jerryR34

 

a. “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ... We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.” Dawkins, pp. 1, 43.

 

 

quote mining...why don't you post more of The Blind Watchmaker, or better yet, read it?

 

 

 

"We animals are the most complicated things in the known universe. The universe that we know, of course, is a tiny fragment of the actual universe. There may be yet more complicated objects than us on other planets, and some of them may already know about us. But this doesn't alter the point that I want to make. Complicated things, everywhere, deserve a very special kind of explanation. We want to know how they came into existence and why they are so complicated. The explanation, as I shall argue, is likely to be broadly the same for complicated things everywhere in the universe; the same for us, for chimpanzees, worms, oak trees and monsters from outer space. On the other hand, it will not be the same for what I shall call 'simple' things, such as rocks, clouds, rivers, galaxies and quarks. These are the stuff of physics. Chimps and dogs and bats and cockroaches and people and worms and dandelions and bacteria and galactic aliens are the stuff of biology.

The difference is one of complexity of design. Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Physics is the study of simple things that do not tempt us to invoke design. At first sight, man-made artefacts like computers and cars will seem to provide exceptions. They are complicated and obviously designed for a purpose, yet they are not alive, and they are made of metal and plastic rather than of flesh and blood. In this book they will be firmly treated as biological objects.

The reader's reaction to this may be to ask, 'Yes, but are they really biological objects?' Words are our servants, not our masters. For different purposes we find it convenient to use words in different senses. Most cookery books class lobsters as fish. Zoologists can  

       

 

                               

become quite apoplectic about this, pointing out that lobsters could with greater justice call humans fish, since fish are far closer kin to humans than they are to lobsters. And, talking of justice and lobsters, I understand that a court of law recently had to decide whether lobsters were insects or 'animals' (it bore upon whether people should be allowed to boil them alive). Zoologically speaking, lobsters are certainly not insects. They are animals, but then so are insects and so are we. There is little point in getting worked up about the way different people use words (although in my nonprofessional life I am quite prepared to get worked up about people who boil lobsters alive). Cooks and lawyers need to use words in their own special ways, and so do I in this book. Never mind whether cars and computers are 'really' biological objects. The point is that if anything of that degree of complexity were found on a planet, we should have no hesitation in concluding that life existed, or had once existed, on that planet. Machines are the direct products of living objects; they derive their complexity and design from living objects, and they are diagnostic of the existence of life on a planet. The same goes for fossils, skeletons and dead bodies. "

 

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

Morals have nothing to do with evolution.

 

All of our behaviors have to do with evolution.

 

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

 

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?

 

 

The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore.  Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. 

 

Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face?  Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions.

 

a universal moral is something i think a lot about.

i'll present shortly my conclusion with an exemple:

 

your in the jungle and you're attacked by a lion who wants to kill you.

you shoot him down because he's a treath to you.

you have done good, because otherwise you were dead.

at the other side, it was not very good for the lion, who just wanted to eat, or who would starve.

 

i have many other exemples of this kind of situation.

my personal conclusion is that there is only a human moral law, not a universal one.

Survival is not an issue of morality.   In survival you do anything it takes survive even if it means committing evil.   When we start defining good with such irrational notions as survival, anything no matter how murderous or heinous can be justified as "good" and that leads to lawlessness where morality is defined by each person rather than having one objective standard that governs how we live.

 

So, given the opportunity, would you watch your child starve to death rather than steal to feed her?

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

I don't need the prayers of a nonChristian like yourself, so don't bother.

 

Everyone needs prayers.

 

 

 

There is no raw (uninterpreted) scientific observation undermining the possibility of the existence of God.

Not looking to undermine God, but to prove Him.  If you can have a mathematical equation that points to a ~6,000-10,000 year-old earth, that would go a long way...otherwise, you are attacking the scientific method.  If you can't come up with that, no problem really because God is all about faith.  We just look foolish when when we use natural science to explain a supernatural God.

