|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 11, 2020 15:53:29 GMT -5
As a youth, for a blink of an eye, I considered myself an atheist. My conviction that there was no God didn’t last long. Although I don’t doubt that there is a Supreme Deity (I’m confident there is One) I have struggled with my Christian identity. I do consider myself a believer in Jesus Christ, but I would be lying if I said that I don’t ever waver in my heart and mind sometimes. I’ve always been a rebel. I’ve fought against institutional Christianity my whole life. But, as I’ve gotten older I’ve discovered that which I fought against, although being far from perfect, has created some of the greatest mystics, philosophers and thinkers to ever walk the planet. For anyone doubting God, I’d encourage you to watch this clip on C.S. Lewis and Intelligent Design. m.youtube.com/watch?v=3dqR3eVwoqA
He wrote great literature (although it was always from his Christian religious views).
However, C.S. Lewis was just one of many Christian apologetics and needs to be viewed from that perspective.
Christian apologetics is a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections.
from wiki |
|
rudyw
Senior Member
Posts: 623
|
Post by rudyw on Feb 11, 2020 16:05:19 GMT -5
As a youth, for a blink of an eye, I considered myself an atheist. My conviction that there was no God didn’t last long. Although I don’t doubt that there is a Supreme Deity (I’m confident there is One) I have struggled with my Christian identity. I do consider myself a believer in Jesus Christ, but I would be lying if I said that I don’t ever waver in my heart and mind sometimes. I’ve always been a rebel. I’ve fought against institutional Christianity my whole life. But, as I’ve gotten older I’ve discovered that which I fought against, although being far from perfect, has created some of the greatest mystics, philosophers and thinkers to ever walk the planet. For anyone doubting God, I’d encourage you to watch this clip on C.S. Lewis and Intelligent Design. m.youtube.com/watch?v=3dqR3eVwoqA
He wrote great literature (although it was always from his Christian religious views).
However, C.S. Lewis was just one of many Christian apologetics and needs to be viewed from that perspective.
Christian apologetics is a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections.
from wikiYes, it does. But, interestingly Mr. Lewis doesn’t use the Bible . He uses reason. Intelligent Design isn’t necessarily Christian apologetics. |
|
|
|
Post by Good subject on Feb 12, 2020 3:55:43 GMT -5
Nice discussion on this reasoning
I would hope that scientists return to
the methods of trying to understand
how creation began. , and less time
Criticizing the inherited logic , design ,
laws , and throw out haphazard
, incoherent, lawless , theories that
Confuse intelligent people?
IMO evolution is completely illogical
|
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Feb 12, 2020 4:28:53 GMT -5
Nice discussion on this reasoning I would hope that scientists return to the methods of trying to understand how creation began. , and less time Criticizing the inherited logic , design , laws , and throw out haphazard , incoherent, lawless , theories that Confuse intelligent people? IMO evolution is completely illogical |
|
|
|
Post by And thus on Feb 12, 2020 6:25:33 GMT -5
Nice discussion on this reasoning I would hope that scientists return to the methods of trying to understand how creation began. , and less time Criticizing the inherited logic , design , laws , and throw out haphazard , incoherent, lawless , theories that Confuse intelligent people? IMO evolution is completely illogical It behooves science to confirm who the confused references! Sadly the intelligence of intelligent scientists is compromised As CS Lewis confirms in his book. |
|
|
|
Post by And thus on Feb 12, 2020 6:32:53 GMT -5
I have no problem accepting the analysis of CSLewis
This subject isn’t about the intelligence of me or you
but the Book ! If you Care to address issues made
In the analysis, do it so we can observe your point of
View?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 12, 2020 9:57:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by So then on Mar 6, 2020 20:29:15 GMT -5
What can we learn from fossil record?
likely we can deduce that fossils form
from a catastrophic event , the great deluge .’
that makes all the fossils less than 6,000 years old
which proves that evolution didn’t have the time or power to create / evolve
|
|
|
|
Post by So then on Mar 7, 2020 9:15:58 GMT -5
Nice discussion on this reasoning I would hope that scientists return to the methods of trying to understand how creation began. , and less time Criticizing the inherited logic , design , laws , and throw out haphazard , incoherent, lawless , theories that Confuse intelligent people? IMO evolution is completely illogical . How convenient is that analysis? Aye, I’m no expert in evolution, So I recon that I cannot possess an expert opinion on evolution. 😉. Ironically most serious questions cannot be answered! (Except with the redo sure that YOU need to become an expert , before you are qualified to possess the truth about Evolution?! Hhuhh? What if expert creation opinions favor creation? And of course we all know that creation is more logical than the haphazard theories that evolution brings to the discussion! Thank you |
|
|
|
Post by So then on Mar 18, 2020 3:36:25 GMT -5
as we intentionally observe the majestic
Creation all around us , in nature and even
in the well intentioned fields of productivity/for the increase of intentionality.
