CrunchyBrit🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

Again sure, a cell may not know about a body, it works on the information given to it to survive, not about ‘knowing’ the body. It has the tools to process signals, but that information is still skewed and filtered toward local survival. Doesn’t mean the coordinated signals from the neuron (or the immune system, or fine-tuning) stop pointing to a larger system.

@CrunchyBrit13 @allegiantfaith These are all things that a cell might say when confronted by a neuron connected to sensory input.

Here's why atheism must be a religion: (1) If atheism is just the negation of theism, then it's nothing. And if it's nothing, then atheists' coming after theists is pointless because theists are the only ones with a substantive position in that case. Atheists are basically leeches who want to tear down theism without replacing it with anything else. They’re just REBELLING against theism...and/or God. (2) If atheism is not a worldview, philosophy, or religion, then the only alternative to it being nothing is it’s a psychological condition, one the rational merits of which could not be judged because it’s called “nothing” and proponents refuse to provide substantive evidence of said merits. In fact, if atheism really is nothing, you can’t provide evidence. Just emotional appeals…which aren’t rational. (3) Any vacuous critiques of theism from atheists are, therefore, ridiculous because they are irrational, and atheists insisting on critiquing theism are exhibiting the highest epitome of ego by pretending to have the superior position, even though that position is really nothing. But good luck getting modern atheists to understand this dilemma.

On your own website it admits the museums have ‘world class exhibits designed to demonstrate Evolution and millions of years.’ If the exhibits are literally designed to teach evolution and deep time, why are you running paid tours that override the museum’s own message with ‘Biblical truth’ instead? Also you openly admit you’re using taxpayer money to ‘bring a Creation Museum to YOU’ inside secular museums. Do you think it’s ethical to turn public science centres into venues for young-Earth creationism without the museums’ permission or public consent?

Museums shape how people see science. What if Christians started reclaiming that ground? Creation tours are already happening—and you can get involved. 👉 CreationToday.org/468

I mean it is true, The pre-Islamic word for God is al-ilāh (the God), which was found on a Christian martyr tomb found in Zabad, Northern Syria used by Arabic Christians dated 512 AD: the Paleo-Arabic reads something like 'May al-ilāh remember Sergius…'. Arabic-speaking Christians were already using al-ilāh for the biblical God long before Islam. It’s the Arabic equivalent of Greek 'ho theos' ('the God'). But that doesn’t lock it into strict monotheism only. The same term could (and did) function in henotheism, many gods, but one supreme, just like the ancient Jews used Yahweh while still acknowledging other deities. Eventually after some time other regions started to combine the two words in old Arabic to form "Allah" which eventually became the standard. This change was recorded Heroditus in his Histories 3:8, records that Arabs called Aphrodite Urania 'Alilat' (al-ilāt, 'the Goddess'). Over time al-ilāt became the standard 'al-Lāt' (one of the famous 'daughters of Allah'), just as al-ilāh contracted into 'Allah' and became the standard term for the high/creator God. All Muhammad did later was repurpose Allah to mean pure monotheism (no partners, no 'daughters'). But that depends on whether you believe Muhammad is the final prophet, or disbelieve in the Qur'an and its supposed final prophet.

“Allah” simply means God in Arabic. Arab Christians refer to God as “Allah”. This sloppy apologetics needs to stop.

And I said it depends what you do with that evidence, and how convincing it is to the individual. I’m not going to force anyone to believe in a God that they themselves aren’t convinced of, but neither am I going to force them to disbelieve in a God that they themselves are committed to. Deductive arguments rarely convince anyone on their own, and when evidence hits the table, both sides usually have some. In the end a lot of it comes down to debating style, a persistent rage-baiting atheist with nothing better to do can sometimes seem more convincing than a theology PhD on paper (This is not a jab out you just what you see on twitter or other places in general).

@CrunchyBrit13 @allegiantfaith Nobody said that we couldn't know. The analogy shows that we experience features that fit the criteria you specified for observations which indicate being part of a living structure.

@g00dshorts @Matthew56193629 Yeah, I did. And it is still a shit table.

@CrunchyBrit13 @Matthew56193629 Read. Comprehend. Research.

Just had a guy saying that Science debunked the bible. Do many people suffer from this delusion?

Exactly — and as I've already noted, cells do have indirect evidence of the larger organism (immune signals, coordinated responses, systemic harmony). We don't dismiss that evidence just because a single cell can't 'see' the whole body. Same with humans and God: fine-tuning, biological information, consciousness, etc., are the 'signals.' The analogy doesn't show we cannot know; it shows indirect evidence is how limited beings detect larger realities. This is because there is too much noise, like naturalistic explanations, biases, incomplete data and it depends on the individual. But as Jesus told Thomas: 'Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.' Epistemically, will we ever “prove” God like a math theorem? Maybe — but as I’ve said, it ultimately depends on what evidence each person finds convincing and whether stronger evidence emerges in the future.

@CrunchyBrit13 @allegiantfaith But the discussion is about the correlation between a living cell determining that it is part of a living organsim and a human determining the existence of a deity that created the universe. Obviously, that requires analogies between organisms and the cosmos.

