropy in energy since we do not have a fundamental idea in science as to where the massive energy in an atom originates.  Laws that govern require a governor. 

Okay but this is really a dead-end argument, unless you believe in multiple gods of multiple levels (other than the 3 in 1 package you call the trinity).  By your own logic, your designer would require a designer.

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 03:25:44 AM
DNA is digital is yet an additional level of the same problem for evolution from my understanding.  As you view this, understand that the structure of DNA is digital, but what DNA accomplishes is based on a specific task to a purpose.

And this makes it difficult to be the result of an evolutionary process why? Again, your use of language is the problem here, IMO.

QuoteThis is information of a differing nature to just digitally structured sequences.  Information of the type that would succumb to entropy in information involves the type that specifies behavior.  Genes are specified for behavior by the digital code making up the gene regulatory network.  Layer after layer of purpose building the layers and layers of life working in unison for equilibrium.  This is astounding and beyond just digital or analog information.  This needs to have a third category of designed.  It is really very obvious.

No, it's not. Why can't it be an evolved system? Because it's complex? 

QuoteAs for entropy in energy, we are still talking about systems using the energy by being governed.  There is no need to debate entropy in energy since we do not have a fundamental idea in science as to where the massive energy in an atom originates.  Laws that govern require a governor.

There are laws that govern the universe. Saying that because those exist that a governor exists is a leap of faith, not logic.

Hopefully on the topic of DNA Squid (another poster here) will come around and clarify things...

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AMSince the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability...

From my understanding, this is relevant only for that observer, and only by the act of observing. How can we say that wave collapse occurred before the wave function was even known of, and experiments were devised to observe that function? In addition, there is not a consensus regarding this. Some theorists maintain that "wave collapse" is actually an epiphenomenon.  

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AM...then consciousness has a hand in matter.

I don't see how you can extrapolate from the first clause to this.  Can you cite a source which shows a scientific consensus that supports your assertion?

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 03:25:44 AM...Laws that govern require a governor.

You seem to be using a legalistic understanding of the word "law" while ignoring the actual meaning of the term "scientific law."

QuoteFrom "Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions" by Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D. (http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm):

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Scientific laws do not in any sense "govern" anything. Rather, as the quote says, they are explanations which are generalized from a body of observations. In my opinion, they are constructs of human understanding. To take the term "scientific law" and posit some sort of "law giver" (which is what you seem to be trying to do) is to misrepresent the meaning of the term.

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AM

Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, then consciousness has a hand in matter.  Can they be separated?  Since matter is shaped by consciousness, then is it safe to assume that consciousness pre-exists matter or can matter pre-exist consciousness?  

Conciousness is created by matter, squishy brain matter, no brain no conciousness, the lumps of rock will still do what they did before life started to go ooh, and ah in response to their dance.  This leap never ceases to amaze me, or it hasn't yet anyway

Life is beautiful and I wish for it to never end.
Life is cruel, but it shouldn't be, I wish it not to be.
But there's a better one, close your eyes, let go.

http://www.getlyrics.com/lou-reed/street-hassle-lyrics/

QuoteWell hey(man), that's just a lie,
It's a lie she tells her friends.
'cause the real song, the real song
Where she won't even admit to herself
The beating in her heart.
It's a song lots of people know.
It's a painful song
A little sad truth
But life full of sad songs
Penny for a wish
But wishing won't make you a soldier.
With a pretty kiss for a pretty face
Can't have it's way
Y'know tramps like us, we were born to pay.

Love has gone away
And there's no one here now
And there's nothing left to say
But, oh, how I miss him, baby
Oh, baby, come on and slip away
Come on, baby, why don't you slip away

Love is gone away
Took the rings off my fingers
And there's nothing left to say
But, oh how, oh how I need him, baby
Come on, baby, I need you baby
Oh, please don't slip away
I need your loving so bad, babe
Please don't slip away

I understand the yearning leading to the leap.
I feel and see nothing on the other side.
You make the leap before you leave your life.
And loose so much in your fall.


Sorry this is the science section and I'm doing crappy poetry, but it didn't sound very scientific to me.
I'm going to view the fall of man as the fall away from reason.

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AM

Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, then consciousness has a hand in matter.  Can they be separated?  Since matter is shaped by consciousness, then is it safe to assume that consciousness pre-exists matter or can matter pre-exist consciousness? 