 

the scientific method is worthless at determining the age of the earth, unless you replicate the creation of the earth in a laboratory several hundred times.

 

You do not understand the scientific method even though you benefit from its application.  Dogma is powerful - I've been praying for you.

 

There is no raw (uninterpreted) scientific observation undermining the possibility of the existence of God.

 

Not looking to undermine God, but to prove Him.  If you can have a mathematical equation that points to a ~6,000-10,000 year-old earth, that would go a long way...otherwise, you are attacking the scientific method.  If you can't come up with that, no problem really because God is all about faith.  We just look foolish when when we use natural science to explain a supernatural God.

 

~

 

Pocking Around In The Dirt

 

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

 

For The Love

 

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

Of God

 

The Lord appeared to us in the past, saying:“I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with unfailing kindness. Jeremiah 31:3

 

Beloved, Is That Really Rational?

 

~

 

Dear Jerry, Both You And Science (So Called)

 

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

 

Will Have No Excuse

 

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 2 Peter 3:5-6

 

Not Even

 

If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. “He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

 

“For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak. “I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me.” John 12:47-5o (NASB)

 

A Whispered

 

that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

 

and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:10-11

 

No~!

 

~

 

Believe

 

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

 

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

 

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:10-12

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

 

Jesus will value my inquisitive, loving mind...even if  some here are can't uderstand it...

 

 

Matthew 15:3-7

King James Version (KJV)

³ But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

⁴ For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

⁵ But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

⁶ And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

⁷ Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

 

 

Seems like God wants us to keep the Deuteronomy laws. What say you? 

 

He was actually addressing Pharisaical hypocrisy.

 

Actually honoring your parents is a NT commandment as well. 

 

 

 

 

So, was Jesus saying they were wrong for not following the OT or was he saying they were right for disobeying an age-old tradition?  Which tradition was ok to dishonor and which on was not?

 

 

Matthew 15:3-7

King James Version (KJV)

³ But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

⁴ For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

⁵ But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

⁶ And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

⁷ Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

 

 

Seems like God wants us to keep the Deuteronomy laws. What say you? 

 

He was actually addressing Pharisaical hypocrisy.

 

Actually honoring your parents is a NT commandment as well. 

Where was that mentioned in the NT?  What parts of the OT do we throw away and which ones do we keep.  Seems to me this passage was saying we should keep the hand washing tradition as well as stoning disobedient children...

 

 

 

 

Matthew 15:3-7

King James Version (KJV)

³ But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

⁴ For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

⁵ But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

⁶ And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

⁷ Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

 

 

Seems like God wants us to keep the Deuteronomy laws. What say you? 

 

He was actually addressing Pharisaical hypocrisy.

 

Actually honoring your parents is a NT commandment as well. 

 

So, what is the punishment if you disobey your parents?

 

I guess you go to bed without your supper.

 

Beats the heck out of getting rocks tossed at you till you're dead I guess...I'm sure many children at that time may have gone to bed hungry anyway...

The people in the gospels were still under the law.

So, if  a child disobeyed/disrespted his or here parents it would be ok if they were stoned to death?  When did it become ok not to do that?

 

 

Matthew 15:3-7

King James Version (KJV)

³ But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

⁴ For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

⁵ But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

⁶ And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

⁷ Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

 

 

Seems like God wants us to keep the Deuteronomy laws. What say you? 

 

He was actually addressing Pharisaical hypocrisy.

 

Actually honoring your parents is a NT commandment as well. 

 

So, what is the punishment if you disobey your parents?

 

 

Seems like God wants us to keep the Deuteronomy laws. What say you? 

 

There is no raw (uninterpreted) scientific observation undermining the possibility of the existence of God.

Not looking to undermine God, but to prove Him.  If you can have a mathematical equation that points to a ~6,000-10,000 year-old earth, that would go a long way...otherwise, you are attacking the scientific method.  If you can't come up with that, no problem really because God is all about faith.  We just look foolish when when we use natural science to explain a supernatural God.

