The blog asks for non-religious, imperical premises - but then omits everything that constitutes such. The de-legitimising of the Hebrew, via focusing this on premises of the Gospels and Quran, does not vindicate, and has resulted in gross misinfo.
These are among the factors not addressed and not given the merit they deserve by Creationist & Monotheist rejecters, while in fact there are no scientific alternatives at hand or even possible of those premises. Consider these neglected factors:
1. Genesis' discription of the universe origins is valid from its opening verse: that the uni is finite [there was a BEGINNING]. Whether one accepts this or not, it is a valid scientific premise, and one of only two possibilities.
2. The second verse points to the point where science itself emerged. Namely, the uni was formless [lawless; all was one mush]; then became formed [with scientific laws]. There is no coherent alternative to this: there was no gravity [a law] before the space bodies existed - the law comes first, then the effects.
3. Next, anticipatory actions of forthcoming life are listed: critical separations of light/darkness; water/land; etc. Here the premise is, 'THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS' apply. How else, and why else is there life only on earth and not seen for 15 Billion years in the known universe - nt a single imprint?
4. Evolution comes from Genesis: the first divisions of life form groups and sub-groups; in their correct protocol. Factors of Adaptation and natural selection are best defined by the seed [chip] factor, which houses host data. Try doing away with the host transmission!?
5. That all life, and by subsequence all stuff, originated as a 'duality' ['Man & woman created he them']. There is no alternative to this: no action is possible with one. In fact, a true 'one' does not exist in the universe. And if we say a red marble came from a green marble - the later had to also contain red! Consider that at one time there was no environment to impact this action. The duality factor is 100% valid; its alternative is less credible than voodooism and magic.
Other factors never considered by rejectionists of the Hebrew bible:
This is the world's first alphabetical book [book: multi-page continuing narrative].
All judiciary laws followed today came from the Hebrew bible - exclusively. This includes all animal rights, human rights and women's rights laws; environmental rights; copyrights; etc.
The oldest active calendar, with the introduction of the day and the week.
The age of history per se: we have no 'name' of a human pre-6000. How so this eerie, perfect alignment, down to the day and year? Also, no kings, wars, cities, nations, monuments, etc pre-5770.
The first recorded scientific cencus - in the millions, with age and gender sub-totals.
Medicine also appears derived first in the Hebrew bible. I refer to the first speration of this faculty as a science, apposed from occultism. Consider the copious pages refering to Leprosy, its ID, treatment, quanrantine and the aluding to malignancies, infectcious and contagious viral transmissions?
I do not appraoch this subject theologically - but only from empirical premises. It seems rather difficult to accept a band of a wondering desert tribe could have conjured up all this humanity enlightening stuff.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
A SCIENTIFIC APPRAISAL OF CREATIONISM.
THERE IS NO "ONE" IN THE UNIVERSE.
"ONE" - an absolute one, irreducible and indivisible, aka a singularity. This cannot exist in the universe. Lets examine the most primal example - the Big Bang. Assume this as the first entity in the universe - the term atom can be impractical here because this may infer a nucleus and electrons, which violates the technicality of an absolute ONE; thus entity instead.
Q: Can an action occur here? E.g. an 'EXPANSION" or a "BANG"?
A: Negative. There is nothing to interact with - not by an internal or external impact. At this phase, there is only the one entity existing - no space, no time, no environment, light, energy, forces, etc, etc. Otherwise, the term BEGINNING cannot apply to the BBT. Now, the universe could not have emerged - the Bang could not have occured by an internal impact: there are no devisible components in the first entity [else it would not be the first]; the same applies for an external impact. Thus there could not have been any bang, nor any expansion or contraction with ONE. No action could occur here - the first entity would remain just that forever. No rust could occur because there is again nothing to interact with to cause decay.
Of course, this is based on a 'FINITE' universe, an absolutely finite kind [how many kinds are there?]. This says everything in the universe never existed at one time, and that everything evolved from one another. Of course, to raise the temps, I got this from a theological writings, namely Genesis, the first recording of the universe being finite [there was a BEGINNING - opening verse], and a deceptively simple entry therein: "MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM". The latter entry, IMHO, has no alternative:
Analogy: if a red marble came from a green marble, then the green marble also had to contain some red. How else? So, if an offspring can be male or female - then the original life form host also had to contain both male and female - the first life had to be a dual-gendered entity! How else, male Adam discovers an exacting female Eve roaming around in the exacting same space-time!? By extension, all things, even inanimate stuff, stones, pineapples, stars and hydrogen, also had to have originated as a duality - not a singularity.
