58 Replies to “The Creation of Adam”

  1. Awesome!
    With true scientific method, there is NO settled science. Man must always be open to interpreting and re-evaluating new information.
    That is why science will always be man’s most accurate way to interpret the world around us. Violating the rules of legitimate science should be treated with the same disgust and anger as we treat child molesters. But, as with the UN’s IPCC, when man does abuse science to push an agenda, it becomes more like an organized religion. You know, where people are told to just be faithful, believe what we tell you, but do not question.
    We already have enough of those.

  2. It seems to me that insulting science as a whole whenever scientists find evidence that an old idea may be wrong and a newer idea may take its place is something the left usually does.
    There are heaps of physical and experimental evidence supporting evolution.
    There is no physical or experimental evidence supporting creation.
    Ergo evolution is a science, creation is not.

  3. yeah well don’t be so logical. Just wait, the “thumpers” aren’t out of bed yet:-)
    when scientists quit asking questions, then science will be dead. Even the tried and true should be questioned. When questioned, Newtonian physics succumbed to Einsteins theory of relativity. This did not diminish Newton, it just advanced human knowledge.

  4. Newtonian physics is still valid within its domain. Relativity and quantum mechanics just extended the domain of physics. Both special relativity and quantum mechanics were born as a result of conflicts between Maxwell’s electromagnetism and Newtonian mechanics.

  7. Well said. It is just not the UN’s IPCC though. It is also the complete eco-Marxist coalition represented by people such as Gore, Suzuki et al, the Liberal and NDP parties in Canada, the Democrats in the US, many progressive s-called conservatives, and leftist political parties in general.
    In short, all who want to enslave people are the ones that believe and push the Climate Change aka AGW agenda. You can evidence every day if you pay attention to the hypocrisy of the climate change priests that the agenda has absolutely nothing do with the actual ongoing forever climate change.

  8. Oh noes! Whatever shall I do?
    Strangely enough, modern theoretical physics actually suggest the existence of God.

  9. Yes. The evidence for Creation is absent, but the logic for it is that there is no evidence for not creation. The theory of evolution explains the origin of species, i.e. the great variety of living things but it doesn’t explain the origin of life itself nor of the environment in which life originated. But many people just utter the word “Evolution” and believe that thereby they have understood everything and refuted all arguments for the existence of God as a creator of everything who remains beyond our scientific understanding.

  10. ” But many people just utter the word “Evolution” and believe that thereby they have understood everything and refuted all arguments for the existence of God as a creator of everything who remains beyond our scientific understanding.”
    ” But many people just utter the word “Creation” and believe that thereby they have understood everything and refuted all arguments for the existence of evolution”
    In my experience, most atheists are just as hidebound and immune to logic as the most ardent creationists.
    Most creationists take issue with humans being descended from apes of some sort, as opposed to the seemingly ab-nihlio appearance of life on Earth.
    Also, logic does not dictate that if a given phenomenon cannot be explained using the scientific method then that phenomenon is therefore evidence of the existence of or actions of God.

  11. I’ll continue to believe the world and life were created. Science is on my side.

  12. I agree it does not, but if science discovered an existence beyond our world for all humans, people would shed this world’s ancient rituals in a microsecond. In other words, if science could offer us an afterlife, the big religions would die. The afterlife their carrot, sin their stick.
    Personally, since we really know so little about the origins of “everything”, I am open to the possibility that some “intelligence” was involved. Where I draw the sanity line is believing this entity monitors me and gives a flying f*uck about what I eat or how it’s prepared, what I wear, what sexual positions I enjoy or if I show up at a certain place and time to worship it and sing it’s praises.

  13. What scientific theory (or theories) backed by experimental evidence lead you to assert that “science is on your side?” with respect to the creation of life and the world?
    When it comes to the world as a whole, if you are not well schooled in tensor analysis, differential equations, the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulation of mechanics, gauge invariance, vector potential fields, etc, then you have no basis upon which to make that assertion, and indeed your assertion carries no weight whatsoever.
    When it comes to life, if you are not familiar with far from equilibrium dynamics, thermodynamics and entropy, quantum electrodynamics, etc, then again, you have no basis upon which to make that assertion, and again, you assertion carries no weight.

  14. Theoretical physics has already made some pretty strong arguments in favor of the existence of God, and it has had exactly zero effect on the so-called “Big Religions”. I don’t see how the discovery of life after death would cause the “Big Religions” to die. What logical basis do you have for making such an assertion?