We observe that the landscape is overhauled
by human footprints that is intentionally
overhaul to benefit the intelligence of the
human populace.
whether we understand why we impose such an
intention on the world we call home, could be
studied in depth as a progression of the human hunger for creating a future for their posterity.
such grandiose plans. ?
And yet we are unable to understand the nature
of this endeavor. ?
Have we become stewards of the world by accident
or intentionally?
how were we bequeathed this responsibility?
Did our Potter insert this as a prerequisite of
the human vessel , without intention we cannot
live, think, or feel , and to try to understand
the niche we we inherited ,.
hmmm
thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by So then on Mar 18, 2020 3:49:44 GMT -5
We cannot study creation, without
considering the absolute absolute
Need for the “Intentions” .
as defined by intelligence, it is absolute central to life on earth, we exist because of intentionality.
thank you so very much
|
|
|
|
Post by So then on Mar 18, 2020 3:52:41 GMT -5
aye, without intention, we cannot have intelligence!
|
|
|
|
Post by So then on Mar 18, 2020 3:55:44 GMT -5
aye, without intention, we cannot have intelligence! Yes, hopefully we can accept ID as meaning = intentionally designed /created . |
|
|
|
Post by so then on Mar 19, 2020 16:44:19 GMT -5
aye, without intention, we cannot have intelligence! And so well we understand the nature of our Earth/life therein , as written eons ago, there is a time and purpose (reason) , for everything under heaven! A time to be born and a time to die, a time to gather a time to scatter.. And more , thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Mar 19, 2020 17:11:27 GMT -5
A graduate student, Laura van Holstein, has proven one of Darwin's theories. She wanted to show that the number of subspecies in a species is correlated to the number of species in a genus. If she could prove that, she'd have more evidence to suggest that subspecies are the "raw material" for a new species, She ran a few of the models: First, she devised a model using taxonomical information about different species to show that a genus with more species also has more subspecies to prove a relationship.
Then, she took it a step further than Darwin: She created models to show the relationship between species richness (the number of species in a genus) and subspecies richness is stronger in mammals that don't live on land -- namely bats and whales.
One more model found that the number of subspecies in a genus is predicted by the size of a species' range -- and in land mammals, a bigger range was linked to a higher number of subspecies in a genus.
Not only did van Holstein prove one of Darwin's points, but she expanded on his findings: The more species in a genus typically means more subspecies are in that genus, and the relationship between species and subspecies depends on whether the species live on land.
In species that live on land, environmental barriers impact how its species form. But in species that live in the air or the ocean, species formation depends more on population dynamics, she said.
"This is a different way of thinking about subspecies -- the (previously!) un-glamorous units of evolutionary biology," she said. "Some people have made the case that they are merely nice but evolutionarily meaningless groupings, but we show here that they probably can be thought of as incipient species."
The findings were published this week in Proceedings of Royal Sciences.
