mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Profile: Dreamy
User Name: Dreamy
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Gender: Male
Joined: Friday, September 11, 2009
Last Visit: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 9:56:00 PM
Number of Posts: 1,501
[0.14% of all post / 0.35 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Dreams ...
Posted: Thursday, April 11, 2019 2:01:21 AM
cheekyme wrote:
Why do we dream?

Hi cheekyme. This might be a helpful link. I really like the conclusion reached.

The Science Behind Dreaming

In short, dreams help regulate traffic on that fragile bridge which connects our experiences with our emotions and memories.

I collect anecdotes of dreams about events that are later matched when awake. I've had a few of these and believe the magnetic fields of the Universe are somehow connected to these phenomena.
Topic: Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective
Posted: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:43:06 PM
To continue I reiterate this from my OP:

Presuppositions vastly affect our interpretation of evidence. The problem (for the secular scientist) is that science itself is based on Christian presuppositions. Science is possible because God upholds the universe in a logical, orderly way and because God made our minds able to think and reason logically.

Not all Creationists are Christians, or even Bible-believers. Some of them are scientists who have been evolutionists but in the course of their careers have come to the realisation that the "science" that evolutionists rely on is defective, and in some cases downright dishonest. We have discussed the fake discoveries and hoaxes before on TFD.

There are three main problems with Evolutionary Theory.

1. Arbitrariness:
2. Inconsistency:
3. Preconditions:

The idea that the Theory of Evolution has been proved is arbitary. It exists as opinion for example in claims that such things as the fossil record and distant starlight are evidence against creationism, all the while ignoring the scientific findings that discredit the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record and relying on Uniformitarianism to dismiss research into the speed of light that doesn't hold to its conventions.

The idea that the Theory of Evolution has been proved is inconsistent. It exists in spite of the fact that evolutionary theory violates two fundamental laws of nature, these being the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. Evolution requires a general increase in order extending through geological time, but these two laws state firstly that
"no matter what changes take place, nuclear, chemical, or physical, the sum total of energy and matter remains constant; so that nothing is created or destroyed in transformations";
and secondly that
"every change that takes place naturally and spontaneously tends to go from a state of order to one of disorder, from the complex to the simple, from a higher energy state to a lower energy state; so that the total amount of randomness or disorder in the universe, with entropy being the measure of this randomness, is constantly and inevitably increasing."

This being the case, there is inconsistency in evolutionary claims of "a progressive creative continuumn" from cosmos to microbe to man; there is inconsistency with random mutations being degenerative rather than progressive, with loss of information being a disordering of the ordered; and there is inconsistency with natural selection being a "force of conservation" rather than a creative one, merely eliminating the unfit and adapting to the environment without creating anything new.

In this respect, to accept the unobservable billions of years required for their "unexplained origins and unplanned increase" model to work, evolutionists ignore the observable laws of thermodynamics which point to quantitative conservation and qualitative degeneration in harmony with biblical truth that the universe is running down not up.

The third main problem with evolutionary theory, after arbitrariness and inconsistency, is that it fails to provide the preconditions for intelligibility. Here are some of the preconditions for intelligibility that must be accepted before we can know anything about the universe:

a. laws of logic
b. uniformity of nature
c. morality
e. basic reliability of senses
f. basic reliability of memory
g. personal dignity and freedom

Unable to provide for these preconditions of intelligibility within their own worldview, evolutionists must borrow or steal them from the Christian Creationist whose very worldview then comes under attack from them as they attempt to scientifically explain laws of logic, uniformity of nature, morality, basic reliability of the senses, basic reliability of memory, personal dignity and freedom, etc., while insisting nothing has been designed to account for these.

I'm sticking with Christianity and Creationism thanks all the same.
Topic: jesus'
Posted: Friday, March 31, 2017 8:00:58 PM
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
(Romans 8:1-4)
Topic: Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective
Posted: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:50:51 PM
Lotje1000 wrote:
Dreamy wrote:
Hi Epiphileon.
Leading question: Why is there a moral obligation to follow laws of logic?

If you believe the laws of logic as you describe them to be inefficient, why are you trying to use logic to convince others to your point of view? Why bother with debate in such an apparently unreliable manner?

Hi Lotje, Thanks for using your God-given logic and supplying precisely an answer that was anticipated and which the question was intended to elicit.

It is a worthy debate between minds that have different worldviews. There is a moral obligation to follow laws of logic if you believe in doing what is right. But who determines what is right and how do they justify their standard?

I understand why the Theory of Evolution exists but from my worldview I reason it is an unproven theory, and agree with an evolutionist by the name of Professor G.A. Kerkurt who concluded in his book "Implications Of Evolution", that the theory was no more than a working hypothesis.

As someone who believes the Bible is true and that science supports its account of God's method of creation as well as his maintenance of it, I find that to argue their case evolutionists must borrow or steal from biblical principles which point to the Laws of Science, Nature, and Logic existing by originally intended design rather than chaotic meaningless accident.
Topic: jesus'
Posted: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:11:31 PM
He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust. Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.
(Psalm 91:1-3)
Topic: Function Of Junk DNA Noted
Posted: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:55:47 PM
taurine wrote:
I know a music collective from Tel Aviv called Junk DNA. This is something different, or maybe not so much...

