|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 8:01:34 GMT -5
What you say is that life is guided by the Influence that life in itself was created as the essential driving force of the living world. That doesn't account for what was the driving force before life on this earth. I don't no very much about theories , but I know what I believe and that is the bible is the directed word of God and that life is the result of God giving it to us . Our bodies are designed by our DNA, God gives us our conscious soul. So it is that as far as science is concerned, I do not exist, but as far as God is concerned I do exist , both as a physical being and a soul.  ? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 8:14:18 GMT -5
Perhaps ram, there were few that understood your analogy of Ron O. Attempt to jump the Channel ? It was obvious to me, but then maybe there wet also few that considered such an attempt to be futile and utterably unarguably a rediculous effort . Much the same some scientists also set forth to demonstrate through some arguably rediculous hypothesis that nature is the unguided , undesigned, result of rocks evolving into the pyramids of Egypt, and then becoming through another miracle the cyberspace and all of the details of that paradigm ? Hmmm Thank you Guest4 for your, as always, critical and observant insight into these matters. It is "Obvious" that you have applied an open mind as well as your own good common sense,logic and sound reasoning to these matters in an unbiased and thoughtful way, without fear or favour shown towards the outcome. It is with such an approach and only with such an approach that the seeds of truth are watered and blossom forth to display all its fine beauty, the observance of which is denied many. You are well blessed indeed! Until Science properly accommodates the possibility of God's handiwork in these matters it cannot truly claim to be seeking the truth of same. The evidence clearly and irrefutably conspires not only to provide for the possibility of there being a God, but due to its immensity, it overwhelmingly points to the only real conclusion, i.e. that God exists. For evidence I rely only at this point on "circumstantial evidence," i.e. "the evidence of facts and circumstances which COMBINE to point to only one possible conclusion." The cable of evidence, established by strand after strand of facts and circumstances, is so numerous and so strong that it is not only laughable but certifiable to deny it. The cable is so long and "Obvious" it would Ron from the south English coast to Calais and back many times and you would be able to suspend the combined weight of every brick ever manufactured by the Chippenham Brick Company from it without fear of it ever snapping! thank you for your kind words, I feel your ability to allow Wisdom to guide is so evident in the thoughts you share ,thanks Guest4 Poor Ron must look for more logical hypothesis, but unless science will accept a more logical hypothesis we will continue to see these sorts of illogical mutations . *sigh*. We must not abandon the logic of what this physical world can be designed to accomplish! |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 8, 2016 9:31:20 GMT -5
Until Science properly accommodates the possibility of God's handiwork in these matters it cannot truly claim to be seeking the truth of same. The evidence clearly and irrefutably conspires not only to provide for the possibility of there being a God, but due to its immensity, it overwhelmingly points to the only real conclusion, i.e. that God exists. And as soon as you can present a single bit of verifiable evidence that god does exist there will be many many people wanting to investigate. Lack of evidence is the same reason why there is not a lot of investigation into the habits of the Easter Bunny. Yet for all of your examples there are multiple non-paranormal circumstances that explain the events without having to throw in a god of the gap. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 10:54:57 GMT -5
Until Science properly accommodates the possibility of God's handiwork in these matters it cannot truly claim to be seeking the truth of same. The evidence clearly and irrefutably conspires not only to provide for the possibility of there being a God, but due to its immensity, it overwhelmingly points to the only real conclusion, i.e. that God exists. And as soon as you can present a single bit of verifiable evidence that god does exist there will be many many people wanting to investigate. Lack of evidence is the same reason why there is not a lot of investigation into the habits of the Easter Bunny. Yet for all of your examples there are multiple non-paranormal circumstances that explain the events without having to throw in a god of the gap.
