How is there reality without God?

[EarthScienceguy]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #428]

Perhaps there is some mathematics in this book that will help you out.

I am not the one that needs help with mathematics. Creationism is supported by mathematics it is evolution that is not. So you might want to read that book and see if it can support your fairy tale.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #429]

What you're trying to do is calculate estimates against a change that's so often already occurred.

No, I just proved that the change could not have happened the way that you believe and it did not occur in the time frame you say it happen.

[Clownboat]

Actually, Creationism says that life on earth began with billions of kinds of life and change came about from these billions of different kinds.
Evolution says that life began as a single cell and change came from that point.

Claims without evidence are meaningless and abiogenesis discusses how life began, not evolution.
You are a waste of time and not worthy of debate IMO if you will not make the effort to learn that which you try to debate against.

The only assumption that is possible is Creationism.

This from a person that thinks evolution says that life began as a single cell.

"Evolutionary theory needs bottlenecks in its make-believe story about human evolution.

Well holy monkeys! It's make believe! Why didn't you say that earlier!

Christianity lives on.

Not for long...

This has proven to be false and not possible in the time frame of the universe.

We still talking about global floods, some tower of babeling or are we on to talking animals now?

Then show through population genetics how it is a fact.

No need silly. Since evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations and such things happen in reality, it is demonstrated by reality.
What kind of reality can you supply for a tower of babel or for a talking donkey? Clealy, the playing fields are not equal.

If you believe in evolution you have faith that life began as a cell.

This is simply false. Again, you are a waste of time if you refuse to correct your faulty thinking.
Not a total waste though, as your posts do bring laughter and joy.

Creatinsim makes the assumption that life started with billions of different kinds of animals.

You obviously have not thought this through. How long would it take to name billions of animals? Heck, counting to a billion would take about a hundred years on its own. Don't let the facts get in the way of your claims though.

If your assumption is true then you should be able to prove it mathematically.

Sorry, but evolution happens on earth. Math is not even required in order to know this. How did bacteria evolve the ability to digest nylon? Did a god create a kind of bacteria that could digest something that humans had not created yet? Is that your explanation?

Creationism has always maintained that small genetic changes were possible

Small genetic changes are possible.

and that it is limited to occurring within a kind.

And here we see your religious beliefs affecting your reasoning.

Large changes in the genome are not possible and have been shown not to be possible.

Got it. Please tell me more about this global flood, tower of babel and talking donkeys.

In fact, there is more evidence of some type of worldwide flood than there is for any of the other worldwide catastrophe theories.

Neat claim. Did you hear it from a donkey or a snake?
I do not believe your claim that there was ever a world wide flood.
I also see no reason to believe in some tower of babel (it really is a silly story), talking animals or hundreds of dead bodies leaving their graves and walking the streets of Jerusalem. I see no reason to insert a god explanation creating billions of kinds of life for 2 humans to then name. This is all beyond reasonable and therefore is not a better mechanism to explain the life we see not only now, but also in the fossil record.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #429]

What you're trying to do is calculate estimates against a change that's so often already occurred.

No, I just proved that the change could not have happened the way that you believe and it did not occur in the time frame you say it happen.

Changes in alleles happen and those changes add up. Your math is powerless in the face of fact.

We see that a child is not a clone. It's genes come from two different pools. Even then, the 'half copies' are not exact.

From that fact, and given time, these changes add up to create new species.

If you actually 'proved' your case, you'd be the rock star of biology. But ya didn't, so ya ain't.

[brunumb]

So after the flood, there would not have been much of a wild just a world full of plants.

And most of the pairs of carnivorous animals would have eaten each other into extinction.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #428]

Perhaps there is some mathematics in this book that will help you out.

I am not the one that needs help with mathematics. Creationism is supported by mathematics it is evolution that is not. So you might want to read that book and see if it can support your fairy tale.

You asked for the mathematics and then you don't want to examine it. Wow. That rather exemplifies the closed mind don't you think.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #435]

So after the flood, there would not have been much of a wild just a world full of plants.
And most of the pairs of carnivorous animals would have eaten each other into extinction.

No not necessarily.

• Two lions have been known to be vegetarian. Perhaps the most famous is “Little Tyke,” who died many years ago. The large cat was raised on a farm but refused to eat meat throughout the duration of her life. James A. Peden, “Vegetarian Lioness: Little Tyke,” http://www.vegetarismus.ch/vegepet/tyke.htm

• The Gypohierax angolensis or palm-nut vulture is a bird of prey that even mice wouldn’t be afraid of! This vulture’s primary diet is palm fruits. It has been known on occasion to eat fish, carrion, and invertebrates. Palm nuts being the bulk of its diet reveals that this bird of prey does not require meat to survive. “Palm-Nut Vulture,” Kenya Birds, http://www.kenyabirds.org.uk/vult-pn.htm

• When people think of piranhas, they think of a deadly fish that can strip flesh from the bone in a matter of minutes. Pacu is a common name for several species of fishes in South America that are primarily vegetarian and are considered cousins of the piranha. Pacu are fishes within the same subfamily (Serrasalminae) as piranhas. The two are likely part of the same created kind. In fact, pacu are often confused with piranhas because they look so similar. Experts usually evaluate their teeth (which have slight differences) to tell them apart. Donna O’Daniel, “Piranhas, the Feared Fish,” Answers in Depth 4(1), May 6, 2009.

So did the carnivores have to eat meat or is that an adaption after the flood? A lion is said to be an animal that is not supposed to be able to live on plants and yet this one did.

[Difflugia]

• Two lions have been known to be vegetarian. Perhaps the most famous is “Little Tyke,” who died many years ago. The large cat was raised on a farm but refused to eat meat throughout the duration of her life. James A. Peden, “Vegetarian Lioness: Little Tyke,” http://www.vegetarismus.ch/vegepet/tyke.htm

You've become lax again about double-checking the stuff you plagiarize. That link apparently is no longer valid, but redirects to the home page of a Swiss analog of PETA.



"May I toss you on the grill, my sweet?"

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #436]

You asked for the mathematics and then you don't want to examine it. Wow. That rather exemplifies the closed mind don't you think.

Oh, Wow that is funny. You did not even look at the book, did you? You might want to do that next time.

Chapter 1 Life’s Silent Commander
Chapter 2 Organizing the Multitudes
Chapter 3 The Physics of the Ladybug
Chapter 4 All Creatures Great and Small
Chapter 5 Bundles of Life
Chapter 6 The Edge of Life
Chapter 7 The Code of Life
Chapter 8 Of Sandwiches and Sulfur
Chapter 9 Water, the Liquid of Life
Chapter 10 The Atoms of Life
Chapter 11 Universal Biology?
Chapter 12 The Laws of Life: Evolution and Physics Unified

Yea, which one of the 12 chapters are you referring to? Because I really do not see any that have to do with evolution. If you want to change the topic to abiogenesis maybe. But this book has nothing of substance in it. Maybe chapter twelve. Chapter 12 has one equation in it. PV = nRT

I did not realize that the ideal gas equation was the answer to all of the problems that evolution faces. (heavy sarcasm intended)

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #438]

May I toss you on the grill, my sweet?"

I like that one. I have cats of my own that would do that.

Search James A. Peden, “Vegetarian Lioness: Little Tyke you will get a bunch of links.