  15. well now Kenny, I agree with Yeahwell in most part, and could extend on science does not negate a god. But Newtonian physics shows error in certain areas, were as relativity does not.
    As to Yeahwells comment that modern theoretical physics suggest the existence of a god is subjective and would need context, which I could but won’t supply.
    Kenny me boy, there are too many of you in here that do not have the intellectual capacity, either by birth or because of brain washed obscurity, to discuss these sorts of abstract reasoning

  16. In the beginning was nothing. And nothing happened to nothing for a very very long time until suddenly for no reason whatsoever nothing exploded and became everything. Some time later again for no reason whatsoever bits of everything again for no reason organized themselves and became dinosaurs.

  17. Okay,okay,there IS a God. And He favors the Muslims.
    The rest of us simply don’t count.

  18. That statement basically is just an assertion of your ignorance as to what “nothing” means (ie the vacuum of empty space isn’t “nothing”), and your ignorance of far from equilibrium dynamics.
    You may as well assert that God made the blue flash of light from an electrical spark, as it happened “for no reason”, or at least, no reason that you are aware of.

  20. Relativity also shows errors in certain areas, as it is a classical theory, not a quantum theory.
    Also, the theoretical evidence in favor of god is not subjective, it lies in the application of very well-founded principles of cybernetics and probability theory to the string theory landscape of meta-stable vacuua.

  21. YeahWell please define ‘singularity’ which is the term used by the advocates of the big bang theory. I reduced it to layman terms “nothing”. However you missed the real point I was making and that is the reason why. Why did it happen? According to atheists there is no reason. According to Christians there is a Reason. So while atheists hold that something came from nothing and order came from chaos and life came from non life all for no reason we Christians hold that there is reason and a logic in our universe as it was created that points to the REASON and LOGIC aka the Second Person in the Trinity.

  22. Thanks Joe. I share a similar sentiment.
    YeahWell…. really did you need to put all that bull crap about differential equations and tensors in your response. It really added nothing and made you look like ….. like possibly an engineer of some kind. Not that being an engineer is bad but rather these types of questions will not be answered with an engineering solution. It’s arrogance without substance. And just so you know, theoretical physics is today is not much different from mystical physics…. complete with high priests and voodoo rituals but with much, much more sophisticated rattles and charms.
    NME66688…. you are a superior being. Please humble yourself and share your vast knowledge and wisdom with us. I mean after all, you are in the 1%…..

  23. “I don’t see how the discovery of life after death would cause the “Big Religions” to die. What logical basis do you have for making such an assertion?”
    You’re kidding me, right? You don’t hesitate to insult the intelligence of others here but you are unable to fathom a reasonable answer to such a very simple question? ESPECIALLY when I ALREADY gave you the answer! Afterlife only through religion = Carrot, Sin = Stick. Remove the carrot and the stick looses all relevancy. Holy crap, even a Hillary supporter could follow that logic.
    Next time you respond to one of my posts, maybe you could do me the basic courtesy of reading it first.

  24. A singularity is a point where a given theory breaks down, and new models must be applied.
    Given the small but non-zero vacuum energy of the spacetime continuum we inhabit, there is no longer a call for a singularity at the beginning of this universe, merely a transfer of energy from the potential energy of the inflaton field to other fields , like the electron/positron field and the quark/anti quark fields.
    The very question “why?” presupposes an intelligence, and as such, is not within the scope of science. Science attempts to answer “how?”
    Myself, I believe that the fact that the universe is ordered and comprehensible with our models is evidence (albeit subjective evidence) of the existence of God.
    What sticks in my craw is folk making arguments on either side in total ignorance of the underlying reality. It’s like two women who have no idea what an internal combustion engine is arguing about what makes a car go, with one saying its the ignition key and the other saying its the accelerator.

  25. Okay,okay,there IS a God. And He favors the Muslims.
    The rest of us simply don’t count.

  26. All “that crap about differential equations” is what allows you to make posts here in the first place.
    As to comparing theoretical physics with voodoo, well, that says more about your understanding of it than a physicists, but then again, I guess you don’t know what differential equations are, and how they are used, do you? The fact is, it is impossible to know any empirical knowledge about matter and energy without knowing how to deal with partial differential equations at some level. When you throw a baseball to someone, or tighten a lug nut on a wheel, your brain is essentially solving differential equations.
    Just because someone doesn’t know what work, torque, force, etc is doesn’t mean that those quantities don’t exist or obey certain rules, the same goes for isospin and color charges and values of scalar fields.

