Creationist Answer Please

by skyman 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Pole

  Danny,
  Good point about thermodynamics.
  

  In the evolution process it may be possible to calculate some things also, but the problem here is that the influences, then number of external parameters in the formulas are to large.

  
  True, but the complexity of the model does not mean that it's "pure mathematical randomness". Similarily, current weather models are believed to be relatively deterministic in principle (that's why our supercomputers allow us to predict weather patterns for the next day or two), but in practice the complexity of those patterns is so mind-boggling that we like to simply the description of such phenomena by calling them "random".
  As I said thousands of different probability distributions have been observed in nature. Let's not put them all in the same bag.
  Pole
• 

  sharona12

  At the following website you can access many articles by physicists, astronomers, and numerous other PHD's, scientists, etc about the nature of the universe, God, time, Gravity, light, etc. Many of them are very technical but if you don't mind using a dictionary to help you understand what you are reading you should be able to get the gist of most the subject matter discussed. Dr. Dolphin was lead researcher for the research lab at Stanford and was involved in developing much of the early space program. His bio and work history are there for your perusal. The scientific articles are about 1/3 of the way down. I've been reading them for years and have never been disappointed in any that I have downloaded. Enjoy.

  http://www.ldolphin.org/asstbib.shtml
• 

  DannyBloem

  Pole,

  This is an interesting subject. Although not much of a creationist response as was asked for

  True, but the complexity of the model does not mean that it's "pure mathematical randomness". Similarily, current weather models are believed to be relatively deterministic in principle (that's why our supercomputers allow us to predict weather patterns for the next day or two), but in practice the complexity of those patterns is so mind-boggling that we like to simply the description of such phenomena by calling them "random".

  Deep down, the cause for mutations is probably real mathematical randomness. Cosmic rays or whatever influence. However DNA is not random, far from it, so even the changes made in dna are maybe random, the results of a single change does not look random. Or maybe better to say, the results of a single change form a very specific distribution.
  The point I wanted to make is that that randomness can be used as a building brick, for certain not random things.

  I think the comparasion to reletively deterministic weather patterns and evolution is a good one.

  As I said thousands of different probability distributions have been observed in nature. Let's not put them all in the same bag.

  Isn't it so, that those different probability distributions are combinations of more simpler ones? or normal distributions working on non linear things, causing an appearend different distribution, but in the basics just a normal distribution?
  Just a question here, not a point taken.

  Danny
• 

  Pole

  Post moved to this thread:
  
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/95839/1.ashx
• 

  Pole

  Post moved to this thread:
  
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/95839/1.ashx
• 

  DannyBloem

  At the following website you can access many articles by physicists, astronomers, and numerous other PHD's, scientists, etc about the nature of the universe, God, time, Gravity, light, etc. Many of them are very technical but if you don't mind using a dictionary to help you understand what you are reading you should be able to get the gist of most the subject matter discussed. Dr. Dolphin was lead researcher for the research lab at Stanford and was involved in developing much of the early space program. His bio and work history are there for your perusal. The scientific articles are about 1/3 of the way down. I've been reading them for years and have never been disappointed in any that I have downloaded. Enjoy.

  http://www.ldolphin.org/asstbib.shtml

  yes there is a lot of it.
  Most of it not very scientific though.
  The problem here is that people are trying so hard to prove something totally non objective. All things not supporting their theories are ignored, scientists are misquoted, facts are ignored, and sometimes bended to fit a certain purpose. Where did I hear this before, ahh yes in the kingdom hall. No one ever admits he can be wrong.
  This is not science, it is BS. If you have a specific article you want to discuss I am willing, if you are open for arguments... Danny
• 

  sharona12

  Here are some articles that I enjoyed. These are not too deep for me but there are others that I do not feel qualified to defend- I do not have the educational background to do so. To attempt to debate (or even discuss) with you about things I do not know about would be foolish. My expertise is in the medical fields- nursing and medical technology. BTW, what are your fields of expertise?

  The Limits of Science

  Lambert Dolphin

  What is Light?

  by Lambert Dolphin

  What Holds The Universe Together?

  When the Universe Became Fuzzy

  by Lambert Dolphin, Physicist
  www.ldolphin.org

  The Complexities of Time

  by Lambert Dolphin

  http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/links-papers.htm

  The top article on redshift and ZPE by Setterfield

  And

  A DETERMINATION AND ANALYSIS OF APPROPRIATE VALUES OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT TO TEST THE SETTERFIELD HYPOTHESIS

  Alan Montgomery

  218 Mccurdy DR.

  Kanata, ON K2L 2L6

  Canada
• 

  DannyBloem

  Here are some articles that I enjoyed. These are not too deep for me but there are others that I do not feel qualified to defend- I do not have the educational background to do so. To attempt to debate (or even discuss) with you about things I do not know about would be foolish. My expertise is in the medical fields- nursing and medical technology. BTW, what are your fields of expertise?

  My field of expertise?: well, astronomy and physics, but I'm not a professor in it, nor working in that field.

  I read the article about the red shift. We discussed earlier a lot about red shifts and big bang theory, on this board. See the thread about the big bang from Rod P.

  It is an interesting article, although you have to explain to me what it has to do with the subject about creationism.

  Where can I find the other articles you name: I do not see them in the list at the link....

  This ones I mean:

  The Limits of Science

  What is Light?

  What Holds The Universe Together?

  When the Universe Became Fuzzy

  The Complexities of Time

  A DETERMINATION AND ANALYSIS OF APPROPRIATE VALUES OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT TO TEST THE SETTERFIELD HYPOTHESIS

  Danny
• 

  hibiscusfire

  Who created God?

  The Answer: The one who created the heavens and the earth.

  Hibiscusfire
• 

  Daunt

  That's far from an answer Hibs. But it is currently impossible for you to think otherwise. Like what has been said before, creationist have an agenda and they use information to form that agenda. That is deceitful to claim that this process is in any way shape or form scientific. It is just not beneficial for the advancement of mankind to even consider this valid (The scientific community don't even care).