Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 128
  1. #41
    Grandmaster ChristianPatriot's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jludo View Post
    I wish they'd have had someone well versed in biology/ genetics who differed in view for this interview. As someone might watch this and come away thinking what we haven't figured out about the origins of life is somehow evidence for the Christian God.
    Did you actually watch it? Only one out of the three of those guys believes in a God and even the one that does never used God as an answer.
    Don't practice until you do it right; practice until you can't do it wrong.

  2. #42
    Master Jludo's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Nevermore View Post
    But necessity demands it. There has to be a first "thing" in any framework, whether Darwinian or otherwise and if design be considered the most logical explanation for the existence of the universe then there must also be a first Designer. I would argue that the endless train of "well if x created the earth, what created x?" is easily answered by the existence of a Being that has 2 primary characteristics:

    1. Eternality. Not merely ancient existence (implying a day before it existed in reality) but an actual lack of beginning or end as a core facet of the Being's existence. Being beyond time, the necessity of the Being being itself created is no longer logically demanded.
    2. Transcendence. The Being must not merely exist in the void of the empty universe, but must also possess the power, creativity, and desire to break the most fundamental laws of our natural universe. This being must be able to create and destroy matter, to make out of nothing etc.

    Otherwise, one has to come up with a means by which the universe, which at some point in the distant past was presumably "filled" with absolutely nothing...spontaneously generated the first somethings that eventually become all that currently is. The problem of naturalism which is stuck completely in the box of the physical universe without reference to transcendent Divinity is that there logically isn't one. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, period...unless of course you peek outside of the Universe to a power beyond it.
    Doesnt this God of the gaps abstract the idea of god so far out as to make it less relevant than what we can scientifically figure out about the universe?

  3. #43
    Master Jludo's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianPatriot View Post
    Did you actually watch it? Only one out of the three of those guys believes in a God and even the one that does never used God as an answer.
    I'm inferring from the handle of the poster and the agenda of the discovery institute that the posting of the video is an attempt to carve out some space for Jesus.
    I don't take issue with Einstein invoking God, I do take issue with creationism.
    If you can look at the problems with our current theories and find a solution in some sort of tangible, testable intelligent design theory, all the better for advancing our knowledge.
    Last edited by Jludo; 08-23-2019 at 22:56.

  4. #44
    Grandmaster ChristianPatriot's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jludo View Post
    I'm inferring from the handle of the poster and the agenda of the discovery institute that video is an attempt to carve out some space for Jesus.
    I don't take issue with Einstein invoking God, I do take issue with creationism.
    If you can look at the problems with our current theories and find a solution in some sort of tangible, testable intelligent design theory, all the better for advancing our knowledge.
    Iíd encourage you to at least attempt to watch it before critiquing it based on your personal biases of me and the institute. No mention of Jesus by me or during the interview. I specifically said modern science and mathematics in the OP. So thatís some major league inferring.
    Don't practice until you do it right; practice until you can't do it wrong.

  5. #45
    Plinker

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jludo View Post
    Doesnt this God of the gaps abstract the idea of god so far out as to make it less relevant than what we can scientifically figure out about the universe?
    Yes, but I was merely attempting to concisely address why the idea of a Creating God does not merely add another line to the endless chain of "firsts" that must themselves necessarily have a predecessor.

    From a scientific perspective I am a firm believer in micro-evolution: evolution within a species. My jersey cows are a perfect example of the concept under man's direction so how could I not? Macro-evolution, a transformation of one species into another by the long process of added adaptations has never been observed. It cannot be replicated. The fossil record does not indicate it, and the lack of intermediary species for any transition at any point seems rather damning to me.

  6. #46
    Master Jludo's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianPatriot View Post
    Iíd encourage you to at least attempt to watch it before critiquing it based on your personal biases of me and the institute. No mention of Jesus by me or during the interview. I specifically said modern science and mathematics in the OP. So thatís some major league inferring.
    I did watch it before critiquing, is that your only criticism of my critique?