|
|
|
|
Post by So then on Mar 19, 2020 17:35:57 GMT -5
A graduate student, Laura van Holstein, has proven one of Darwin's theories. She wanted to show that the number of subspecies in a species is correlated to the number of species in a genus. If she could prove that, she'd have more evidence to suggest that subspecies are the "raw material" for a new species, She ran a few of the models: First, she devised a model using taxonomical information about different species to show that a genus with more species also has more subspecies to prove a relationship. Then, she took it a step further than Darwin: She created models to show the relationship between species richness (the number of species in a genus) and subspecies richness is stronger in mammals that don't live on land -- namely bats and whales. One more model found that the number of subspecies in a genus is predicted by the size of a species' range -- and in land mammals, a bigger range was linked to a higher number of subspecies in a genus. Not only did van Holstein prove one of Darwin's points, but she expanded on his findings: The more species in a genus typically means more subspecies are in that genus, and the relationship between species and subspecies depends on whether the species live on land. In species that live on land, environmental barriers impact how its species form. But in species that live in the air or the ocean, species formation depends more on population dynamics, she said. "This is a different way of thinking about subspecies -- the (previously!) un-glamorous units of evolutionary biology," she said. "Some people have made the case that they are merely nice but evolutionarily meaningless groupings, but we show here that they probably can be thought of as incipient species." The findings were published this week in Proceedings of Royal Sciences. Thanks Intel, i will read read your post as soon as I do the KJV of Eccl 3:1 to everything there is a Season (think Spring!!) , and t time and Purpose ( think Reasons) to Everything under the heavens (think Earth! ). i like that , thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by So then on Mar 19, 2020 17:41:42 GMT -5
A graduate student, Laura van Holstein, has proven one of Darwin's theories. She wanted to show that the number of subspecies in a species is correlated to the number of species in a genus. If she could prove that, she'd have more evidence to suggest that subspecies are the "raw material" for a new species, She ran a few of the models: First, she devised a model using taxonomical information about different species to show that a genus with more species also has more subspecies to prove a relationship. Then, she took it a step further than Darwin: She created models to show the relationship between species richness (the number of species in a genus) and subspecies richness is stronger in mammals that don't live on land -- namely bats and whales. One more model found that the number of subspecies in a genus is predicted by the size of a species' range -- and in land mammals, a bigger range was linked to a higher number of subspecies in a genus. Not only did van Holstein prove one of Darwin's points, but she expanded on his findings: The more species in a genus typically means more subspecies are in that genus, and the relationship between species and subspecies depends on whether the species live on land. In species that live on land, environmental barriers impact how its species form. But in species that live in the air or the ocean, species formation depends more on population dynamics, she said. "This is a different way of thinking about subspecies -- the (previously!) un-glamorous units of evolutionary biology," she said. "Some people have made the case that they are merely nice but evolutionarily meaningless groupings, but we show here that they probably can be thought of as incipient species." The findings were published this week in Proceedings of Royal Sciences. So, as an Avid : ID (intentionally designed believed) i must take Laura’s proof of a Myth , with many grains of salt, to make it “palatable “. Ha! need I explain, or can you defend her “so called proof??” Hmmm ok ?, carry on my friend! Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by So then on Mar 19, 2020 17:56:49 GMT -5
To consider what I mean by “Intentionally” designed.
Can I consider the premise that the intentional first cause, needs to be the promotion of Truth,
Albeit , the truth is truth, no matter of my
opinion of the truth?
so then, can Laura’s proof of a mythological theory
fit the “first cause” concept of truth being imperative to our ancestry, if we can be quaking
about the veracity of the myth , itself??
i gotta digest that!
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by So then on Mar 20, 2020 3:44:13 GMT -5
Using an evolutionist axiom: “just because our observations
Appears to prove a point, it isn’t necessarily valid “.
Like; the observation that life appears to be designed
by a designer/creator. ‘. Well the converse is equally
Valid , and more so as the observations can lead us
In the direction of the purpose that we interpret our
Observations to align with what we have always observed,
Observations are the data points that a proof needs to
Be understood as a truth
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by So then on Mar 20, 2020 3:56:16 GMT -5
What does a scientist mean when he observes
that might appear that life is designed?
if we do not trust in our observations, and logic,
we open up many many pandora boxes, aye?
so then to clarify the Essence if scientific observations, let’s work with what we observe
and let logic rule!
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by So then on Mar 25, 2020 3:30:13 GMT -5
[quote author="So then" source=
"]What does a scientist mean when he observes
that it might just “appear “ that life is designed?
if we do not trust in our observations, and logic,
we open up many many pandora boxes, aye?
so then to clarify the Essence of scientific observations, let’s work with what we observe
and let logic rule!
Thanks
Ha, my last post,, just as well needed some editing, IMO
So then, as we observe the beauty and orderliness
Of the universe, the earth, the ability to
observe these wonders, seems to not be
“Wasted” ? Or was it??
Certainly, if we do not properly understand
the logic, the truth, the love , that went
into the creation, Then perhaps the
whole effort was truly a regrettable
error, left and reserved for a searching
“Scientist” that might consider that such a
creation, needs an observer/observation!
As you analyze a known creation, we
can only wonder what an unobserved
Creator was creating, if He would leave
the observer, and incapable of logically
considering the privilege we have!
So then , are their any known creations
that are not currently being observed?
Hmmm, Logic tells us that existence is
only that which has observable traits..aye?
So then , we can understand the likelihood
that , indeed, their can be. And we know
Our Creator is there making this
If we wish to observe this new earth,
We neeed to have our “vision” that sees
that reality, the reality that us humans aren’t
Observing the truth? , yet we can trust that
It will be observable , .....aye, when it
“Comes to pass “.