I literally already did — twice. Listed them explicitly as cells inside a body with coordinated immune responses. "inside a body show coordinated immune responses, synchronised systems, and emergent order" and "But yes, cells/organisms do have a shared past (common ancestry, biochemical signalling, evolution over billions of years)" I literally said they were biological, not Quantum Mechanical, since Quantum Mechanics does not touch this. Address your own actual inaccuracies first.

@CrunchyBrit13 @allegiantfaith You didn't specify any categories! You specified the following criteria: Coordinated responses, synchronised systems, and emergent order.

"one is a quantum correlation, one is a classical biological process, and one is a mathematical pattern" these are the three distinct categories, so yes. I have said the difference. Trying to force one thing that something is not is like saying a bike and the solar system is the same thing. So when are you going to start answering for 'Quantum physics shows that even isolated physical bodies show coordinated responses — this is called entanglement.' and 'But living cells have interacted in the past too'.

@CrunchyBrit13 @allegiantfaith You haven't shown the difference - it's no good saying they are not the same playing field. The assertions you made apply to both cases. Nobody is trying to "lump them together". They meet the criteria that you specified.

So I will repeat your own words back to you: “Quantum physics shows that even isolated physical bodies show coordinated responses — this is called entanglement.” Then in your latest reply: "My original point had nothing whatsoever to do with isolation, since it applies neither to living cells nor to entangled particles!” and “Prior interaction has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my point…” Coordination is the reason they aren’t isolated to begin with. Isolation in physics is a state of being, not just a distance. This is like saying two ends of a piece of string are “isolated” because they are 10 meters apart. They aren’t — they’re connected by the string. The prior interaction is the entire reason the coordination exists. By ignoring this, you’re making entanglement sound like magic that just happens to random isolated bodies. Emergent order, entanglement, and living cells all show coordination because of prior interaction. Trying to lump them all together doesn’t work since they operate differently: one is a quantum correlation, one is a classical biological process, and one is a mathematical pattern. Equating them is like saying a bicycle and a solar system are the same because both have things that spin.

My original point had nothing whatsoever to do with isolation, since it applies neither to living cells nor to entangled particles! Prior interaction has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my point, which is why I didn't waste everyone's time by including it, since it applies in both cases. Entangled particles still act in coordination whilst isolated - why did you conjure up the part "without prior interaction"? The "playing fields" are coordinated responses, synchronised systems and emergent order - not whatever you decided they were.

Well it looks like we are at an impasse, because you are not really engaging with the evidence. You either sweep it under the carpet with “only God saw the stars and planets forming” (so telescopes don’t count) or just relabel it as conjecture, imagination, or “gas doesn’t collapse in a vacuum.” I am not saying to abandon your faith in God or Scripture, I am just telling you the data is there and you can view it at anytime. What you do with that, is up to you. I hope you have a good day.

@Jeffery4Pi @CrunchyBrit13 @RegTheDude @AiG Jeffery is right. For there is only one who have seen the stars and the planets forming, and that is the LORD our God.

Genesis 1:3–5 is clear.

So have you basically given up defending the actual point you’re trying to make about isolation? You literally said in your original post that even entanglement can happen within isolated physical bodies. That is false, and it clearly implies to the reader that coordination can arise under true isolation with no prior interaction. You yourself admitted two posts ago: “But living cells have interacted ‘in the past’ and didn’t just randomly form into an organism!” Therefore cells cannot form in isolation either and therefore, neither can physical bodies. That is exactly what I was correcting — because your wording was implying that entanglement (and by extension your whole analogy) can FORM IN ISOLATION WITHOUT PRIOR INTERACTION. I have no idea why you even brought up the cells’ past interaction in the first place (no one is even going against this). The cell example was my positive point: cells can get indirect evidence of the larger body (immune responses, coordinated systems, etc.), just like humans could have some sort of understanding about God. The problem is that quantum entanglement and biological cells work on two completely different playing fields. So either back up the claim physical bodies can form in isolation or drop the word “isolation.” Since you already conceded they interacted in the past, I see no reason to continue this conversation about Quantum Entanglement

How did you manage to construct that implication? I gave a direct example of how the features you described that would allow a living cell to determine that it was part of a living organism actually occur in the world around us. Instead of addressing the point, you spontaneously added random words to my statement then declared that it was false! That is EXACTLY how quantum mechanics works! The dependency on prior interaction is irrelevant in this context and constitutes a diversion. Either answer the question or don't answer it - why waste everyone's time with irrelevant nonsense that doesn't even relate to the digest?

Because your original claim, ‘Quantum physics shows that even isolated physical bodies show coordinated responses — this is called entanglement’, did imply that entanglement could happen between arbitrary isolated bodies with no prior connection. The reason I said ‘which suggests (or can easily be read as suggesting) that arbitrary isolated physical bodies can somehow spontaneously or randomly start showing coordinated responses via entanglement. That’s not how quantum mechanics works” is because you omitted the key part: “but only if they interacted before” (or share a common origin). That’s required for entanglement in quantum mechanics. That is why I said "Quantum entanglement only happens when two or more particles (or systems) are generated together or have already interacted in the past."