My second problem with evolution is found when considering entropy in information theory.  Since a bit of information can have an expectation of degradation over time, then DNA should not be able to work against this entropy.  How do we explain this when viewing the complexity and unity in purpose when viewing nature?  And yes, I believe we are designed.  Religion aside, how do we explain these very clear paradoxes?

Wow, you are absolutely right.
It must be god. It must be. It couldn't be anything else.

It must have been the Christian god, he is magnificent, all powerful, all knowing
Oh blessed god, how great thou art.
So high and mighty
So perfect and loving
If only I could worship you like no one else has,
Oh please forgive me all mighty wonderful god
How could I have been so blind.
An Atheist with a black heart full of Satan's deceipt.
Oh mighty god, so wonderful and powerful, your love fills me with warmth.
The warm fuzzies that only Christians can feel.

I must share this joy with the world. The atheists must be turned, they must see the love of the Christian god.
Jesus and Jesus alone can stop the collapse of Satan's indeterminate wave of probability.
It is through his blood shed on the cross that our DNA has come to avoid the entropy paradox of information theory.

God is so smart and we will rejoice in His brilliance, Oh God, dear God, so perfect and wonderful and loving.

Quote from: Stevil on September 26, 2011, 07:23:01 AM...God is so smart and we will rejoice in His brilliance, Oh God, dear God, so perfect and wonderful and loving.

I'm just feeling the love right now. It's so warm and fuzzy.

I don't know why I every worried about facts and stuff.
All you have to do is believe.....

Just pick a god, any god and believe, then spread the word.

I need a megaphone and a street corner, a place where lots of people walk to work so I can shout out to them how much my god loves them.
So much love, so little time.

Actually, on second thought, a picture of a dead rotting corpse doesn't go well with the rest of the decor in my living room. I don't have a death room.
Maybe instead I'll go for Bhudda, he's a bit chubby but has a pleasant smile.

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AM

Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, then consciousness has a hand in matter.  {snip}

This first unsupportered assertion appears to underpin your 'problem' with evolution, so shall we start here? Please explain, and support with evidence, your reasoning behind this assertion.

Quote from: Tank on September 26, 2011, 09:10:02 AM

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AM

Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, then consciousness has a hand in matter.  {snip}

This first unsupportered assertion appears to underpin your 'problem' with evolution, so shall we start here? Please explain, and support with evidence, your reasoning behind this assertion.

Yes. Can we start with this please?

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AM

Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, then consciousness has a hand in matter.  Can they be separated?  Since matter is shaped by consciousness, then is it safe to assume that consciousness pre-exists matter or can matter pre-exist consciousness?  

My second problem with evolution is found when considering entropy in information theory.  Since a bit of information can have an expectation of degradation over time, then DNA should not be able to work against this entropy.  How do we explain this when viewing the complexity and unity in purpose when viewing nature?  And yes, I believe we are designed.  Religion aside, how do we explain these very clear paradoxes?

Very logical question.

May I reask them in different clearer way?

How can  inanimate create and animate cannot create?

How birth and death are interpreted in evolution and they are a clear evidence of its fallacy?


I hope it is quite clear now. :-[

Quote from: Happy Forever on September 26, 2011, 11:46:52 AM
{snip}
How can  inanimate creates and animate cannot?

How birth and death interpreted in evolution and they are a clear evidence of its fallacy?

Sorry but neither of these statements make any sense in english  :(

I don't understand any of this.  Is it because:

a) I'm an old fart,
b) Science is very complicated,
c) The whole question is a complete load of crap?

Just asking.

Quote from: OldGit on September 26, 2011, 12:57:47 PM
c) The whole question is a complete load of crap?

That's basically the issue...fundamentalist creationists like to try to claim that evolution conflicts with the 2nd law of thermodynamics:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html  Anyone who researches it from non-creationist sources will quickly find out that is not true.

Well, and his questions are written using wording that I don't think is scientific....such as "information theory."

Quote from: Happy Forever on September 26, 2011, 11:46:52 AM
How can  inanimate create and animate cannot create?