Consider: All actions are based on an interaction; and all interactions must have a minimum duality factor, be this positive/negative; male/female; hot/cold; etc.
If this is agreed upon, it raises fundamental negations of a host of accepted premises of how the universe emerged. If all interactions are based on this duality factor, as opposed a singularity of ONE, it affirms extending paradigms:
1. An interaction cannot be random: both entties have to recognise each other; that the interaction has beneficial potentials and that there is a receptivity facility for the interaction to occur. Multiple, specific programs are applicable for both parts.
2. Recognising refers to a pre-directed program of both parts of the interaction - more so than not so. At least, a program of complexity having a programmer, is not an unscientific premise; one can opt for another scenario, but this does not render a negative to the program/programmer premise. The substantive complexity at issue does not give much credibility to randomity even with the large time factor: the complexity began at the initiation, graduating as time progressed. Nor can we say the laws of science pre-dated the universe - it violates the finite factor.
3. We know that interactions do not always occur and are subject to given results only: H2+O =water; N2+O does not result in water. Again, this indicators specificity, the antithesis of random.
CONCLUSION: There is no scientific alternative to Creationism; based on a finite universe; and there is no other kind than the finite kind. The MV and parallel universe scenarios do not change this premise - it only pushes the goal post further on.
It takes two to tango applies.
"ONE" - an absolute one, irreducible and indivisible, aka a singularity. This cannot exist in the universe. Lets examine the most primal example - the Big Bang. Assume this as the first entity in the universe - the term atom can be impractical here because this may infer a nucleus and electrons, which violates the technicality of an absolute ONE; thus entity instead.
Q: Can an action occur here? E.g. an 'EXPANSION" or a "BANG"?
A: Negative. There is nothing to interact with - not by an internal or external impact. At this phase, there is only the one entity existing - no space, no time, no environment, light, energy, forces, etc, etc. Otherwise, the term BEGINNING cannot apply to the BBT. Now, the universe could not have emerged - the Bang could not have occured by an internal impact: there are no devisible components in the first entity [else it would not be the first]; the same applies for an external impact. Thus there could not have been any bang, nor any expansion or contraction with ONE. No action could occur here - the first entity would remain just that forever. No rust could occur because there is again nothing to interact with to cause decay.
Of course, this is based on a 'FINITE' universe, an absolutely finite kind [how many kinds are there?]. This says everything in the universe never existed at one time, and that everything evolved from one another. Of course, to raise the temps, I got this from a theological writings, namely Genesis, the first recording of the universe being finite [there was a BEGINNING - opening verse], and a deceptively simple entry therein: "MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM". The latter entry, IMHO, has no alternative:
Analogy: if a red marble came from a green marble, then the green marble also had to contain some red. How else? So, if an offspring can be male or female - then the original life form host also had to contain both male and female - the first life had to be a dual-gendered entity! How else, male Adam discovers an exacting female Eve roaming around in the exacting same space-time!? By extension, all things, even inanimate stuff, stones, pineapples, stars and hydrogen, also had to have originated as a duality - not a singularity.
Consider: All actions are based on an interaction; and all interactions must have a minimum duality factor, be this positive/negative; male/female; hot/cold; etc.
If this is agreed upon, it raises fundamental negations of a host of accepted premises of how the universe emerged. If all interactions are based on this duality factor, as opposed a singularity of ONE, it affirms extending paradigms:
1. An interaction cannot be random: both entties have to recognise each other; that the interaction has beneficial potentials and that there is a receptivity facility for the interaction to occur. Multiple, specific programs are applicable for both parts.
2. Recognising refers to a pre-directed program of both parts of the interaction - more so than not so. At least, a program of complexity having a programmer, is not an unscientific premise; one can opt for another scenario, but this does not render a negative to the program/programmer premise. The substantive complexity at issue does not give much credibility to randomity even with the large time factor: the complexity began at the initiation, graduating as time progressed. Nor can we say the laws of science pre-dated the universe - it violates the finite factor.
3. We know that interactions do not always occur and are subject to given results only: H2+O =water; N2+O does not result in water. Again, this indicators specificity, the antithesis of random.
CONCLUSION: There is no scientific alternative to Creationism; based on a finite universe; and there is no other kind than the finite kind. The MV and parallel universe scenarios do not change this premise - it only pushes the goal post further on.
It takes two to tango applies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)