@CrunchyBrit13 @allegiantfaith "Spontaneously or randomly etc" x.com/i/status/20505…

@DisDroidInitia1 @allegiantfaith When?

@CrunchyBrit13 @allegiantfaith You invented your own narrative our of the blue in plain sight! That's not a "gotcha attempt" - you were caught red handed.

@DisDroidInitia1 @allegiantfaith Says the classic goalpost, cherry-picked data and and "gotcha" attempts. I let them slide because I want to give people the benefit of the doubt when talking.

@CrunchyBrit13 @allegiantfaith "can easily be read as saying" by spontaneously or randomly adding extra words to the original statement 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Yeah, if you saw a deity come down from the sky with a vast array of majesty, you would shit bricks too. And yet still chose to do this through direct means. While it was fear, it was more than just fear, as Exodus 33:11 states that the Lord spoke to Moses "face to face, as one speaks to a friend." In this context, face to face meant talking to a friend rather than eye balling each other.

@CrunchyBrit13 @allegiantfaith When god spoke face to face with moses he terrified the living daylights out of him! That's what happens EVERY SINGLE TIME.

You literally just equated that "Quantum physics shows that even isolated physical bodies show coordinated responses - this is called entanglement" which suggests (or can easily be read as suggesting) that arbitrary isolated physical bodies can somehow spontaneously or randomly start showing coordinated responses via entanglement. That's not how quantum mechanics works. But yes, cells/organisms do have a shared past (common ancestry, biochemical signalling, evolution over billions of years). But that doesn't make the analogy work "both ways". I was not claiming "past interaction proves no God." I was simply fixing a misstatement of physics.

@CrunchyBrit13 @allegiantfaith But living cells have interacted "in the past" and didn't just randomly form into an organism! And how does this show that there's no intelligent guidance? Read your arguments back to yourself before you post to see if they work both ways!

If public schools are truly an unconstitutional ‘state religion’ of secular humanism, these are your own words, then why don't you just sue or lobby to get creation taught as science — or at least get evolution challenged? Why is your official position ‘we do not believe creation should be mandated in public schools’ and ‘just get your kids out’? Isn’t that special pleading? Again these are your own words by telling people to home school or going private. You want the right to teach your religion privately, that's fine, but you call the public system ‘persecution’ without trying to fix it the way you’d fix any other constitutional violation. On top of that, no court of law in America has ever ruled that teaching evolution or the scientific consensus is ‘establishing a religion.’ The one case you guys like to quote (Smith v. Board of School Commissioners, 1987) was overturned on appeal. The 11th Circuit said the textbooks promoted secular values like critical thinking, not a religion. Major cases like Epperson, Edwards, and Kitzmiller all confirm that public schools can teach the evidence-based scientific consensus without violating the First Amendment.

There is a state religion in the American public school system—secular humanism!

@LarsTheBadMan @NotEvolution1 I still find it funny when they cut off Darwin's quote about the eye.

@NotEvolution1 Christian creationists are among the dumbest people on the planet.

That is flat-out wrong. There is strong, direct evidence from isotope ratios (deuterium-to-hydrogen, or D/H) and meteorite analysis. Carbonaceous chondrite meteorites (from asteroids) have D/H ratios that closely match Earth’s oceans—far better than comets or other sources. Russell Humphreys (as brilliant he is) is still doing guesswork on Neptune and Uranus doesn’t equal total victory. It’s like guessing how fast a car was going on a race track by saying “100 mph” when it was actually doing 150 mph. As for Jupiter and Saturn, you’re misunderstanding the physics. Gas does expand in a true vacuum, and while space is a near-vacuum it still tries to expand (due to thermal pressure). So why do you not see them expanding or collapsing now? Due to gravity balancing the internal pressure in hydrostatic equilibrium. This hydrostatic equilibrium, creates a perfect stalemate. The gas is constantly "pushing" to expand because it’s hot and under pressure, but the massive gravity of the planet is "pulling" just as hard to keep it in. You are correct that is would not collapse, they would instead dissipate (outward), because the internal pressure won. So were they formed naturally or through design? I would still lean naturally. In the early solar system, bits of rock and ice bumped into each other until they formed a solid core about 10 times the mass of Earth. Once that solid core got big enough, its gravity became strong enough to win the tug-of-war against the gas in the protoplanetary disk. At that point the core started pulling in huge amounts of nearby hydrogen and helium gas. This is called “runaway gas accretion.” It kept growing until it ran out of nearby gas or the Sun’s solar wind blew the rest away, leaving the planet in hydrostatic equilibrium. We have also directly observed planets and solar systems forming with the James Webb Space Telescope, ALMA, and ESO telescopes. eso.org/public/images/… eso.org/public/news/es… nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/…

@CrunchyBrit13 @RegTheDude @AiG @Bibleknight04 There is no evidence of asteroid source of earths water, that is 100% imagination. And Humphreys didn't fail in any of them. Billion year preachers failed miserably. And the gas giants are another example for creation. Gas does not collapse in a vacuum.