Matter-energy transition for creation of either. Division or addition may also be used as a tool of creation, but then the overall amount of matter and/or energy is unchanged, just split or morphed. Animate objects, to the best of my knowledge, only use the last two methods, by piling on parts and/or dividing a whole

QuoteHow birth and death are interpreted in evolution and they are a clear evidence of its fallacy?

They are an essential part of evolution of multicelled organisms.

Quote from: Tank on September 26, 2011, 11:55:42 AM

Quote from: Happy Forever on September 26, 2011, 11:46:52 AM
{snip}
How can  inanimate creates and animate cannot?

How birth and death interpreted in evolution and they are a clear evidence of its fallacy?

Sorry but neither of these statements make any sense in english  :(

Bingo.
HappyForever has quite accurately translated the original post. It is the OP that makes no sense what so ever.
In my opinion the poster is a troll.

Quote from: Tank on September 26, 2011, 09:10:02 AM

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AM

Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, then consciousness has a hand in matter.  {snip}

This first unsupportered assertion appears to underpin your 'problem' with evolution, so shall we start here? Please explain, and support with evidence, your reasoning behind this assertion.

A choice is a bit of information that allows a changed state.  Since information in a physical system at one point in time should determine its state in another part of time, a change to this state that leads to a more complex state of designed purpose should not be possible apart form a conscious choice of intelligence.  This has not been observed anywhere in nature apart form animated life.  Matter simply does not demonstrate this ability.  Theory can be piled on theory to somehow allow for the misplaced concreteness of belief that information will ever form on its own with even simple purpose, but this is simply not a probable outcome apart form conscious effort and design.  On any day of the week, the probability of the information in the Bible accurately describing the universe is equally as improbable.  Yet, we see that it does describe the information in nature from every conceivable aspect, going so far as to tell us what will happen each day of the week to the end of days.

More signature material for you to ponder and repeat.

 

Quote from: Whitney on September 26, 2011, 03:33:21 PM

Quote from: OldGit on September 26, 2011, 12:57:47 PM
c) The whole question is a complete load of crap?

That's basically the issue...fundamentalist creationists like to try to claim that evolution conflicts with the 2nd law of thermodynamics:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html  Anyone who researches it from non-creationist sources will quickly find out that is not true.

Well, and his questions are written using wording that I don't think is scientific....such as "information theory."

You are confused.  I was referring to entropy in information.  Different subject altogether.  Read the thread.

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 27, 2011, 02:37:42 AM

Quote from: Tank on September 26, 2011, 09:10:02 AM

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AM

Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, then consciousness has a hand in matter.  {snip}

This first unsupportered assertion appears to underpin your 'problem' with evolution, so shall we start here? Please explain, and support with evidence, your reasoning behind this assertion.

A choice is a bit of information that allows a changed state.  Since information in a physical system at one point in time should determine its state in another part of time, a change to this state that leads to a more complex state of designed purpose should not be possible apart form a conscious choice of intelligence.  This has not been observed anywhere in nature apart form animated life.  Matter simply does not demonstrate this ability.  Theory can be piled on theory to somehow allow for the misplaced concreteness of belief that information will ever form on its own with even simple purpose, but this is simply not a probable outcome apart form conscious effort and design.  On any day of the week, the probability of the information in the Bible accurately describing the universe is equally as improbable.  Yet, we see that it does describe the information in nature from every conceivable aspect, going so far as to tell us what will happen each day of the week to the end of days.

More signature material for you to ponder and repeat.

 

Far too lengthy for a signature.

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 27, 2011, 02:41:25 AM

Quote from: Whitney on September 26, 2011, 03:33:21 PM

Quote from: OldGit on September 26, 2011, 12:57:47 PM
c) The whole question is a complete load of crap?

That's basically the issue...fundamentalist creationists like to try to claim that evolution conflicts with the 2nd law of thermodynamics:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html  Anyone who researches it from non-creationist sources will quickly find out that is not true.

Well, and his questions are written using wording that I don't think is scientific....such as "information theory."

You are confused.  I was referring to entropy in information.  Different subject altogether.  Read the thread.

If it's a different subject then why do you think it means evolution is wrong?

Quote from: OldGit on September 26, 2011, 12:57:47 PM
I don't understand any of this.  Is it because:

a) I'm an old fart,
b) Science is very complicated,
c) The whole question is a complete load of crap?

Just asking.

I can simplify.  What is the sound of one hand clapping?  ...........................