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 25, 2020 5:17:45 GMT -5
[quote author="So then" source= "]What does a scientist mean when he observes that it might just “appear “ that life is designed? if we do not trust in our observations, and logic, we open up many many pandora boxes, aye? so then to clarify the Essence of scientific observations, let’s work with what we observe and let logic rule! Thanks Ha, my last post,, just as well needed some editing, IMO So then, as we observe the beauty and orderliness Of the universe, the earth, the ability to observe these wonders, seems to not be “Wasted” ? Or was it?? Certainly, if we do not properly understand the logic, the truth, the love , that went into the creation, Then perhaps the whole effort was truly a regrettable error, left and reserved for a searching “Scientist” that might consider that such a creation, needs an observer/observation! As you analyze a known creation, we can only wonder what an unobserved Creator was creating, if He would leave the observer, and incapable of logically considering the privilege we have! So then , are their any known creations that are not currently being observed? Hmmm, Logic tells us that existence is only that which has observable traits..aye? So then , we can understand the likelihood that , indeed, their can be. And we know Our Creator is there making this If we wish to observe this new earth, We neeed to have our “vision” that sees that reality, the reality that us humans aren’t Observing the truth? , yet we can trust that It will be observable , .....aye, when it “Comes to pass “. Thank you Ahhh yes, I’m starting to see why your TMB name is “so then”.. 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by 😉 on Mar 25, 2020 7:44:19 GMT -5
[quote author="So then" source= "]What does a scientist mean when he observes that it might just “appear “ that life is designed? if we do not trust in our observations, and logic, we open up many many pandora boxes, aye? so then to clarify the Essence of scientific observations, let’s work with what we observe and let logic rule! Thanks Ha, my last post,, just as well needed some editing, IMO So then, as we observe the beauty and orderliness Of the universe, the earth, the ability to observe these wonders, seems to not be “Wasted” ? Or was it?? Certainly, if we do not properly understand the logic, the truth, the love , that went into the creation, Then perhaps the whole effort was truly a regrettable error, left and reserved for a searching “Scientist” that might consider that such a creation, needs an observer/observation! As you analyze a known creation, we can only wonder what an unobserved Creator was creating, if He would leave the observer, and incapable of logically considering the privilege we have! So then , are their any known creations that are not currently being observed? Hmmm, Logic tells us that existence is only that which has observable traits..aye? So then , we can understand the likelihood that , indeed, their can be. And we know Our Creator is there making this If we wish to observe this new earth, We neeed to have our “vision” that sees that reality, the reality that us humans aren’t Observing the truth? , yet we can trust that It will be observable , .....aye, when it “Comes to pass “. Thank you Ahhh yes, I’m starting to see why your TMB name is “so then”.. 😉 Aye, so then, thank you my friend , Mr Ant/ Rotten. Have a wonderful day! |
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 25, 2020 7:46:17 GMT -5
Ahhh yes, I’m starting to see why your TMB name is “so then”.. 😉 Aye, so then, thank you my friend , Mr Ant/ Rotten. Have a wonderful day! So then, may I ask why you choose to post using double spacing? Cheers you too |
|
|
|
Post by 😉 on Mar 25, 2020 7:55:29 GMT -5
Mainly for my ease in rereading my opinion(s)
This compact screen is much too small, imo.
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 25, 2020 8:03:14 GMT -5
Mainly for my ease in rereading my opinion(s) This compact screen is much too small, imo. Thank you Totally understand, 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by So then on Mar 26, 2020 2:54:51 GMT -5
Mainly for my ease in rereading my opinion(s) This compact screen is much too small, imo. Thank you Totally understand, 😉 May be that you could do me a favor? (Insightful , as you present your presence ) 🙂 Consider that consciousness cannot exist , without Intentionality? Just as intentionality cannot be present without consciousness . That as it is, how can “human nature” evolve if intentionality Would fail to account for a genetic “mutation “. Mutations, in theory , cannot be proven to lack intentionality, imo Can you see that this intentionality is a thorn to the theory Unintentional micro-evolution, not that we need to Understand all of the possible intentions available to consider. In other words, can intentionality be compatible with Unintentional mutations ? It may be there is Spiecies are indeed intentionally Created , as opposed to unintentionally? Personally, I cannot perceive how we can make a proof for Either, thus by default we should favor the logic that Is necessary in order of the intention being thus projected hmmm It’s all good! Thank you |
|
|
|
Post by So then on Mar 26, 2020 3:06:18 GMT -5
Paradoxically, intentionality cannot be logically a product
Of unintentionality, being they are extremely incompatible,
IMO
Thanks
|
|
