|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 8, 2016 18:34:32 GMT -5
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.
If, as you say, "DNA is our intelligently designed physical blueprint of our physical body," -why has mankind gone through so many different stages from Neanderthal man to modern day Homo sapiens?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 18:44:37 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. ] Freewill: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=fJPwULN7cYoYes free will is not without consequences , it seems there was a time when some scientists considered free will to operate outside of human nature, and be controlled by our moral Intuition of what we know is right/wrong , Somehow some scientists believe that our Conscience can no longer be used as an instrument to help us Freely choose to do right, because human beings Do not have this option, as they have evolved to a lower life experience without knowledge of right/wrong and no director to help them to choose ? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 19:01:56 GMT -5
As intelligence is an integral part of nature, so it guides nature . Can [/font] you just answer Rational's question? "how can you explain the fact that 99.9% of all species are extinct?" [?
[/font][/b][/font][/quote] You want me to explain why species go extinct? Hmmm let me guess , could it be that no one knows except for God? Or should I look for an other explanation ? Seriously our government is obsessed with this Phenomenon and does all sorts of illogical actions to prevent this natural occurance Well it gives a bunch of govt jobs to sort out the Situation so maybe not all negative? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 19:16:23 GMT -5
[quote source="/post/683956/thread" timestamp="1454972549" author= 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? [ Left to their own nature, human beings have not done well in charting a well designed moral code. God has given us a conscience that pricks on our consciousness . We need to guard it as though our life depends on it. Surely we can use it to encourage each others to not make rash vows to anyone without consulting our conscience , right? |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 8, 2016 19:29:44 GMT -5
Feb 8, 2016 18:01:56 GMT -6 Guest4 said:
You want me to explain why species go extinct?
Hmmm let me guess , could it be that no one knows except for God?
Or should I look for an other explanation ?
Seriously our government is obsessed with this phenomenon and does all sorts of illogical actions to prevent this natural occurance
Well it gives a bunch of govt jobs to sort out the Situation so maybe not all negative?[/quote]
Well, as long as you keep throwing a "god into the gap" where you don't know something, you might as well never go to a doctor.
What do you mean by the "government is obsessed with this phenomenon?"
What "government " and what "phenomenon? " What "natural occurrence?"
Are you talking about the Zika virus?
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 8, 2016 19:55:40 GMT -5
[quote source="/post/683956/thread" timestamp="1454972549" author= 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? Left to their own nature, human beings have not done well in charting a well designed moral code. God has given us a conscience that pricks on our consciousness .
We need to guard it as though our life depends on it. Surely we can use it to encourage each others to not make rash vows to anyone without consulting our conscience, right?
If you would follow this "God" of the bible & morality that it displays, one would kill whole groups of people as advised in I Samuel; - women, old men, all children.
I would also say that it is Wrong to "punish" by taking the life of the innocent child, -which was the results of David's copulating with Bathsheba, another man's wife who then sending off that woman's husband to a place that David knew the husband certainly would be killed in battle.
So this "moral" for "God" to took the life of the child as punishment? |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 8, 2016 20:02:43 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. @ Geuest4 Here is a new book on the subject by Dr. Hafer who has a doctorate in zoology from Oxford University, and teaches human anatomy and physiology at Curry College. The Not-So-Intelligent Designer: Why Evolution Explains the Human Body and Intelligent Design Does Notfor a preview of some of the material here is a clip. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 8, 2016 21:05:19 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 . Probably because there is no Zika mosquito. The virus is carried by a number of species most of which belong to the Aedes genus. Although the mosquito is one of the vectors for the spread of the virus there is also transmission by blood transfusion and through sexual contact. There is a high probability that humans themselves will one day be extinct. I don't think it is a bad idea although the extinction of humans might not be viewed as useful to humans by everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 8, 2016 21:08:25 GMT -5
You want me to explain why species go extinct? Hmmm let me guess , could it be that no one knows except for God? Or should I look for an other explanation ? It is up to you. You could find out or remain ignorant regarding extinction. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 8, 2016 21:10:09 GMT -5
Left to their own nature, human beings have not done well in charting a well designed moral code. God has given us a conscience that pricks on our consciousness . We need to guard it as though our life depends on it. Surely we can use it to encourage each others to not make rash vows to anyone without consulting our conscience , right? According to the bible god at times encourages immoral behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 9, 2016 1:29:03 GMT -5
Evolution:No, I don't see evolution as moral, or immoral. Some non human animals demonstrate empathy, which is related to morality. ] Freewill: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 Yes free will is not without consequences , it seems there was a time when some scientists considered free will to operate outside of human nature, and be controlled by our moral Intuition of what we know is right/wrong , Somehow some scientists believe that our Conscience can no longer be used as an instrument to help us Freely choose to do right, because human beings Do not have this option, as they have evolved to a lower life experience without knowledge of right/wrong and no director to help them to choose ?
