User:Arturo 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arturo Subercaseaux Cooper
Autoretrato, by Arturo Subercaseaux
Student, writer
Born	May 1st, 1990 Punta del Este, Uruguay
Parents	Jose Joaquin Subercaseaux, Maria Elena Cooper
Currently studying in	Cambridge High School
Works	Encyclopaedia Arturica
Sibling	Camila Andonaegui Wendt
Creation and evolution deserve the same treatment as they're both tautologic theories. You won't prove right nor wrong because you won't see the Big Bang happening again nor God creating Adam and Eve. They're both just theories, but you God's intervention is non falsifiable as you cannot prove it false under any circumstance. You can prove the earth being no older than 6000 years, but that doesn't mean exactly biblical version. The Genesis account is a non falsifiable truth, as it cannot be proven wrong but that doesn't exactly mean it's right. Arturo Subercaseaux

Arturo #7 (ca. May 1st, 1990), full name Fernando Arturo Subercaseaux Cooper, is best known as a chilean aristocrat boy who dedicates most of its time in radio broadcasting and book writing. Not published yet, his collection of books written by himself talk about themes ranging from epistemic laws developed by himself to heart-breaking love stories.

1 Life
2 Works
3 Philosophy
4 Creationism
5 Christianity
6 Creationism
7 To do
8 Descriptions and other divers facts

[edit] Life

Arturo Subercaseaux, taken by Santiago Aranguren

Born from chilean parents in May 1st 1990 in Punta del Este, Uruguay, just lived there for six months and then they left to New Zealand, where they lived for almost 14 years. Since he was a little kid he astonished everyone with his scientific lifestyle, always trying to prove everything.

In December 27st 2004 the Subercaseaux family went back to Chile and Arturo was inscribed in Alonso de Ercilla Institute were he studied for a year and then he was changed to Cambridge High School were he is currently studying in. Perhaps not having real good notes, he always finds a way to end up doing classes on creationism and religion stuff, even though Cambridge High School not being religious.

[edit] Works

All books written by him have been compiled under the name "Encyclopaedia Arturica", not published yet. Some books written by him in it them include:

Bleeding mind, 2004 (A story of an homicide and its consecuences)
Summer love story, 2004 (A story about a gay relationship between 2 guys of conservative families)
Baptism, 2005
The Roman Catholic Church: A false doctrine, 2006
What's up, gravity?, 2006
The Laws of Knowledge, 2006
Creation vs. Evolution, 2006

[edit] Philosophy

His philosophy for life is based on skepticism. Perhaps being a creationist christian, he always doubt everything, from the 6-Day Creation account in the Genesis to the factual truth behing the Big Bang theory and stuff like that. In his book Laws of Knowledge he developed 3 fundamental laws for any knowledge about the universe. They're refered to as the Epistemic Laws of Knowledge and perhaps not being published yet they have got a lot of adherents to it.

First Epistemic Law of Dicotomy

Establishes that every form of question can be answered as a dicotomy and the mixture of both concepts. For example, on the origin of the universe you got the Creationism, the naturist evolution and its mixture: theistic evolution.

Second Epistemic Law of Causality

Every single form of knowledge in the world has a cause. It's senseless to dismiss any form of knowledge because they all have a reason to be.

Third Epistemic Law of Doubtness

Every single answer must be doubted to verify its truth. If you believe in something without questioning it, you can't affirm it to be truth.

[edit] Creationism

On March 2006 Arturo started questioning the evolutionary proccesses involving the developing of ape-like being into humans during history classes where he was assigned for investigation of prehistoric humans.

While reading about the evolutionary theories he noticed a substantial failure: most of them have been debunked and proved wrong!. So then, why did science accept it as true? While being more and more fundamentalist, he found on the dilemma of the Genesis account for creation. He passed from evolutionary theism to day-age creationism, but then he got to S8int and then to creationist pages and he then converted to biblical christianity. Then he started working against evolution by writing 'Encyclopaedia Arturica', a encyclopedia-like project on science and religion debates, ranging from creationism to japhetic theory.

Currently he's adding minor edits to the Epistemic Laws of Knowledge, which claim evolution to be as plausible as gravity, creationism and flat earth because they all cannot be proved right and could eventually proved wrong.

[edit] Christianity

The Subercaseaux family from Chile is a very respected traditional family, and as most of traditional families, they were catholics. But Arturo was agnostic since he was a little kid, because he was skeptical of what he could not see. But then, on winter vacations 2005, his brother had a fatal accident and died. Hopelessly, Arturo tried to suicide, but then a friend of him converted him into catholicism, and progressively into Opus Dei.

But by the bursting of anti-evolutionist ideas in his mind, he dropped down the Roman Church thanks to Pope John Paul II on 1996 by stating that 'evolution is more than just a theory'. Then he started questioning the catholic doctrine and found out that most of it is pure human invention and not even remotely based in the Bible. Arturo adopted christianity as his religion on winter vacations 2006.

[edit] Creationism

Newton was a creationist only because there was no alternative?

REALLY important letter sent to Answers in Genesis by T. in the UK. Were all mainstream scientists from the past creationists just because there was no alternative?

It does not seem to be an entirely legitimate strategy to claim scientists (such as Newton) as ‘creationists’ and therefore not ‘evolutionists’ when in many instances those cited would have been long dead before the rise of evolutionary theory. It is probably indisputable that such individuals would have believed in the literal truth of biblical creation, but there is obviously no way of knowing whether or not they would have rejected such beliefs in light of Darwinian theory.

It does not seem to be an entirely legitimate strategy to claim scientists (such as Newton) as ‘creationists’...

Oh yes it is. Common canards of evolutionary zealots are that ‘you can’t be a real scientist if you are not an evolutionist’ and that ‘science is impossible without evolution’. That there were people who were by definite choice creationists (not just by reason of their social milieu) and who were the founders of significant fields of science, gives the lie to these propaganda claims.

… and therefore not ‘evolutionists’ when in many instances those cited would have been long dead before the rise of evolutionary theory.

Not so — evolutionary ideas were not invented by Darwin. Some of the ancient philosophers before Christ — such as Empedocles (d. 435), Democritus (d. 370), Epicurus (d. 270) and Lucretius (d. 55) — had evolutionary ideas that life arose spontaneously and that different life forms arose from one another. The ‘great chain of being’ idea pervaded English society well before Darwin came on the scene. In fact, Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus, wrote about evolutionary notions of beginnings.

There were plenty of atheists before Darwin and they had to have some naturalistic notion of beginnings (or try not to think about it, which many do today). Darwin just gave atheism greater intellectual respectability by providing what seemed to many at the time, ignorant as they were of the incredible inner workings of even the simplest bacterium, to be a coherent framework for biological naturalism (nature is all there is). Darwin was seen as countering William Paley’s watchmaker argument — that an intricately integrated watch must have an intelligent designer, so, by analogy, must living things, which are even more complex.