Identity/Creativity: Necessary Intermediate Stage

[ecco]

Or zero if you go by the evidence.....

The statistical evidence that there is advanced life elsewhere in the universe is overwhelming. Perhaps you need to update your knowledge which seems to be from 1890 4000 BC.

In our little limited thinking...... where energy is limited to molecules......

Only in your little limited thinking is energy limited to molecules.

Your cells don’t think...... Thought happens in the spark between neurons.

Again, I can't imagine where you get your information. But you are wrong.

How wouldn’t it since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so has always existed..... that everything comes from energy, energy exists in everything, and everything returns to energy.

You haven't explained how energy, in and of itself, can think. Your above comment is nothing more than a duck and dodge.

It’s that invisible power in all things that we seek to comprehend..... and one day will leave you with no excuses when we do..... Romans 1:20

By quoting 2000 year old scripture in a discussion about science, you clearly indicate your source of scientific knowledge. We have learned a lot in the past 2000 years.

When the Bible says man was created in the image of God, what do you think was meant?

I think what was meant was that Hebrews 6000 years ago believed that a god created man in his image. It is only one of thousands of creation myths.

Nevertheless, from your story, we learn that shortly after god created man, he punished him for disobedience. Not long after that, god horrifically drowned almost all living things because he was upset about the way his own creation turned out. That doesn't speak very highly of your Omni all god.

 

[ecco]

Anyway -if you're not going to be serious -I'll just let it simmer in your mind.

I posed serious questions...

Then why did you bring it up?

No one said atoms are built from atoms. So why are you raising the issue?

What's your point. In your previous point, you were talking about self-aware marbles.

Are you incapable of addressing them? Perhaps you think making ridiculous assertions and then ducking and dodging is a way to have a serious conversation. It isn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What evidence? Imagination? Wasn’t aware that was evidence.

No. The evidence concerning the makeup of planets, goldilock zones, the makeup of life, the vastness of the universe, etc.

No, I mean not visible. There is energy around you right now. You can detect it but you can’t see it.

I an actually, in the form of light. But anyway....

I can't see magnetic fields either. Or air. Can't see that either. But it seems rather pointless to point that out if we have other (objective) means of detecting it.

Sure it is, but you can’t see it. You can see the effects energy causes.

Energy itself is directly detectable.
But more importantly, what's your point?
Why point out that it's not within the spectrum of human eyesight, when there are other objective means of detecting it?

For analogy take a magnetic field. You can’t see it, but you can measure it and detect the effects it causes. Don’t confuse the two as being the same.

Well in a sense they are the same. In the sense of detectability.

In other words you didn’t like hearing our capability of thought is what made us like unto God

Huh?
No, that has nothing to do with it.

I just think it's stereotypical of the psychology of humans: to think that they are special and that everything is about them. Religion as an invention of human kind to "elevate" itself above nature, seems to perfectly fit that profile.

And so like all evolutionists turn to ad-hominem attack against the poster

Huh?

Do you even know what an ad-hominem is? Because you're not using it correctly...
I didn't attack anyone. You asked how I explain the idea of your religion that humans were made in the image of your god. I gave you my explanation.

If you are butthurt about that, maybe that's just how you chose to interpret my answer.
I.... I just gave you my honest answer. That's how I explain it.

If the answer was going to offend you, then perhaps you shouldn't have asked the question.
It wasn't my intention to offend anyone nore do I see my answer as being offensive. So that's that then...

instead of addressing the subject of the post.

How did I not address the subject??
You asked a question, I answered it.

You not liking the answer doesn't change that....

When one resorts to attacking the poster instead of the subject of the post, it only shows your concession to defeat.

Again, I didn't attack you in any way, shape or form.

You asked what I thought about a specific bible quote.
I answered your question.

My answer wasn't about you. It was about that bible quote.

“When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own.”

Just say my point of view sounds more sensible than yours..... saves time in the long run...

It rather sounds to me like will be dismissing anything by whatever means (including false accusation such as you are doing here), whenever an answer isn't to your liking or doesn't agree with your views.





Again: you asked a question. I gave you an honest answer. If my honest answer offends you, then so be it.

 

[Etritonakin]

I posed serious questions...

​

Are you incapable of addressing them? Perhaps you think making ridiculous assertions and then ducking and dodging is a way to have a serious conversation. It isn't.

I understand getting your two minutes hate in now again can be cathartic, but let me know if you ever want to stop doing the things you falsely accuse me of doing. You seem intelligent, but you are acting rather immaturely.