And also can you tell us which scientists it is that "believe that our Conscience can no longer be used as an instrument to help us Freely choose to do right...?"
I would be very interested in knowing the names of those scientists who believe that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 9, 2016 5:01:17 GMT -5
Some very interesting Jewish teachings:
By rabbi Mordecai Kraft; secrets of the Ten Commandments, and
Secrets to the garden of Eden, secrets to the Hebrew language
Very interesting comments worth listening,
of course read the comments also.
I believe (as said, ) the Hebrew language came
from God , And God had to have written the ten
Commandments! This is the unbiased truth about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 9, 2016 5:08:07 GMT -5
Left to their own nature, human beings have not done well in charting a well designed moral code. God has given us a conscience that pricks on our consciousness . We need to guard it as though our life depends on it. Surely we can use it to encourage each others to not make rash vows to anyone without consulting our conscience , right? According to the bible god at times encourages immoral behavior. You must have missed the point? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 9, 2016 5:16:19 GMT -5
Yes free will is not without consequences , it seems there was a time when some scientists considered free will to operate outside of human nature, and be controlled by our moral Intuition of what we know is right/wrong , Somehow some scientists believe that our Conscience can no longer be used as an instrument to help us Freely choose to do right, because human beings Do not have this option, as they have evolved to a lower life experience without knowledge of right/wrong and no director to help them to choose ?
And also can you tell us which scientists it is that "believe that our Conscience can no longer be used as an instrument to help us Freely choose to do right...?"
I would be very interested in knowing the names of those scientists who believe that.
Do you believe that? If you don't , then why claim free will doesn't even exists? Makes perfect sense that free will does exist within our God given nature! Please commend the scientists that have agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 9, 2016 5:33:12 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. @ Geuest4 Here is a new book on the subject by Dr. Hafer who has a doctorate in zoology from Oxford University, and teaches human anatomy and physiology at Curry College. The Not-So-Intelligent Designer: Why Evolution Explains the and Intelligent Design Does Notfor a preview of some of the material here is a clip. [ I thought we agreed that the same guide that guides our world also designed our world . By the way did you know that many people consider evolution to to be heresay? Hmmmm (even Scientists like Stephen Meyer) |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 9, 2016 7:23:20 GMT -5
[ I thought we agreed that the same guide that guides our world also designed our world . By the way did you know that many people consider evolution to to be heresay? Hmmmm (even Scientists like Stephen Meyer) What else can one say... Have a Happy Darwin Week. Feb 8-11, 2016 darwinweek.com  |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 9, 2016 10:16:23 GMT -5
[ I thought we agreed that the same guide that guides our world also designed our world . By the way did you know that many people consider evolution to to be heresay? Hmmmm (even Scientists like Stephen Meyer) What else can one say... Have a Happy Darwin Week. Feb 8-11, 2016 darwinweek.comTHANKS! Wonder if Darwin was Jewish , he certainly seems to understand Jewish thought and culture. In Hebrew alphabet they have 22 letters , one of them is "kef" which is symbolized by a "monkey". Which draws from how we view our English monkey man/mon ape/key(kef). This man/ape creature has an animal nature , which needs to be controlled And we should show our Godly nature ( in nature we see the ape , "aping/acting" like human beings [even though they know they aren't human beings] Interesting to me.... Maybe Darwin did have a picture of reality, even though God probably doesn't agree with his analysis. Right? Nevertheless Have a great week Yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 9, 2016 10:45:50 GMT -5
Sorry I got the spelling wrong . The Hebrew
Letter is kuf (not kef). Sorry
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 9, 2016 12:55:34 GMT -5
By the way did you know that many people consider evolution to to be heresay? Hmmmm (even Scientists like Stephen Meyer) Perhaps the best way to approach this is for you to present the theory of ID or at least a link to a reference that outlines the theory just like the link that outlines the theory of evolution. I mean, certainly Stephen Meyer, Philip Johnson, Paul Nelson or someone like them must have a theory based on their hypothesis. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 9, 2016 14:33:28 GMT -5
Guest4, Would you give references as to what time it was when "some scientists considered free will to operate outside of human nature..?"