There comes a time when reasonable people stop believing in coincidences by their sheer number and start looking for other explanations. Like each strand of evidence the "multiple non-paranormal" circumstances should be taken into account and considered on their merit. I envisage the sheer volume of strands that the Bible can provide, should leave no room for doubting its authenticity. Ultimately we turn from a god of the gaps to a God who caps it all!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 11:07:58 GMT -5
Thank you Guest4 for your, as always, critical and observant insight into these matters. It is "Obvious" that you have applied an open mind as well as your own good common sense,logic and sound reasoning to these matters in an unbiased and thoughtful way, without fear or favour shown towards the outcome. It is with such an approach and only with such an approach that the seeds of truth are watered and blossom forth to display all its fine beauty, the observance of which is denied many. You are well blessed indeed! Until Science properly accommodates the possibility of God's handiwork in these matters it cannot truly claim to be seeking the truth of same. The evidence clearly and irrefutably conspires not only to provide for the possibility of there being a God, but due to its immensity, it overwhelmingly points to the only real conclusion, i.e. that God exists. For evidence I rely only at this point on "circumstantial evidence," i.e. "the evidence of facts and circumstances which COMBINE to point to only one possible conclusion." The cable of evidence, established by strand after strand of facts and circumstances, is so numerous and so strong that it is not only laughable but certifiable to deny it. The cable is so long and "Obvious" it would Ron from the south English coast to Calais and back many times and you would be able to suspend the combined weight of every brick ever manufactured by the Chippenham Brick Company from it without fear of it ever snapping! thank you for your kind words, I feel your ability to allow Wisdom to guide is so evident in the thoughts you share ,thanks Guest4 Poor Ron must look for more logical hypothesis, but unless science will accept a more logical hypothesis we will continue to see these sorts of illogical mutations . *sigh*. We must not abandon the logic of what this physical world can be designed to accomplish! Had Ron Obvious succeeded in taking one bite out of Chichester Cathedral, I would have conceded the argument that man was evolving a capacity to eat an Anglican Cathedral. The fact that his effort proved futile, despite the elaborate preparations of brushing his teeth and wearing a napkin, just shows that the theory of evolution cannot eat away at the Temple of God, even ones made by human hands. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 8, 2016 11:28:34 GMT -5
Are you saying that evolution is guided ? Had you bothered to read about evolution, as it is really considered, in the link provided you would have discovered that evolution is guided by the ability to survive following a change than the ability to survive prior to the change. If it was a design how can you explain the fact that 99.9% of all species are extinct? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 11:41:40 GMT -5
Are you saying that evolution is guided ? Had you bothered to read about evolution, as it is really considered, in the link provided you would have discovered that evolution is guided by the ability to survive following a change than the ability to survive prior to the change. If it was a design how can you explain the fact that 99.9% of all species are extinct? As intelligence is an integral part of nature, so it guides nature . Intelligently guided to be what it was designed to be. DNA is our intelligently designed physical blueprint of our physical body , our conscious soul is designed to inhabit our physical body. Is a gift from |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 11:53:22 GMT -5
Gift from our creator.
Why are people eating food?
Are we not designed to eat?
When we eat we are potentially creating
the need for more food to exist, or we would
not have food.
I see no problem with the design that some
Spiecies have been programmed for short
time periods and are no longer in the food
chain. If anything is essential to propagate
the food chain, it has been intelligently preserved ,
even though we might not currently understand
the process. Science is useful to intelligently
study the real truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 8, 2016 11:53:40 GMT -5
These "strands" that I have discussed on this board, in their individual self can easily be dismissed or put to one side as insignificant. Their value in themselves is slight, but when you assimilate a growing number of these "coincidences" between the Bible and science/history/archaeology, the strands support each other and together they ultimately form a strong cable of evidence which first points to the Bible as a source of truth and ultimately points to the truth giver. Yes we have to be very careful with each strand to ensure there is a correlation. Snapping one or two strands, or more, may weaken the cable but because I can envisage hundreds, thousands and growing strands of evidence, potentially the case remains exceedingly strong. They are not put aside because they are insignificant but because they are wrong. The claim that 'science' has discovered 'pools' of water 400 km beneath the surface is the water that rushed to the surface is simply grasping at strands. Because there is no scientific explanation for how the first self-replicating protein molecule came into being does not mean that god did it any more that the belief that Saturn drove the sun across the sky is necessary now that the actual physical event is understood. Reasonable people generally understand that "Correlation does not imply causation". However, the probability paradox show that the larger the set of coincidences, the more certainty of causation increases. The problem is that you have yet to show the probability. |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 8, 2016 12:31:37 GMT -5
DNA is our intelligently designed physical blueprint of our physical body, our conscious soul is designed to inhabit our physical body. Is a gift from . There are now several different "X" versions of _NA, some even have three strands to the helix. Some might find the history interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 12:56:15 GMT -5
DNA is our intelligently designed physical blueprint of our physical body, our conscious soul is designed to inhabit our physical body. Is a gift from . There are now several different "X" versions of _NA, some even have three strands to the helix. Some might find the history interesting. the research he is referrencing involves modifying an existing RNA ? Yet it seems he is uncertain about this line of research. |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 8, 2016 13:19:13 GMT -5
the research he is referrencing involves modifying an existing RNA ? Yet it seems he is uncertain about
this line of research. I'm sure he is uncertain about many things about RNA. I suspect he has forgot much more about RNA than the average TMB poster knows about RNA. Science is that way, everything it "knows" is provisional and open to correction. Religion is about unchanging knowledge. In the news now is the Zika virus carried by the mosquito. I assume you think god made Zirka and the mosquito which kills 750,000 people per year? Synthetic biology can change how organisms operate, and reduce the spread of Zika. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 13:44:33 GMT -5
the research he is referrencing involves modifying an existing RNA ? Yet it seems he is uncertain about
this line of research. I'm sure he is uncertain about many things about RNA. I suspect he has forgot much more about RNA than the average TMB poster knows about RNA. Science is that way, everything it "knows" is provisional and open to correction. Religion is about unchanging knowledge. In the news now is the Zika virus carried by the mosquito. I assume you think god made Zirka and the mosquito which kills 750,000 people per year? Synthetic biology can change how organisms operate, and reduce the spread of Zika. Hopefully the Zika mosquitoes can be allowed to go extinct , right ? Why do people think extinction is a bad idea, often it is quite useful to humans . |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 14:03:13 GMT -5
Being on a tour we can have the opportunity to
have a guided explanation of how to understand
the factory that we tour is run.