 

[Etritonakin]

I'm quite chill, thanks.
I think it's rude to reply to a post with questions and babble on and on without actually answering the questions.



Just saying, you wrote quite a long post. If you would have just answerd my questions, I'ld think it would have taken you easily half the time only.

But let's cut to the chase.
You don't have any answers, have you?

I answered all of your valid questions

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The statistical evidence that there is advanced life elsewhere in the universe is overwhelming. Perhaps you need to update your knowledge which seems to be from 1890 4000 BC.

Wasn’t aware that statistical computations of nothing observed proved anything. Proof requires observation and testing. Observation and testing has returned null....

Only in your little limited thinking is energy limited to molecules.

Oh not at all, it exists all around us and in us. And one day everything we see will return to energy... my little limited thinking understands energy existed before anything and will exist afterwards.

Again, I can't imagine where you get your information. But you are wrong.

So you claim, but haven’t shown anything....

You haven't explained how energy, in and of itself, can think. Your above comment is nothing more than a duck and dodge.

How could I? Science doesn’t even know what Thought is yet..... all they know is that it is initiated by electrical interactions.

Plus science doesn’t have a clue as to what energy actually is. Unless you think “work” is an adequate description????

By quoting 2000 year old scripture in a discussion about science, you clearly indicate your source of scientific knowledge. We have learned a lot in the past 2000 years.

Which means what? That you can’t handle scripture equating man’s image to thought?

I think what was meant was that Hebrews 6000 years ago believed that a god created man in his image. It is only one of thousands of creation myths.

What image would that be since God is not a physical being. The answer was given, you just didn’t like it.

“The man has become like one of us, KNOWING both good and evil.”

Surely your not implying man’s physical form is being discussed?

Nevertheless, from your story, we learn that shortly after god created man, he punished him for disobedience. Not long after that, god horrifically drowned almost all living things because he was upset about the way his own creation turned out. That doesn't speak very highly of your Omni all god.

Why did we kill Hitler?

Ahh, so we can kill evil people, but the one who made them and then when they turned evil can’t?

That’s like saying you can destroy a vase I made, but that I have no right to do so.....

 

[ecco]

I understand getting your two minutes hate in now again can be cathartic, but let me know if you ever want to stop doing the things you falsely accuse me of doing. You seem intelligent, but you are acting rather immaturely.

You are incapable of addressing serious questions. Making ridiculous assertions and then ducking and dodging is not the way to have a serious conversation. Bye.

 

[Etritonakin]

You are incapable of addressing serious questions. Making ridiculous assertions and then ducking and dodging is not the way to have a serious conversation. Bye.

If only

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No. The evidence concerning the makeup of planets, goldilock zones, the makeup of life, the vastness of the universe, etc.

Oh, you mean all those falsified theories?

Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says

Planets Found to Be Larger Than the Disks They Come From | Quanta Magazine

I an actually, in the form of light. But anyway....

but anyway, EM radiation is caused by the acceleration of an electron, yet you never once observed the energy causing the electron to accelerate in the first place. You are seeing the effect, not the cause....

I can't see magnetic fields either. Or air. Can't see that either. But it seems rather pointless to point that out if we have other (objective) means of detecting it.

Detecting it isn’t seeing it. It does seem rather pointless to point out you can’t see it, only detect it, when we were discussing seeing it....

Energy itself is directly detectable.
But more importantly, what's your point?
Why point out that it's not within the spectrum of human eyesight, when there are other objective means of detecting it?

I’m not the one saying we can’t detect it’s effects, just that it is invisible..... Romans 1:20

Well in a sense they are the same. In the sense of detectability.

Word games won’t help your cause.... you can detect a magnetic field, but you will never be able to see it. It will forever remain invisible....

Huh?
No, that has nothing to do with it.

I just think it's stereotypical of the psychology of humans: to think that they are special and that everything is about them. Religion as an invention of human kind to "elevate" itself above nature, seems to perfectly fit that profile.

No, that’s the role of evolution to believe one thing can be more evolved than another.... better than something else.

Huh?

Do you even know what an ad-hominem is? Because you're not using it correctly...
I didn't attack anyone. You asked how I explain the idea of your religion that humans were made in the image of your god. I gave you my explanation.

You gave no explanation, but simply resorted to insults because it’s what all evolutionists devolve to in every conversation.

If you are butthurt about that, maybe that's just how you chose to interpret my answer.
I.... I just gave you my honest answer. That's how I explain it.