Now that the truth is out they might care to the "Non-coding DNA"...and keep producing of course. Whistle
Topic: Function Of Junk DNA Noted
Posted: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 3:45:45 AM


This might be something of interest to the scientifically minded forumist:

From the article in the link above:
The goal is to eventually figure out the function of each and every one of the three billion bases of human DNA. ENCODE researcher Tom Gingeras said, “Almost every nucleotide is associated with a function of some sort or another, and we now know where they are, what binds to them, what their associations are, and more.”3 Ewan Birney, ENCODE’s Lead Analysis Coordinator, said, “It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent.”4 In light of this evidence, it’s obvious that a more appropriate term for junk DNA is needed! In fact, ENCODE researchers themselves don’t even use the term junk DNA, but instead refer to these regions as non-coding DNA.

Much of the function is believed to be regulatory. In the simplest terms, the non-protein coding parts of the genome (formerly called junk) are telling the genes when to produce their products (the proteins) and a whole lot more.

Note: The author of the article writes from a Creationist perspective.
Topic: Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective
Posted: Monday, March 27, 2017 8:33:46 PM
Hi Epiphileon.
Leading question: Why is there a moral obligation to follow laws of logic?

If we can agree that in the scientific method there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts, then our discussion is about how the Creationist scientist views these facts and makes sense of them. That the Creationist scientist has faith in God and believes the Bible to be true is a given so there is nothing to be gained from labouring the point about this.

Many who profess creationism cannot articulate their belief in scientific terms and run into difficulty with evolutionists who challenge their reasoning. Likewise many evolutionists cannot say much more than the theory of evolution is true because it is a widely accepted fact. As an arbitrary statement this carries no weight so must be dismissed as irrelevant.

It is with scientific evidence and the logical interpretation of it that the Creationist scientist is concerned, and before such interpretations can take place there are preconditions that must be met.

Without these preconditions the beliefs that arise may be based on nothing more than random choice or personal whim rather than reason or system. The claim that laws of logic are man-made has no basis in fact because it relies on the premise that the origins, diversity, and reality of life are explained solely by the laws of chemistry and physics. In this event logic is just a chain of chemical reactions taking place after billions of years of accidental mutations. Why should such "logic" be considered reliable let alone give rise to any moral obligation for its "laws" to be followed?

Topic: Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective
Posted: Saturday, March 25, 2017 7:23:14 PM
Over the years, having studied objections to Creationism, I find them to be mere opinions which carry no weight, relativistic arguments that have no consistency, and prejudicial conjectures that amount to guesses containing unargued philosophical bias.

Theories can be proven or unproven depending on what one accepts as proof. The interpretation of scientific evidence by an evolutionist assumes there are laws of logic, which is inconsistent with the naturalistic worldview that only energy and matter exist.

Evolutionists do science because they are inconsistent. While they claim the universe is not designed they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in uniformity, but this belief they supress.

The preconditions of science are that the universe is understandable, that things in it are quantifiable, and that minds are sufficiently reliable to comprehend what is observed, and that logical, orderly, consistent laws determine its regularity.

The search for intelligent life in outer space relies on picking up transmissions, and since stars and other inanimate objects emit transmissions it is logical to focus on searching for transmissions that contain intelligent information, that show evidence of design in a coded message originating from a creator, so the rationale behind SETI goes.

By way of analogy DNA contains intelligent information showing evidence of design in a coded message which the laws of logic dictate must originate from a Creator.

The naturalist who insists that empirical observation provides all that can be known cannot explain how they know that. INCONSISTENT.

Topic: Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 3:50:10 AM
Ashwin Joshi wrote:
Theistic evolution, or evolutionary creation, is a belief that "the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes." According to the American Scientific Affiliation:

A theory of theistic evolution (TE) – also called evolutionary creation – proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution – astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) – but it can refer only to biological evolution.

Hi Ashwin & others,
Aside from the theological arguments against TE which mean its adherents cannot also claim to be Bible-believers,(see 1 Corinthians 15 & Romans 5), it is the scientific defence of Creationism with which I am here concerned.

There is no neutral ground for the Bible-believing Christian who cannot accept a chance event created the Universe and accidently began a chaotic, random, and meaningless circus of millions of years of mutations and death before the "man kind" was eventually acheived without this being purposed.

Information Science is the study of coded messages that contain expected actions and intended purposes. In this respect DNA qualifies under the definition of information whereby the base pair triplets represent amino acids in an encoded message, the formation of proteins is the expected action, and life is the intended purpose.

Currently there is no known law of nature or process or sequence of events by which information can cause itself to originate in matter.

The origin of information can be traced back along the lines of its transmission to a sender who is the mental source of it, or in other words the creative mind.

These two theorems of Information Science are evidenced in Observational Science and tell us firstly that matter does not spontaneously generate information, and secondly that only a mental source can generate new creative information and be responsible for copies of that information.

The words written here are not the result of typos that randomly accummulated over time.

Any theory is only a theory until it is proved in practice. We can have all there is of the theory of music, but until musical sounds are made there is no evidence that the theory is proven.

Without the eye would there be telescopes, microscopes, cameras, or any other inventions which enhance the capacity to see?

I must rest now...