And also can you tell us which scientists it is that "believe that our Conscience can no longer be used as an instrument to help us Freely choose to do right...?"
I would be very interested in knowing the names of those scientists who believe that.
Do you believe that? If you don't , then why claim free will doesn't even exists? Makes perfect sense that free will does exist within our God given nature! Please commend the scientists that have agreed.
My question was NOT concerning what you or I believe.
You stated that, "some scientists considered free will to operate outside of human nature,"
You also stated, " some scientists believe that our conscience can no longer be used as an instrument to help us freely choose to do right, because human beings..."
I ask you to name of the scientists whom you were quoting.
The reason being it simply does NOT sound like any "scientists" that I have ever heard.
So I am asking you to back up those statements about what "scientists" were supposed to have said by giving references for your statements.
Can you please do that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 9, 2016 14:42:46 GMT -5
By the way did you know that many people consider evolution to to be heresay? Hmmmm (even Scientists like Stephen Meyer) Perhaps the best way to approach this is for you to present the theory of ID or at least a link to a reference that outlines the theory just like the link that outlines the theory of evolution. I mean, certainly Stephen Meyer, Philip Johnson, Paul Nelson or someone like them must have a theory based on their hypothesis. Yes it is available on utube video , several utube Videos are available I will try to find the most uptodate |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 9, 2016 14:54:32 GMT -5
I thought we agreed that the same guide that guides our world also designed our world . By the way did you know that many people consider evolution to to be heresay? Hmmmm (even Scientists like Stephen Meyer)
His academic qualifications are in physics and earth science and his Ph.D. is in history and philosophy of science. (note: "philosophy of science" is NOT "biological science.")
Stephen C. Meyer an advocate for intelligent design "He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement.
Meyer graduated with a B.S. degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from the Christian Whitworth College[4] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[5] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] After gaining his Ph.D., Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.[6] Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[8]"
from wiki.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 9, 2016 15:40:56 GMT -5
What else can one say... Have a Happy Darwin Week. Feb 8-11, 2016 darwinweek.comTHANKS! Wonder if Darwin was Jewish , he certainly seems to understand Jewish thought and culture. In Hebrew alphabet they have 22 letters , one of them is "kef" which is symbolized by a "monkey". Which draws from how we view our English monkey man/mon ape/key(kef). This man/ape creature has an animal nature , which needs to be controlled And we should show our Godly nature ( in nature we see the ape , "aping/acting" like human beings [even though they know they aren't human beings] Interesting to me.... Maybe Darwin did have a picture of reality, even though God probably doesn't agree with his analysis. Right? Nevertheless Have a great week Yourself.
"Charles Darwin had a non-conformist background, but attended a Church of England school.[1] With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the Unive rsity of Cambridge for the required BA degree, which included studies of Anglican theology. He took great interest in natural history and became filled with zeal for science as defined by John Herschel, based on the natural theology of William Paley which presented the argument from divine design in nature to explain adaptation as God acting through laws of nature.[2][3]
On the voyage of the Beagle he remained orthodox and looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution, but towards the end of the voyage began to doubt that species were fixed.[4][5]
By this time he was critical of the Bible as history, and wondered why all religions should not be equally valid. Following his return in October 1836, he developed his novel ideas of geology while speculating about transmutation of species and thinking about religion.[6] from wiki |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 9, 2016 15:53:30 GMT -5
Left to their own nature, human beings have not done well in charting a well designed moral code. God has given us a conscience that pricks on our consciousness .