    Am I wrong for implying your take on it is some sort of evidence for a Christian God?
    Nothing any of them said gives us any sort of knowable god

  7. #47
    Master Jludo's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Nevermore View Post
    Yes, but I was merely attempting to concisely address why the idea of a Creating God does not merely add another line to the endless chain of "firsts" that must themselves necessarily have a predecessor.

    From a scientific perspective I am a firm believer in micro-evolution: evolution within a species. My jersey cows are a perfect example of the concept under man's direction so how could I not? Macro-evolution, a transformation of one species into another by the long process of added adaptations has never been observed. It cannot be replicated. The fossil record does not indicate it, and the lack of intermediary species for any transition at any point seems rather damning to me.
    I'm not sure I'm convinced the missing pieces completely obliterate the overall theory, I think there are certainly major unexplained gaps in our knowledge but I think the general overall arch from simple organisms to complex organisms over time is still the picture that's painted isn't it?

  8. #48
    Grandmaster Mr Evilwrench's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kutnupe14 View Post
    How true is this really? We're talking about one planet, in one galaxy that has over 100 Billion planets, in a universe that has 100 Billion galaxies. To extrapolate life universe-wide solely based on what we have observed on Earth isn't practical. If I gave you a single piece of a 5000 piece puzzle, I bet you couldn't tell me what the entire picture was. And I do believe in intelligent design.
    So far, we have only the one planet as an example. This doesn't require any extrapolation, though. It could happen independently in multiple places, or one or more hypotheses of panspermia may have spread "life" or the materials prerequisite for life, from one place to another. The unlikelihood applies to any number of biospheres.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nevermore View Post
    But necessity demands it. There has to be a first "thing" in any framework, whether Darwinian or otherwise and if design be considered the most logical explanation for the existence of the universe then there must also be a first Designer. I would argue that the endless train of "well if x created the earth, what created x?" is easily answered by the existence of a Being that has 2 primary characteristics:

    1. Eternality. Not merely ancient existence (implying a day before it existed in reality) but an actual lack of beginning or end as a core facet of the Being's existence. Being beyond time, the necessity of the Being being itself created is no longer logically demanded.
    2. Transcendence. The Being must not merely exist in the void of the empty universe, but must also possess the power, creativity, and desire to break the most fundamental laws of our natural universe. This being must be able to create and destroy matter, to make out of nothing etc.

    Otherwise, one has to come up with a means by which the universe, which at some point in the distant past was presumably "filled" with absolutely nothing...spontaneously generated the first somethings that eventually become all that currently is. The problem of naturalism which is stuck completely in the box of the physical universe without reference to transcendent Divinity is that there logically isn't one. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, period...unless of course you peek outside of the Universe to a power beyond it.
    So now, not only are we talking about something unimaginably unlikely (life), but something infinitely more unlikely, a hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional being (as Douglas Adams would have, well, in fact did, put it) that not just is and always has been, but can do anything? Not just order, but perfect, infinite order, that just is, was, and always will be? So, what's the point of anything less? Perversity?
    Geeking out on ancestry; 17th great grandson of Geoffrey Chaucer, and a bunch of dukes, knights, princesses, kings and stuff. Of course, once you turn over a rock and one king crawls out, you're pretty much infested with them. And what did I tell you? Charlemagne, Holy Roman Emperor, Charles "The Hammer" Martel, and a truckload of others. This is getting better: "The Bonny Earl O'Moray" was an ancestor, and the origin of the term mondegreen: They slew the Earl O'Moray and Lady Mondegreen

  9. #49
    Expert NKBJ's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kutnupe14 View Post
    Who says that they can't or won't ever? Do you know why mammals became the dominant species on the planet?
    So that Eve could have fur trim on the hem of her nighty to keep her throat warm.
    That was from the novel M*A*S*H.

  10. #50
    Expert NKBJ's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    If natural selection made all those really specialized differentiations of life forms on the Galapagos Islands then how come so many of those far flung and widely separated islands across the Pacific have the same on them instead of different on each little outpost?

    So the migrating humans could step right into what they were already comfortable with, same as going downstairs in the morning at a Holiday Inn Express.


Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Button Dodge