The sound of one hand clapping is the sound of two hands coming together.  It is not possible for there to be two observers apart form the first.  Everything is in uniform relationship to everything else.  Apart from the first observer, there cannot be a second.  Where did the first come from?  Ask yourself this question and you have the answer.  You are the first observer.  We all are.  The veil keeps us from knowing.  Faith is finding the first observer is all of us.  We are one, yet we are many by the division of opposites in infinity.  God first separated the light from the darkness.  Does this make me God?  No.  We are all part of the one God.  Pride says that you are above the observer.  Is this possible if you are the first observer?  Pride separates form God.  God allows free will and if you are part of him that does not find unity with the whole, you are removed.  Infinity is separating the darkness form the light as we speak.  We should follow God's lead.  

Bring this back to one God before there were others to observe.  Infinity at rest is creation in motion.  Creation at rest is infinity creating.  The Hebrews see time as a circle.  

SuperiorEd, that made absolutely no sense at all....maybe instead of trying to sound fancy (as that seems to be your goal) you should just focus on stating your views in simple conversational English.

Let me see if I get what you're saying...so we're just one hand who thinks it sees or observes the other hand? ??? The hand which needs faith...why does it need faith?

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 27, 2011, 03:11:03 AM
Let me see if I get what you're saying...so we're just one hand who thinks it sees or observes the other hand? ??? The hand which needs faith...why does it need faith?

It does not need faith.  We need faith to live apart form the fact of one.  For there to be two, one must have a separate observer.  For the observer to be different, there must be a lacking of understanding or the second would simply be the first again.  How can God be infinity at rest?  We are in his creation in movement collapsing infinity by choice.  The choice takes shape from the patters in infinity.  The universe is this played over and over to infinity.  We are not God, we are part of God.  A cell in my body has a function to the whole, yet it would be silly for the cell to say it is me.  It is part of me.  We am an image of God.  We are a universe of 50 trillion cells.  The design of the parts makes the whole.  All of nature is this pattern of two becoming one.

The moon and the stars come together to make life on earth.  The male and female come together in love to join sperm and egg.  The sperm and egg develop in the womb and are born into the world.  The world is the next womb.  The body is the archetype of the placenta.  If you see this, even somewhat, then go to John 1 and read.  You can be baptized ( a symbol for what it is) into the water.  This is the water of the material world.  You can also find union with the spirit of God and find rebirth in the tree of life above.  Spirit is the prize for faith and finding love for God and others.  The kingdom of God demands this.  You must be born again.  Jesus says these words in John 1 after describing the rebirth process.

If you are blinded by pride, faith is foolishness to you.  1 Corinthians explains this.  Read the Bible for all it's worth.  Humble your mind and the consuming fire (Genesis 3 flaming sword) can cut away the pride.  It protects the tree of life. 

Can this guy be banned for preaching yet? He obviously has no interest in actually explaining his position or communicating in a helpful manner.
Being told that we don't believe what he believes because we're "prideful" is pretty irksome.

EDIT: Can I also reiterate the irony in someone with the username "SuperiorEd" finger pointing about pride?

Not to mention thinking that anybody wants to keep reading all that preaching is equally annoying. If anybody wanted to read such stuff, they would know where to find it.

I have no interest in theology, never did. I just like to keep things simple and practical.

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AM

Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, then consciousness has a hand in matter.  Can they be separated?  Since matter is shaped by consciousness, then is it safe to assume that consciousness pre-exists matter or can matter pre-exist consciousness? 

My second problem with evolution is found when considering entropy in information theory.  Since a bit of information can have an expectation of degradation over time, then DNA should not be able to work against this entropy.  How do we explain this when viewing the complexity and unity in purpose when viewing nature?  And yes, I believe we are designed.  Religion aside, how do we explain these very clear paradoxes?

Hah! I've got a bigger problem with evolution. My problem is that freaking evolution has the balls to not have led directly to me as its primary mission. Do you know how much that pisses me off? Here I am, on a planet clearly at the center of a perfect and unchanging universe, and I am born a human, which clearly should be the end product of evolution.

But we're not! That's so bogus. I'm going to go find Charles Darwin's grave and piss on it. It's his fault. I wanted to be the ultimate result of evolution and here I'm just another fucking primate, with barely enough hair to stay warm in the savannas at night. WTF?