 

 

 

I was actually just looking for a verifiable formula to back up the Gravitational Time Dilation anthonyjmcgirr used to refute the currently accepted science of the age of the universe.  I appreciate the time you took to type all that out, but your assumptions and God of the gaps assertions don't hold water.

 

 

 

 

Hi Jerry, you said, “I was actually just looking for a verifiable formula to back up the Gravitational Time Dilation anthonyjmcgirr used to refute the currently accepted science of the age of the universe.” 

 

My point is that understanding how the figures are derived is far more important than what the figures actually are.

No, that is not how math works.  No matter how well you describe how well you understand  2+2=5, it doesn't.  If one wants to say that the age of the universe is impacted by time dilation, one must provide the math, not just explain how it "could have" worked.  This is a chance for Creationism to stop attacking current physics, sicience and math and provide actual mathmatical proof of our claims.

 

Actually, YOU are the one doing the attacking.  YOU are the one that claimed that Christianity is detrimental to science.  No one is attacking physics, science or math.

 

As I mentioned this is an opportunity for creationsist to actually have proof as proof only exists in math.  If one could show that the total gravity of the universe could slow time to make it look like the stars we see are much farther away, it would go a long way toward their cause.  Otherwise they are just dealing in what-ifs and attacks on accepted math and science.  Creationists often lament that they cannot get published, well, no one can argue if their math is correct.  I am not counting on seeing anything to refute an old earth/universe...

Blessings jerry.....

      I did not ask because of questions you asked but because of the statement you made ....is that not clear in what I said,you even quoted it?I do not know why you are labeled ''Nonbeliever",I only know that you are labeled "Nonbeliever",so what am I to think?......is it a bad thing that I asked?I apologize that I did not read all the posts on this thread & you had to repeat yourself  .....I would not have asked if saw your affirmative answer multiple times

       I do not like to assume that someone is a non-believer just because they have been labeled as such........praise & Glory to God,I am happy that you are a Christian........& perhaps you should say the words "Jesus is my Lord & Savior" instead of saying you answered affirmatively on your views on 'Jesus is my Lord & Savior" and those that HAVE read your response will be clear........Again,I apologize in advance if you already did say that,I really do not mean to be offensive......I am not a judgmental or unloving person,I do really care about you

                                                                                                                                                          With love-in Christ,Kwik

You never offend me kwik   It's easy to see what a caring person you are.  Take care.

 

I was actually just looking for a verifiable formula to back up the Gravitational Time Dilation anthonyjmcgirr used to refute the currently accepted science of the age of the universe.  I appreciate the time you took to type all that out, but your assumptions and God of the gaps assertions don't hold water.

 

 

 

 

Hi Jerry, you said, “I was actually just looking for a verifiable formula to back up the Gravitational Time Dilation anthonyjmcgirr used to refute the currently accepted science of the age of the universe.” 

 

My point is that understanding how the figures are derived is far more important than what the figures actually are.

No, that is not how math works.  No matter how well you describe how well you understand  2+2=5, it doesn't.  If one wants to say that the age of the universe is impacted by time dilation, one must provide the math, not just explain how it "could have" worked.  This is a chance for Creationism to stop attacking current physics, sicience and math and provide actual mathmatical proof of our claims.

Blessings Jerry

    You say you are right with God & Jesus........so may I ask,"Does this mean you are a Christian?" "Is Jesus your Lord & Savior?"

                                                                                                                                                                           With love-in Christ,Kwik

I've answered this question in the affirmative multiple times on this board.  I guess asking certain questions gets one labeled a "Nonbeliever" in spite of one's views on "Is Jesus your Lord & Savior". 

 

  I am not judging you, but as an unbeliever

A contradiction separated by a comma.  Won't you be surprised to see me in the mansion next door in paradise...

 

actually there is nothing about how you post that would indicate that you are right with God.   You are particularly antagonistic to people who trust God's word over man's words.   It shows why your status is "unbeliever."   You don't know Jesus.