Oh no, I’m not hurt at all. I simply realize insults are the tactic of all evolutionists when they feel threatened and can’t defend their stance. It shows they have already lost the battle and know it...

If the answer was going to offend you, then perhaps you shouldn't have asked the question.
It wasn't my intention to offend anyone nore do I see my answer as being offensive. So that's that then...

Why would I be offended because you can’t answer logically but feel the need to attack because you felt threatened. Natural fight or flight response.

How did I not address the subject??
You asked a question, I answered it.

You not liking the answer doesn't change that....

You answered nothing...... but then that is typical when conversing with evolutionists....

Again, I didn't attack you in any way, shape or form.

You asked what I thought about a specific bible quote.
I answered your question.

My answer wasn't about you. It was about that bible quote.

I would say it was stereotypical egotistical narcissist thinking to think you are more evolved than another animal too....

Maybe you should look at your own beliefs about being more advanced than any life on this planet as you complain about creationists thinking they are above them too....

Oh my, why look, we both think we are higher than the other animals....

The difference is my belief says we were meant to be caretakers. Yours says we were meant to dominate and kill off anything that isn’t as fit....

It rather sounds to me like will be dismissing anything by whatever means (including false accusation such as you are doing here), whenever an answer isn't to your liking or doesn't agree with your views.

Oh I agree we both think humans are above all other life forms on this planet. Unlike you I don’t try to dismiss my own beliefs then claim the other person is the egotistical one for thinking the same thing.

You will indeed dismiss anything that you don’t agree with, even when you agree with it. Just to refuse to agree....

Again: you asked a question. I gave you an honest answer. If my honest answer offends you, then so be it.

No you didn’t. An honest answer would be to claim the same thing about yourself since apparently we are the most advanced form of life to have “evolved” on this planet. With all life basically subject to us and our whims...... Sounds egotistical and narcissist doesn’t it......

Guess you didn’t take your own beliefs into account when you replied. Always just the other guy, I know, I know....

 

[Etritonakin]

Anywhooooooooooo.....

At the very least, none can deny that identity/creativity make things possible that otherwise were not possible.

I have been looking for anything written about the individual steps toward each -and how each step makes specific things possible (have not had time to do so myself).

Quite sad that some find such ideas so distasteful -and are not willing to look beyond their present viewpoints -as study could lead to some awesome breakthroughs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh, you mean all those falsified theories?

Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says

Planets Found to Be Larger Than the Disks They Come From | Quanta Magazine



but anyway, EM radiation is caused by the acceleration of an electron, yet you never once observed the energy causing the electron to accelerate in the first place. You are seeing the effect, not the cause....


Detecting it isn’t seeing it. It does seem rather pointless to point out you can’t see it, only detect it, when we were discussing seeing it....



I’m not the one saying we can’t detect it’s effects, just that it is invisible..... Romans 1:20



Word games won’t help your cause.... you can detect a magnetic field, but you will never be able to see it. It will forever remain invisible....




No, that’s the role of evolution to believe one thing can be more evolved than another.... better than something else.



You gave no explanation, but simply resorted to insults because it’s what all evolutionists devolve to in every conversation.


Oh no, I’m not hurt at all. I simply realize insults are the tactic of all evolutionists when they feel threatened and can’t defend their stance. It shows they have already lost the battle and know it...


Why would I be offended because you can’t answer logically but feel the need to attack because you felt threatened. Natural fight or flight response.




You answered nothing...... but then that is typical when conversing with evolutionists....



I would say it was stereotypical egotistical narcissist thinking to think you are more evolved than another animal too....

Maybe you should look at your own beliefs about being more advanced than any life on this planet as you complain about creationists thinking they are above them too....

Oh my, why look, we both think we are higher than the other animals....

The difference is my belief says we were meant to be caretakers. Yours says we were meant to dominate and kill off anything that isn’t as fit....



Oh I agree we both think humans are above all other life forms on this planet. Unlike you I don’t try to dismiss my own beliefs then claim the other person is the egotistical one for thinking the same thing.

You will indeed dismiss anything that you don’t agree with, even when you agree with it. Just to refuse to agree....





No you didn’t. An honest answer would be to claim the same thing about yourself since apparently we are the most advanced form of life to have “evolved” on this planet. With all life basically subject to us and our whims...... Sounds egotistical and narcissist doesn’t it......

Guess you didn’t take your own beliefs into account when you replied. Always just the other guy, I know, I know....

I see you are back playing your same old games.

Sorry, I'm not in the mood for such nonsense today.

 

[tas8831]

Given the size and age of the universe the probability that something more intelligent than us has arisen, many multiples of times, is probably greater than 99.999.

Or zero if you go by the evidence.....

Interesting, if unwitting, admission.

 

[Etritonakin]

Furthermore...............

While science has done an awesome job reverse-engineering the universe back to the point of the Big Bang (by indirect evidence of that which can not be experienced, by the way), it has no explanation for how the singularity came to exist from initial simplicity and then form the universe and all therein.

For some reason (probably annoying and incorrect religious people making them cringe at the very thought), many scientISTS refuse to consider the absolutely most likely suspect for that intermediate stage -for which there is abundant evidence all around them -and even in themselves.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

While science has done an awesome job reverse-engineering the universe back to the point of the Big Bang (by indirect evidence of that which can not be experienced, by the way), it has no explanation for how the singularity came to exist from initial simplicity and then form the universe and all therein.

That's why the research goes on. To try and find out.
Everything we know scientifically today, was unknown at some time in the past.

So, what's your point?

For some reason (probably annoying and incorrect religious people making them cringe at the very thought), many scientISTS refuse to consider the absolutely most likely suspect for that intermediate stage -for which there is abundant evidence all around them -and even in themselves.

So what is that "absolutely most likely" thing and how was it determined to being the "absolutely most likely"?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I see you are back playing your same old games.

Sorry, I'm not in the mood for such nonsense today.

In other words you’ll ignore your own theories of planetary formation have been falsified so you can continue to use falsified theories...

In other words you came to the realization your own theory says we are above the animals and so can’t handle that your own beliefs agree with a creationist.... and therefore your own answer was against yourself...

As I said, will disagree just to not agree.

Will say nothing while thinking he’s proved something.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Interesting, if unwitting, admission.

So show me life elsewhere......

Or I could say interesting belief that you hold to. Your faith is indeed strong in the unobserved and unproven.....

Oh wait, that’s the claim against creationists, my bad....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Furthermore...............

While science has done an awesome job reverse-engineering the universe back to the point of the Big Bang (by indirect evidence of that which can not be experienced, by the way), it has no explanation for how the singularity came to exist from initial simplicity and then form the universe and all therein.

For some reason (probably annoying and incorrect religious people making them cringe at the very thought), many scientISTS refuse to consider the absolutely most likely suspect for that intermediate stage -for which there is abundant evidence all around them -and even in themselves.

We won’t mention their entire belief stems from a priest understanding that “God stretched out the heavens”.

Of course to get accepted and published in secular journals he needed to avoid all mention of God as the cause to the effect.... and rightly stated that the cause could not be known scientifically.... because ALL our physics breaks down at the beginning..... because physics as we know it did not exist either......

But they want to understand God and creation using physics that did not then exist. But were themselves part of the creation...

 

[tas8831]

So show me life elsewhere......

Or I could say interesting belief that you hold to. Your faith is indeed strong in the unobserved and unproven.....

Oh wait, that’s the claim against creationists, my bad....

Funny thing - you didn't grasp why I wrote what I did.

Still waiting for your support for your claim that courts do complete genome comparisons.

That you've abandoned that thread tells me something...

 

[tas8831]

Our type of bodies would not be possible in a pre-elemental environment, but a similar type of mental ability would still be possible and necessary to produce that which required it.

How so?

Since our 'mental ability' is a direct product of our post-elemental physical brain.

 

[ecco]

Oh, you mean all those falsified theories?

Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says

Planets Found to Be Larger Than the Disks They Come From | Quanta Magazine

All those falsified theories? Really? I guess you didn't bother to actually read and try to understand either of the articles.

In your first link, did you fail to see the words "Expert Says"? It is the opinion of one scientist from 2011 when there were 500 known exoplanets.



Today...

https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/faq/6/how-many-exoplanets-are-there/
How many exoplanets are there?

To date, nearly 4,000 exoplanets have been discovered and considered "confirmed." However, there are nearly 3,000 other "candidate" exoplanet detections that require further observations in order to say for sure whether or not the exoplanet is real.
​

It should not be surprising that new ideas and theories are constantly emerging. The important thing is that 50 years ago many people believed the planets in our solar system were the only planets in the universe.

You are typical of fundies and creos who see each new scientific discovery as:
SEE, THE DUMB SCIENTISTS JUST PROVED THEMSELVES WRONG AGAIN.

Science doesn't know everything and science will never know everything. However, we do know that stars are not pinholes in the firmament.