We need to guard it as though our life depends on it. David knew the husband certainly would be killed in battle. So this "moral" for "God" to took the l ife of the child as punishment? [/b][/font] [/quote][ Are you saying David didn't have a conscience ? We need to have a conscience to guide us to do right. Don't you agree? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 9, 2016 15:58:32 GMT -5
The reason being it simply does NOT sound like any "scientists" that I have ever heard. So I am asking you to back up those statements about what "scientists" were supposed to have said by giving references for your statements. Can you please do that? The claim of "some scientists" or "many scientists" is frequently used and the request to name some of them is frequently made and just as often ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 9, 2016 16:02:49 GMT -5
THANKS! Wonder if Darwin was Jewish , he certainly seems to understand Jewish thought and culture. In Hebrew alphabet they have 22 letters , one of them is "kef" which is symbolized by a "monkey". Which draws from how we view our English monkey man/mon ape/key(kef). This man/ape creature has an animal nature , which needs to be controlled And we should show our Godly nature ( in nature we see the ape , "aping/acting" like human beings [even though they know they aren't human beings] Interesting to me.... Maybe Darwin did have a picture of reality, even though God probably doesn't agree with his analysis. Right? Nevertheless Have a great week Yourself.
"Charles Darwin had a non-conformist background, but attended a Church of England school.[1] With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the Unive rsity of Cambridge for the required BA degree, which included studies of Anglican theology. He took great interest in natural history and became filled with zeal for science as defined by John Herschel, based on the natural theology of William Paley which presented the argument from divine design in nature to explain adaptation as God acting through laws of nature.[2][3]
On the voyage of the Beagle he remained orthodox and looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution, but towards the end of the voyage began to doubt that species were fixed.[4][5]
By this time he was critical of the Bible as history, and wondered why all religions should not be equally valid. Following his return in October 1836, he developed his novel ideas of geology while speculating about transmutation of species and thinking about religion.[6] from wikiHe surrounded himself in a Jewish culture He even used a Yiddish insult toward the captain of the Beagle on his expedition to Galap. Islands A quick google of Darwins Jewishness is quite interesting. His wife was not Jewish , he had many children and after the sudden death of one daughter C. D . became understandably bitter about it? It was then that he became a atheist ? Sad story.... |
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 9, 2016 16:15:20 GMT -5
Stephen Meyer does no even have a degree in biology.
His academic qualifications are in physics and earth science and his Ph.D. is in history and philosophy of science. (note: "philosophy of science" is NOT "biological science.") Now, I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design (at least the terminology), nor have I ever heard of Stephen Meyer before. At this point in my life, if I was to go back to school for another degree, I'm thinking I would probably choose Philosophy of Science. I think there are way too many "scientists" these days who have no framework (and, sometimes, even less interest) in asking "What does this all mean?" Even within my area of expertise, I see so much bad science (really bad science) being promoted as "real science". Some of it defies even common sense, and (particularly when filtered through popular media) contributes to people's skepticism/disengagement where advances in real science are concerned. If I was setting the curriculum for science-based programs these days, I would set a requirement for a decently rigorous exploration of "What does it all mean?" "What are the strengths?" "What are the limitations?" "What are the implications?" "Are there ethical considerations?" etc... I think this kind of examination is sorely lacking in the world view of even some of the "top scientists" these days. I really like the principles of real science as articulated by Neil DeGrasse Tyson at the opening of his Cosmos series: 1) Test ideas by experiment and observation 2) Build on those ideas that pass the test 3) Reject the ones that fail 4) Follow the evidence where it leads 5) Question everything To me, points #4 and #5 (and even #3) are too often ignored, depending on the source of research funds. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 9, 2016 16:18:34 GMT -5
To rational and dmmch: This is the source of link, perhaps we can do more research? [quote source="/post/683953/thread" tim [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=en
Freewill: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[/quote][ I will try to keep the secret science under the table. Shhhhhh! Don't tell anyone! Please correct me if I am missing the point are illusions , real or are they an illusion? I made the statement that some scientist think the illusion of free will is an illusion . Perhaps these scientists are only illusionary scientists?  ? |
|
?