I'm writing  my naked ape congressimian too!

Evidence that Superior Ed is putting little to no effort into his posts
http://superiored.blogspot.com/ (http://superiored.blogspot.com/)
Large chunks of his crazy-talk are just copy and pasted from his blog.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 27, 2011, 04:54:03 AM
Evidence that Superior Ed is putting little to no effort into his posts
http://superiored.blogspot.com/ (http://superiored.blogspot.com/)
Large chunks of his crazy-talk are just copy and pasted from his blog.

Quote mining himself...it is a little odd...

Quote from: McQ on September 27, 2011, 04:28:29 AM...congressimian...

Oh, I like that one. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg843.imageshack.us%2Fimg843%2F7673%2Fbeerh.gif&hash=e6b6fe5f6a7892b2b55985e5d53162a8f22f7242)

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 27, 2011, 04:54:03 AM
Evidence that Superior Ed is putting little to no effort into his posts
http://superiored.blogspot.com/ (http://superiored.blogspot.com/)
Large chunks of his crazy-talk are just copy and pasted from his blog.

Good eye, DeterminedJuliet.

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 27, 2011, 03:34:53 AM
We are a universe of 50 trillion cells.  The design of the parts makes the whole.  All of nature is this pattern of two becoming one.

Here is another nice and fancy and educated-sounding word for you: Microverse. The universe is on a larger scale than us.

And many. Not two. Many parts are required for as complex a machine as a human to function.

QuoteThe moon and the stars come together to make life on earth.

Wait... The moon..? The one orbiting this planet? I agree with life originally coming from the stars as the basic elements it, as we know it, requires came from that source, but the moon..?

QuoteThe male and female come together in love to join sperm and egg.  The sperm and egg develop in the womb and are born into the world.

Not really, no. The sperm and the egg have long since morphed when a tiny human is born.

QuoteThe world is the next womb.  The body is the archetype of the placenta.  If you see this, even somewhat, then go to John 1 and read.  You can be baptized ( a symbol for what it is) into the water.  This is the water of the material world.  You can also find union with the spirit of God and find rebirth in the tree of life above.  Spirit is the prize for faith and finding love for God and others.  The kingdom of God demands this.  You must be born again.  Jesus says these words in John 1 after describing the rebirth process.

Why the fuck would I want to be born again in some tree..? And why would I want to care what some supposed fool god's supposed fool kingdom which you can't even prove exists allows..? I already live in a nice kingdom and am content as a cucumber for it.

QuoteIf you are blinded by pride, faith is foolishness to you.  1 Corinthians explains this.  Read the Bible for all it's worth.  Humble your mind and the consuming fire (Genesis 3 flaming sword) can cut away the pride.  It protects the tree of life.

There is a difference between pride and contempt.

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 27, 2011, 02:37:42 AM

Quote from: Tank on September 26, 2011, 09:10:02 AM

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AM

Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, then consciousness has a hand in matter.  {snip}

This first unsupportered assertion appears to underpin your 'problem' with evolution, so shall we start here? Please explain, and support with evidence, your reasoning behind this assertion.

A choice is a bit of information that allows a changed state.  Since information in a physical system at one point in time should determine its state in another part of time, a change to this state that leads to a more complex state of designed purpose should not be possible apart form a conscious choice of intelligence.  This has not been observed anywhere in nature apart form animated life.  Matter simply does not demonstrate this ability.  Theory can be piled on theory to somehow allow for the misplaced concreteness of belief that information will ever form on its own with even simple purpose, but this is simply not a probable outcome apart form conscious effort and design.  On any day of the week, the probability of the information in the Bible accurately describing the universe is equally as improbable.  Yet, we see that it does describe the information in nature from every conceivable aspect, going so far as to tell us what will happen each day of the week to the end of days.

More signature material for you to ponder and repeat.

Crystals.

Steve  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_T._McClard)

The problem you have with evolution is the Christian bullshit that fills your mind. Real scientists will continue to use the ToE because it works, nothing you can do about that sunshine. Nothing I can say or do will change your mind. Maybe when one of your students is saved from a painful death due to a medicine developed by a real scientist, who understands the ToE, you'll start to appreciate the efficacy of living in reality, and not subscribing to a millenia old institutionalised superstition aka Christianity.