A guide can explain the process , the best guide
would be the guide that intelligently designed
the factory. Any other guide would need to
be adequately instructed concerning its design.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 14:16:13 GMT -5
So I believe that God is the guide for all life, He is well
able to instruct everything He creates . And even guides it
whether we acknowledge His guidance or we choose
to be ignorant of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 8, 2016 14:44:42 GMT -5
Hopefully the Zika mosquitoes can be allowed to go extinct , right ? Why do people think extinction is a bad idea, often it is quite useful to humans . . They have reduced the dengue mosquito population in one Brazilian suburb by 95%. Here the scientists had a plan, did a lot of work to design a mosquito, and their work produced their intended results. Hoping and praying would have been futile. As Robert Green Ingersoll, lawyer and orator (1833-1899) so wisely said: The hands that help are better far / Than lips that pray.  Here evolution comes from human intervention and not natural selection. When humans started domesticating plants and animals we directed evolution. Using GMO speeds up the process and allows for more options. A study of the history of dog breeds shows how we can alter natural selection in a short amount of time. Evolution does not have a 'goal', because the concept of having a goal implies agency, intelligence and desire. This is exactly the opposite of evolution, which is the result of purely mindless natural processes. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 15:10:01 GMT -5
[quote source="/post/683907/thread" timestamp="1454957073" author="As Robert Green Ingersoll, lawyer and orator (1833-1899) so wisely said: The hands that help are better far / Than lips that pray. . Evolution does not have a 'goal', because the concept of having a goal implies agency, intelligence and desire. This is exactly the opposite of evolution, which is the result of purely mindless natural processes. Hmmm, you are mindlessly guided to live as an human being? Or We are mindfully guided via our God given conscience to live as moral and thoughtful (intelligent) human beings. Can we agree that we need a guide in order to be guided? It makes little logic to say we are guided by an guide that does not guide us ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 15:20:12 GMT -5
These "strands" that I have discussed on this board, in their individual self can easily be dismissed or put to one side as insignificant. Their value in themselves is slight, but when you assimilate a growing number of these "coincidences" between the Bible and science/history/archaeology, the strands support each other and together they ultimately form a strong cable of evidence which first points to the Bible as a source of truth and ultimately points to the truth giver. Yes we have to be very careful with each strand to ensure there is a correlation. Snapping one or two strands, or more, may weaken the cable but because I can envisage hundreds, thousands and growing strands of evidence, potentially the case remains exceedingly strong. They are not put aside because they are insignificant but because they are wrong. The claim that 'science' has discovered 'pools' of water 400 km beneath the surface is the water that rushed to the surface is simply grasping at strands. Because there is no scientific explanation for how the first self-replicating protein molecule came into being does not mean that god did it any more that the belief that Saturn drove the sun across the sky is necessary now that the actual physical event is understood. Reasonable people generally understand that "Correlation does not imply causation". However, the probability paradox show that the larger the set of coincidences, the more certainty of causation increases. The problem is that you have yet to show the probability.
The thin, insignificant strand that I was talking about is that the Bible identified the source of the water by referring to the fountains of the deep," and science has shown more than sufficient water is there to accomplish the flood. The only thing missing is the process of extraction which all the geological upheaval may have caused. Yes there's a link. In itself it just may be a coincidence, but it is a fine undeniable strand to start of with.
You raised the question about the waters being divided by a firmament, which is heaven, or the skies and space above. Then XNA produces a link which shows there is a large amount of water a great distance away in outer space. Isn't it marvelous that two atheists provide another "coincidental" strand that supports the Bible. One questions the Bible and the other confirms it!
There are hundreds, yeah thousands of such strands, not important in their own right, but how many of them do you dismiss before you acknowledge the message they are transmitting. You can deny one or two, ten even, but for every denial there is another strand to add to that cable.
However, the probability paradox show that the larger the set of coincidences, the more certainty of causation increases.
Bingo. We are on the same sheet. Now what must be accepted before "probability?" Possibility, of course. After we string half a dozen or so of these strands together, common sense itself demands we consider possibility. The more strands the more probable the message conveyed. It is not just down to scientifically corroborated strands. We have historical and archaeological and many other sources of strands to consider. Then there's the oral records as well. Goodness me, where do we stop?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 15:21:15 GMT -5
Pray first and let God help us to ACT as He would want us to
showHis love to those around us .
|
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 8, 2016 16:27:30 GMT -5
Hmmm, you are mindlessly guided to live as an human being?
Some famous sayings along these lines.
"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
" If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." - Isaac Newton:
Can we agree that we need a guide in order to be guided?
It makes little logic to say we are guided by an guide that does not guide us ?
Doesn't the bible say work out your own salvation in fear and trembling? Maybe he was on to something? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 16:43:14 GMT -5
Reference the theory that we need to be guided,
some call it intelligent design.
We are designed to be guided by a benevolent
Guide.
It is impossible to consider self guiding to be
an option, as that is not how guiding works.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 16:52:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 8, 2016 16:55:01 GMT -5
Reference the theory that we need to be guided, some call it intelligent design. We are designed to be guided by a benevolent Guide. It is impossible to consider self guiding to be an option, as that is not how guiding works. If the bible is your ONLY guide then; Is that which is good commanded by god because it's good, or is it good because God commands it? If god told you to kill a child would you do it? Philosophy can be helpful in this area. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 17:41:59 GMT -5
Reference the theory that we need to be guided, some call it intelligent design. We are designed to be guided by a benevolent Guide. It is impossible to consider self guiding to be an option, as that is not how guiding works. If the bible is your ONLY guide then; Is that which is good commanded by god because it's good, or is it good because God commands it? If god told you to kill a child would you do it? Philosophy can be helpful in this area. Would this be like me asking you: would you use evolution theory to excuse all the immoral atrocities committed by mankind since the beginning of time? If you said Yes, then I would wonder why we have been gifted with free will (work out your salvation , which is the harvest we reap in due time) |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 18:02:29 GMT -5
Reference the theory that we need to be guided, some call it intelligent design. We are designed to be guided by a benevolent Guide. It is impossible to consider self guiding to be an option, as that is not how guiding works. because it's good, or is it good because God commands it? If god told you to kill a child would you do it? Would this be like me asking you: would you use evolution theory to excuse all the immoral atrocities committed by mankind since the beginning of time? If you said Yes, then I would wonder why we have been gifted with free will (work out your salvation , which is the harvest we reap in due time) Referring to your question, the illustration is illogical Do you think God would allow this? It seems to be a solid case that This would not be allowed , would God have been displeased if Abraham would not be willing ? Abraham was well aware of natural miracles even the promise that they would bear a child at 90+ yrs old He believed God, and God rewarded him many fold both in this life and the eternal life he believed in |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 8, 2016 18:16:09 GMT -5
Would this be like me asking you: would you use evolution theory to excuse all the immoral atrocities committed by mankind since the beginning of time? If you said Yes, then I would wonder why we have been gifted with free will (work out your salvation , which is the harvest we reap in due time) No, I don't see evolution as moral, or immoral. Some non human animals demonstrate empathy, which is related to morality. Empathy has an evolutionary benefit. Moral behavior in animals www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals?language=enFreewill:We are learning from neuroscience experiments that freewill is probably an illusion. There is still a lot to learn in this area, but it could have dramatic affects on the way we look at things, especially in the criminal justice system. www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJPwULN7cYo |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 8, 2016 18:19:03 GMT -5
What you say is that life is guided by the influence that life in itself was created as the essential driving force of the living world. That doesn't account for what was the driving force before life on this earth. I don't no very much about theories , but I know what I believe and that is the bible is the directed word of God and that life is the result of God giving it to us . Our bodies are designed by our DNA, God gives us our conscious soul. So it is that as far as science is concerned, I do not exist, but as far as God is concerned I do exist , both as a physical being and a soul. ?
You say yourself that you don't no (know) very much about theories, so maybe you should study biological evolution for your self?
By making such a statement that "So it is that as far as science is concerned, I do not exist..." you indicate that you really do need to study what "science" is all about!
To begin with, -without the many advancements made through science, you might NOT exist now but rather would have died from any one of numerous childhood diseases. |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 8, 2016 18:30:05 GMT -5
Referring to your question, the illustration is illogical Do you think God would allow this? It seems to be a solid case that This would not be allowed , would God have been displeased if Abraham would not be willing ? Abraham was well aware of natural miracles even the promise that they would bear a child at 90+ yrs old He believed God, and God rewarded him many fold both in this life and the eternal life he believed in I see you made the connection with the Abraham story. Here I see god guiding an immoral act. My point was just because he gives that guidance doesn't make it moral. You can read of a second child sacrifice where a father killed his only child to keep a god promise. Here we don't read of god preventing this one, or objecting to it. Is this the best moral guide, or could one be more moral? |
|
?