  27. 1st vid just kicks the can: The first vid basically says “The universe exists as a result of the laws of nature, which God made.” No empirical evidence.
    2nd vid is the standard “Tornado in a scrapyard” argument kicked into the “How can Earth support life” arena, and as such, is just a demonstration of ignorance concerning far from equilibrium dynamics, just on a bigger scale than the the solar system.
    The bottom line, creation isn’t science, no matter how its dressed up:
    Science:
    1. Make a hypothesis.
    2. Make a prediction based upon this hypothesis.
    3. Do an experiment to test the prediction.
    4. Repeat (2) and (3), many, many, many times, re-visit (1) if necessary based upon the results of the experiments.
    Not science:
    EVERYTHING ELSE

  28. YeahWell… Nice dodge. Distilling all the nonsense you just spewed down to its essence “Damned if I know my theory doesn’t cover it”. BTW you still haven’t answered the question of logic and reason and how utter and complete chaos could result in order in magnitudes beyond our human comprehension. Then of course there is that little problem of who or what wrote the program we find in DNA. As the old saw states the more we know the more realize we don’t know.

  29. It seems you are in denial as to the strength of belief systems. The discovery of an afterlife could equally easily be used to reinforce those same belief systems.
    Also, there are religions, theistic ones, that do not use the heaven/hell afterlife carrot/stick arrangement.

  30. Order often springs from chaos in very far from equilibrium systems, without any violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
    Also, all I am maintaining is that creation is not science. Unlike the ardent creationists and hidebound atheists, I am not saying one is true, the other is not.
    One is free to believe what one likes, and have whatever opinion one wishes, but one is not free to have whatever facts one likes, the facts are up to God, or nature, or whatever.
    The fact is, creation is not and can never be science, barring an experiment in which we get God to create some matter or life for us in a tightly controlled experimental environment.
    Again:
    Science:
    1. Make a hypothesis.
    2. Make a prediction based upon this hypothesis.
    3. Do an experiment to test the prediction.
    4. Repeat (2) and (3), many, many, many times, re-visit (1) if necessary based upon the results of the experiments.
    Not science:
    EVERYTHING ELSE

  31. As a Christian I don’t hold to the common belief in ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ but rather that we as His creation are in the ‘afterlife’ are either near to Him or far away from Him. Those who are near to Him find utter contentment those who are far away from Him find utter despair.

  32. 1. It all started with a big bang.
    2. It will all end with a big bang.
    3. I threw a ball in the air and it came back down.

  33. Tell me YeahWell… what drugs are you on? Seriously you think chaos begets order? Not only that but that utter chaos begets utter order spontaneously? Bwahahahahahahhahahahahaha!!!!!!!

  34. C’mon YeahWell, you are really just here to do your imitation of the fictional TV character Sheldon Cooper, aren’t you?
    I ask that because what you claim to know of science, you exhibit an opposite but equal ignorance of the human condition. It is exactly my understanding of where the strength of these belief systems exists that I can make such a claim, you unbelievably arrogant ass.
    Ha, foobert. Your “ending big bang” may have already happened and we are just waiting for the “light” to travel here.

  35. Well, I am about to enjoy some scotch and a few beers. As to order coming from chaos in far-from-equilibrium systems, grow some crystals from a super-saturated solution (far from equilibrium), or better yet, read the physicist’s Ilya Progigione’s work “Order out of Chaos”, look at the Giant’s Causeway, Saturn’s rings etc.

  36. So, you’re the all-knowing clairvoyant who can predict with certainty what will happen to the big religions in the event an afterlife is discovered, (yes, 1.6 billion Muzz will say “Screw this, I’m an atheist now!, etc…) but I’m the arrogant one. I’ll go out on a limb here and say you’re leaning pretty far left here, pal.
    Also, if an ending big bang happened, it’s called a big crunch, and we’d know it, or rather we wouldn’t be here to know it. That and the expansion of the universe is accelerating, most likely because of a small but non-zero value of an inflaton field (aka dark energy, for the laymen out there).

  37. Sorry YeahWell… but your crystal example doesn’t cut it. Under very specific circumstances (order required) do crystals grow. IF all the conditions are exactly right the foolish might be tricked into believing that order came from chaos except there was no chaos there at all. All the right chemicals in all the right portions with just the right impetus allowed crystals to form. Remove any of those fortunate prerequisites and you have a chemical soup. (Which I posit is order in itself as each chemical has ordered properties without which they would not react interact or even remain as they are. You are doing little more than presupposing order and calling it chaos. Newsflash to YeahWell… what you are describing is order not chaos.

  38. “As a Christian I don’t hold to the common belief in ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ but rather that we as His creation are in the ‘afterlife’ are either near to Him or far away from Him. Those who are near to Him find utter contentment those who are far away from Him find utter despair. ”
    That, IMHO, is a perfectly reasonable assertion.

  39. Order often springs from chaos…
    The communists and socialists seem to think so…that’s why they go around breaking things. One of their prime tenets. Create a problem, then provide the solution.
    Anyway, evolution stopped, explain that…no continuous living line of creatures crawling from the swamps.