 

 

I do ask a lot of difficult questions.  It's a great way to learn.  I'm sorry if you feel antagonized by my posting.  I'm lucky you won't be judging me upon my demise   Shalom.

 

 

 

   And all will be judged by Him on that basis.

I have no fear whatsoever of being judged.

 

Because you have no fear of God.  If you feared Him, you would believe Him.

 

No, it's because I know I am right with God and Jesus - not much to fear when they are with you.

 

   And all will be judged by Him on that basis.

I have no fear whatsoever of being judged.

 

  Nature tells you things about the Creatior...

It probably tell things to everyone in the world who believes in a creator or creators.  In the end, all we have is our faith, and we look foolish trying to prove a supernatural agent using natural evidence.

 

 

g. “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Crick, p. 88.

 

Francis Crick, a Nobel Prize winner and the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, did not give up. He reasoned that if life could not have evolved on earth, it must have evolved somewhere else in our galaxy and been transported to earth—an old theory called panspermia. Just how life evolved on a distant planet is never explained. Crick proposed directed panspermia—that an advanced civilization sent bacteria to earth. Crick (p. 15) recognized that “it is difficult to see how viable spores could have arrived here, after such a long journey in space, undamaged by radiation.” He mistakenly thought that a spacecraft might protect the bacteria from cosmic radiation. Crick grossly underestimated the problem. [see Eugene N. Parker, “Shielding Space Travelers,” Scientific American, Vol. 294, March 2006, pp. 40–47.]

 

Quote mine

Being a well-famous biologist and one of the best-known proponents of panspermia, Crick is frequently quote-mined by creationists. In Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, he stated:

 

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle...

However, the ellipsis there marks the start of a less frequently quoted section (and often creationists citing this comment will leave out the ellipsis to try and punctuate it at "miracle"). Crick continues, lest he be accused of being a total idiot rather than a fairly competent scientist:

 

...so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.

In short, Crick acknowledges the difficulties in really figuring out the origin of life but doesn't suggest a literal miracle.

 

 

 

 

JerryR34 - Hi Kwik - what would be better to you - a person who trys to reconcile science and the Bible and believe in Christ or someone who throws out the Bible because it does not agree with science?

 

Seriously, what do you see as the primary obstacles to belief in God, at least as a starting point? (Not necessarily only from your perspective but what you encounter in general)

I think the biggest obstacle is lack of evidence for God.  If one did not know of and already believe in the Bible, one certainly could not trace the evidence back to the Book.

 

The very existence of the universe is evidence for God.

 

Which God?  There is no scientific evidence you can give that would point to the God of the Bible without first knowing about and believing in the God of the Bible.  I am still looking for a good answer to this.

 

actually, the God of the Bible is the only God that would be able to do what it would take to create the universe.  He is all-knowing, omnipresent and all-powerful. 

 

In the annals of mythology, none of the other gods of the pagans had any of those attributes.   They had specialized and limited power.  They were not omnipresent and they didn't know all things.    The difference between the God of the Bible and say, Thor or Zeus is that Thor and Zeus represent the kind of persons for whom ancient man had a point of reference.

 

Man in ancient times had no concept of a God like the God of the Bible.   Think of it like this:  No one in the 14th century would have ever thought of a cell phone.  Such an image could never have occurred to them.

 

Ancient cultures pretty much adopted each others gods and adapted them to their culture.   Only the God of Scripture stands completely unique in that He and He alone is an all-knowing all-powerful creator and He alone controls the universe.  No pagan deity could do all of that.

 

So when you ask "which God?"  The answer is easy as there is only one that is uniquely qualified to manage the universe and that is the God of Scripture.

 

What I'm saying is...If one did not know and believe in the God of the bible, there is no way physical evidence could lead him to that story and the story of Jesus.  

 

You are mistaken in you post above...man came up with some pretty fantastical gods on his own, not to mention things like virgin birth, rising from the dead, cleansing floods, etc.  There has been a virtual god arms race since the dawn of civilization.