Stop the copy-pasta from your blog or I'll ban you as a spammer.

Chris

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 27, 2011, 03:34:53 AM
If you are blinded by pride, faith is foolishness to you.  1 Corinthians explains this.  Read the Bible for all it's worth.  Humble your mind and the consuming fire (Genesis 3 flaming sword) can cut away the pride.  It protects the tree of life. 

Fair warning....the rules of this forum very clearly state that preaching is not allowed...The above is preaching.   We don't accept the bible as a holy text and neither does most of the world so it's not an objective source.  If you want to discuss a topic you are gong to have to support your views with evidence and reason.  If this is not possible for you to do then you'll be banned in order to keep the forum atmosphere intact.

Quote from: Whitney on September 27, 2011, 03:28:30 PM
to keep the forum atmosphere intact.

Asmodean. he slept, woke up and is now ready for another round of friendly-seeming  ;D

...and please excuse my blast of satire. I felt that it fit in with the general craziness of the thread. But I did at least coin a new term which at least one person liked, so it wasn't all wasted.

:D

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on September 27, 2011, 04:54:03 AM
Evidence that Superior Ed is putting little to no effort into his posts
http://superiored.blogspot.com/ (http://superiored.blogspot.com/)
Large chunks of his crazy-talk are just copy and pasted from his blog.

I can only say that they are my words and my thoughts.  They are original to me and reflections of what I have read and pondered.  Is there a problem with this?

Quote from: Tank on September 27, 2011, 10:00:01 AM

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 27, 2011, 02:37:42 AM

Quote from: Tank on September 26, 2011, 09:10:02 AM

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AM

Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, then consciousness has a hand in matter.  {snip}

This first unsupportered assertion appears to underpin your 'problem' with evolution, so shall we start here? Please explain, and support with evidence, your reasoning behind this assertion.

A choice is a bit of information that allows a changed state.  Since information in a physical system at one point in time should determine its state in another part of time, a change to this state that leads to a more complex state of designed purpose should not be possible apart form a conscious choice of intelligence.  This has not been observed anywhere in nature apart form animated life.  Matter simply does not demonstrate this ability.  Theory can be piled on theory to somehow allow for the misplaced concreteness of belief that information will ever form on its own with even simple purpose, but this is simply not a probable outcome apart form conscious effort and design.  On any day of the week, the probability of the information in the Bible accurately describing the universe is equally as improbable.  Yet, we see that it does describe the information in nature from every conceivable aspect, going so far as to tell us what will happen each day of the week to the end of days.

More signature material for you to ponder and repeat.

Crystals.

Entropy alone creates crystals.  We are speaking of entropy in information.  Can you provide examples from a credible source that crystals are an example of a complex state evolving to living matter?

Is there any real example of entropy in information in the real physical world that doesn't involve man-made things?

Quote from: SuperiorEd on October 01, 2011, 05:29:44 AM

Quote from: Tank on September 27, 2011, 10:00:01 AM

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 27, 2011, 02:37:42 AM

Quote from: Tank on September 26, 2011, 09:10:02 AM

Quote from: SuperiorEd on September 26, 2011, 02:02:50 AM

Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, then consciousness has a hand in matter.  {snip}

This first unsupportered assertion appears to underpin your 'problem' with evolution, so shall we start here? Please explain, and support with evidence, your reasoning behind this assertion.

A choice is a bit of information that allows a changed state.  Since information in a physical system at one point in time should determine its state in another part of time, a change to this state that leads to a more complex state of designed purpose should not be possible apart form a conscious choice of intelligence.  This has not been observed anywhere in nature apart form animated life.  Matter simply does not demonstrate this ability.  Theory can be piled on theory to somehow allow for the misplaced concreteness of belief that information will ever form on its own with even simple purpose, but this is simply not a probable outcome apart form conscious effort and design.  On any day of the week, the probability of the information in the Bible accurately describing the universe is equally as improbable.  Yet, we see that it does describe the information in nature from every conceivable aspect, going so far as to tell us what will happen each day of the week to the end of days.

More signature material for you to ponder and repeat.

Crystals.

Entropy alone creates crystals.  We are speaking of entropy in information.  Can you provide examples from a credible source that crystals are an example of a complex state evolving to living matter?

Really? How?