  40. Chaos is measured by entropy, S=k*log(n) (S is entropy, k is Boltzmann’s constant and n is the number of distinct micro-states that give rise to identical macro-states). A supersaturated solution can (and has) arise(n) naturally in a far from equilibrium systems (like the Sun/Earth’s atmosphere/Earth’s oceans system.)
    Perhaps you would care to rigorously and mathematically define what exactly you mean by order and chaos? Have you made a new set of experimentally checked rules for thermodynamics? Or are you just gonna say “everybody know what order and chaos are!”, and then to decline to define them with any precision? The fact is, physics is very precise, and if you want to talk about order and chaos, you better understand what they are, how they vary and under what circumstances, and what units they’re measured in, otherwise you’re just pissing into the wind.
    Entropy can and has been experimentally observed to locally decrease in parts of a system as the global entropy of the entire system increases. So yes, order can and does, and has been experimentally observed to spring from chaos under some circumstances, to wit, very far from equilibrium systems. You are of course, free to disbelieve this rigorously experimentally proven fact, as many (including Einstein) don’t believe quantum mechanics, despite the fact that every experiment designed to disprove or falsify it has only reinforced it.
    Look up the “Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser” experiments.

  41. Evolution hasn’t stopped, its just a very, very slow process.
    The prediction made by Darwin that natural selection can lead to new, reproductively isolated species has been proven in a lab. Many hundreds if not thousands of other predictions of evolutionary theory have also been verified by experiment.

  43. Philosophically chaos is exactly that chaos. No light, no dark, no wet, no dry, no up, no down, no being, no nonbeing, no form, no reason, no cause, no properties, no mass, no space. Chaos not the neatly ordered definition you seem to believe YeahWell…

  44. Evolution hasn’t stopped, its just a very, very slow process.
    Slow, or not, to be true there should be a continuous living line of creatures crawling from the swamps, extending all the way to the higher life forms. Or explain why it stopped.

  45. Physically, chaos is a very symmetric state, with no distinction between up or down, left or right, front or back, past or future, etc. So far, humans have been unable to come up with a better rigorous description of chaos than entropy.
    Physical chaos has been very well analyzed and described mathematically. One of my favorite descriptions of one sort of chaos is called the Lorentz Attractor:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xu-9D4ahVU
    It describes, among other things, how a tiny drop of ink in water(a very ordered state) gets spread out to an even distribution of the ink in water to make a very slightly colored liquid (a very disordered state). Like all the toys in the toybox is ordered, but all the toys spread evenly about a room is chaotic.
    God made these rules that we can understand, because He loves us so.
    Symmetry is a wonderful thing, in physics, it is symmetries of the equations that give rise to conservation laws like conservation of energy(symmetry under changing the time), conservation of angular momentum (symmetry under rotations of the system), conservation of linear momentum (symmetry under moving the system along a line or curve in space)…
    It gets even more elegant and beautiful when quantum mechanics comes into play.
    Broken symmetries (what what we perceive to be order…) are even more fascinating.
    When ice crystals form in water, the perfect symmetry of liquid water(the same no matter what direction you look at it from) is broken to give a less symmetric state called ice, which has favored/distinct directions along the crystal lattice…
    Physically, another way of saying order springs from chaos is saying that symmetries are broken, or that preferred or distinct “orientations” come into existence.

  46. deer david, I leave out things for a very specific perpose. I want to see if anyone hits upon the missing “link”, and to this point, even Yahwell, nobody has. At one time some one did discuss it here in SDA, maybe you just weren’t paying attention.
    .
    And no, my wealth does not place me it the 1%

  47. It hasn’t stopped. It just takes more time than all of recorded history to happen.
    Its like saying “The sun is supposed to become a red giant, if that were true, why hasn’t it happened?”, but instead of a timescale of billions of years, evolution happens on a timescale of only millions of years. Recorded history is what, less than 5000 years old, or so?

  48. It hasn’t stopped.
    Of course it has…where are the living line of creatures crawling from the swamp? Every stage of the ‘evolution’ of these creatures, right to the higher life forms, ought to be represented by a living example. You can’t just say it happened once without explaining why it stopped being a continuous process.

  49. jeezus Yeahwell, you are stealing my thunder:-))
    You would be an interesting individual to exchange some ideas by E-mail with, as that leaves out the comments from those who do not understand that they do not understand. And I hope the bright lites don’t run you off as they did ET!!

  50. I don’t think lance likes me, at any rate. I’m curious as to this missing “link” you’ve alluded to, but I missed. Give me a wee hint? It ain’t Lucy, is it?

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation