Faith In Creation

Come Back Kid · Oct 21, 2007

If you need your faith in creation increased, or made real, go to Google Video and type in "Unlocking The Mysteries Of Life." By Illuma, I think.
God has places a very small(naturally) motor that has gears, etc. much like an outboard motor. It rotates at 150,000 RPM and can stop in a quarter of a turn. Naturally, it was annimated but very well done.
Let me know if anyone watches it. You WILL NOT be disappointed.
Jim

Come Back Kid · Oct 23, 2007

Disappointed

Oscur:
I take no offense.( maybe a tiny bit) I can see why this would be unimportant to a believer in evolution. I saw it on T.V. and it was one of the most conclusive points that a Creator had to make us and we didn't crawl out of a mud hole.
Some people would not believe if God, if He created a man right in front of him.
Seek My Boy, Seek!
Jim

sanssouci · Oct 23, 2007

My husband is a molecular biologist so none of that is news to me. I fail to see how it proves anything.

Higgins · Oct 24, 2007

Come Back Kid said:
If you need your faith in creation increased, or made real, go to Google Video and type in "Unlocking The Mysteries Of Life." By Illuma, I think.
God has places a very small(naturally) motor that has gears, etc. much like an outboard motor. It rotates at 150,000 RPM and can stop in a quarter of a turn. Naturally, it was annimated but very well done.
Let me know if anyone watches it. You WILL NOT be disappointed.
Jim

I don't think arguments from design have seemed plausible to biologists since the basics of population genetics were worked out in the 1920s.

Roger J Carlson · Oct 24, 2007

I really don't want to turn this into a discussion of creation vs. evolution. Come Back Kid listed a video he thought others might enjoy. It's really no different than saying, "Hey, I read this good book, and I think you might like it, too."

If it spoke to you, fine, say so. If it didn't, that's also fine, say that. But there is no reason from either side, to dismiss the beliefs of the other.

There is a world of difference between saying: "As a believer in evolution, I didn't find it convincing." and "This is nonsense." Likewise, there is no reason for a believer to impune the intellectual honesty of a non-believer.

I appreciate your cooperation with this.

Come Back Kid · Oct 24, 2007

Thanks

Thanks Mr. Rog:
You put that in a most understandable way. It's almost like a sports event ie, the referee was right, on the call, if it's in favor of your team, yet wrong if not.
I've been on my team many, many years. My Manager loves me but He can really be tough in making me the best I can be. His arms are a lot longer than mine, so I'm convinced, after several blows to my body and ego, not to box with Him anymore.

Another "Good book," so to speak.
Sid Roth, a Messianic Jew, broadcasts on radio and TV. On his website www.sidroth.org, if you'll go to the top of page to radio broadcast, then to the left side for archives. Check out Tom L. (I forgot) you can listen to M thru F broadcast. This man is a Profit Of God, very real, and truly humble. He tells us things we believers know are coming. Some may be coming after the rapture.
I'm not saying that it's all true but from my perspective I believe it. It is worth the effort to listen and be your own judge.
I don't know all the answers and even the things I believe need streghtening. It's almost as if the words are being taken out of my mind.Could that be happening? (no answer required)
God Bless,
Jim

Higgins · Oct 24, 2007

Roger J Carlson said:
I really don't want to turn this into a discussion of creation vs. evolution.

It might be worth considering a discussion of the argument from design versus the implications of intelligent design. Up until the 1920s, it was fashionable to deduce things about the Creator from His creation. So God's wisdome was reflected in His provision of eight legs for Octopi-ses
and exoskeletons and spinerets for arachnids and His mercy in the swiftness with which a falcon kills its prey and so on. Most famously of course, somebody asked Darwin what he could deduce about the Mind of God and Darwin said, "an inordinate fondness for beetles."

Now if we look at the rhetoric of Intelligent Design, we find it is not the virtues of creation (swift-killing falcons and the beauty of spider webs) but its machine-like qualities that suggest intelligence in the Designer. to put it another way, the less Natural Nature looks, the more it suggests the handiwork of an Intelligent Designer, at least according to Intelligent Design. To me this suggests a sad decline in the human imagination in some areas; at least the argument from design was poetic. The rhetoric of Intelligent Design is merely that of the assessment of industrial production.

Pat~ · Oct 24, 2007

Sokal said:
It might be worth considering a discussion of the argument from design versus the implications of intelligent design. Up until the 1920s, it was fashionable to deduce things about the Creator from His creation. So God's wisdome was reflected in His provision of eight legs for Octopi-ses
and exoskeletons and spinerets for arachnids and His mercy in the swiftness with which a falcon kills its prey and so on. Most famously of course, somebody asked Darwin what he could deduce about the Mind of God and Darwin said, "an inordinate fondness for beetles."

Now if we look at the rhetoric of Intelligent Design, we find it is not the virtues of creation (swift-killing falcons and the beauty of spider webs) but its machine-like qualities that suggest intelligence in the Designer. to put it another way, the less Natural Nature looks, the more it suggests the handiwork of an Intelligent Designer, at least according to Intelligent Design. To me this suggests a sad decline in the human imagination in some areas; at least the argument from design was poetic. The rhetoric of Intelligent Design is merely that of the assessment of industrial production.

?

I see "intelligent design" as inclusive of "design", not separate from it. But again, don't want to derail the thread. I love to see the videos and other visual presentations of the glorious intricacies of life on this planet. There was one such clip in my email awhile ago. If I can find it, I'll post the link.

Here's one: http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=513&gid=35

Higgins · Oct 24, 2007

Pat~ said:
?

I see "intelligent design" as inclusive of "design", not separate from it. But again, don't want to derail the thread. I love to see the videos and other visual presentations of the glorious intricacies of life on this planet. There was one such clip in my email awhile ago. If I can find it, I'll post the link.

Here's one: http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=513&gid=35

Intelligent Design (ID) and the Argument from Design (AfD) sound similar, but seem to work very differently in terms of their rhetoric. In AfD things about the design in the Creator's Mind are deduced from their reflections in the operations of earthly events, with the implication that there are archetypical designs associated with the Creator that may or may not be fully realized on earth at any one time. So the rhetoric is that of poetic analogy...as you say the intricacies are "glorious", (ie in AfD terms reflecting or suggesting the glorious nature of the acts of the Creator). In ID the rhetoric (at least superficially) merely states that some aspect of the natural world works too well to have arisen naturally. Not much there of a glorious nature, just the suggestion that nature doesn't naturally work well and that some of it required the intervention of a competent agency. I'm sure most ID workers would like to say that the properly working parts of nature are glorious and go on from there, but they have adopted a limited version of science that seems to include little more than an inordinate fondness for imitating reductivist jargon in hopes of seeming rigorous somehow.

oscuridad · Oct 24, 2007

Roger J Carlson said:
I really don't want to turn this into a discussion of creation vs. evolution. Come Back Kid listed a video he thought others might enjoy. It's really no different than saying, "Hey, I read this good book, and I think you might like it, too."

If it spoke to you, fine, say so. If it didn't, that's also fine, say that. But there is no reason from either side, to dismiss the beliefs of the other.

There is a world of difference between saying: "As a believer in evolution, I didn't find it convincing." and "This is nonsense." Likewise, there is no reason for a believer to impune the intellectual honesty of a non-believer.

I appreciate your cooperation with this.

that's why I deleted my post. I understand where everyone is coming from (I think). I will say what I was going to say (sort of) anyway: any fact can be presented to support almost any pov.

I did feel the presentation, with the dramatic music and voiceover, the careful use of technological sounding terminology and the complete emphasis upon people finding it 'convincing and comfortable' most unconvincing. People found the flat world convincing 'cause it fit the observed phenomena, likewise an Earth centred cosmology, even including Ptolomy's absurd epicycles used to explain retrograde motion...

Interesting though - worth a look for sure.

Pat~ · Oct 24, 2007

Sokal said:
Intelligent Design (ID) and the Argument from Design (AfD) sound similar, but seem to work very differently in terms of their rhetoric. In AfD things about the design in the Creator's Mind are deduced from their reflections in the operations of earthly events, with the implication that there are archetypical designs associated with the Creator that may or may not be fully realized on earth at any one time. So the rhetoric is that of poetic analogy...as you say the intricacies are "glorious", (ie in AfD terms reflecting or suggesting the glorious nature of the acts of the Creator). In ID the rhetoric (at least superficially) merely states that some aspect of the natural world works too well to have arisen naturally. Not much there of a glorious nature, just the suggestion that nature doesn't naturally work well and that some of it required the intervention of a competent agency. I'm sure most ID workers would like to say that the properly working parts of nature are glorious and go on from there, but they have adopted a limited version of science that seems to include little more than an inordinate fondness for imitating reductivist jargon in hopes of seeming rigorous somehow.

I'm not so sure I'd agree with the underlined part; ID suggests that nature didn't even exist w/o the Designer, not that it wasn't doing too well and the Designer had to 'intervene.'

Anyway, I digress..

Still looking for that wonderful video and hope I can find it to add to this thread.

Higgins · Oct 24, 2007

Pat~ said:
I'm not so sure I'd agree with the underlined part; ID suggests that nature didn't even exist w/o the Designer, not that it wasn't doing too well and the Designer had to 'intervene.'

I'm sure the ultimate aim of ID is to show that nature cannot exist without a Designer, however for one reason or another, the actual arguments of ID seem to be along the lines of XYZ is "too complex" (actually I don't think they really mean complex) to have "arisen naturally" and therefore there must be a Designer. This is very different from the actual content of Argument from Design which seeks a (poetic/analogical) knowledge of God from His works. Naturally as a Christian in Name only (CINO), I find ID to be bad Science and poor Theology whereas I have a nostalgically high regard for the imaginative assumptions of the Argument from Design, which even Darwin thought was worth a quip.

Higgins · Oct 24, 2007

oscuridad said:
that's why I deleted my post. I understand where everyone is coming from (I think). I will say what I was going to say (sort of) anyway: any fact can be presented to support almost any pov.

I did feel the presentation, with the dramatic music and voiceover, the careful use of technological sounding terminology and the complete emphasis upon people finding it 'convincing and comfortable' most unconvincing. People found the flat world convincing 'cause it fit the observed phenomena, likewise an Earth centred cosmology, even including Ptolomy's absurd epicycles used to explain retrograde motion...

Interesting though - worth a look for sure.

Oh no. Duhem's thesis in its reverse strong form ("any fact can be presented to support almost any POV", ie theory)...you know, the fact is that people like to think they live in a universe that makes sense...even if the sense is that the universe only makes sense if you leave out senseless astronomical expanses of nothing (nothing is what % of the universe? It depends on how fast you are going) or dark energy (oh 95%) or dark matter (most of the other 5%). We live on the cooler part of the other less than 1% and that includes all the crap you see in the cosmos. Frankly, I think that no one can be blamed for finding this the worst possible case of a retrograde accumulation of non-meaning. Fortunately as a CINO (Christian in name only) I really don't care.

oscuridad · Oct 29, 2007

Sokal said:
Fortunately as a CINO (Christian in name only) I really don't care.

that's worked out well then

Higgins · Nov 1, 2007

oscuridad said:
that's worked out well then

I imagine better Christians than me would like a universe with more meaning than one that is at least 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
field energy, thin gas, dwarf stars, "cosmic dust" and what not.

With my purely nominal faith, I really don't care. I mean, I'm glad they care, but I'm only somewhat uneasy that I don't care.

citymouse · Nov 6, 2007

Evolution, Science, the Bible, Salvation and What is the truth.

LOOKING back:

Many years ago when I was in the midst of wonder. I asked the then Apostolic Delegate to the USA, Luigi Cardinal Raimondi which should I believe, the Bible or Science. Then as now voices, not always kind, raised the question to great levels. The cardinal cocked his head a little way and told me something I had sensed but never put into words. "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

Also at the time there was a serious movement to limit the devotion of the rosary to non-public worship. I asked him if I should follow the trend. He smiled, reached into his red soutaine a retrieved a well worn rosary. "I still have mine," he said. And so do I.

C

Come Back Kid · Nov 7, 2007

City:
I really like that answer. We(me too) feel The Creator owes us an answer to everything. Thanks for that quote. I wish I had said that---well, maybe I will!
Jim

small axe · Nov 7, 2007

Sokal said:
I imagine better Christians than me would like a universe with more meaning than one that is at least 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
field energy, thin gas, dwarf stars, "cosmic dust" and what not.

Well, some equally happy and intelligent folks would say: all the dross makes all the meaningful tiny percentage even MORE 'Meaningful'

And some from devout folks would suggest that ALL OF IT is 'Meaningful' ... if perhaps in ways our limited human minds (and imaginations') cannot grasp.

To me this suggests a sad decline in the human imagination in some areas; at least the argument from design was poetic.

And deciding that what you don't happen to understand is therefore rendered meaningless would possibly be a failure of your imagination, also.

With my purely nominal faith, I really don't care. I mean, I'm glad they care, but I'm only somewhat uneasy that I don't care.

Fortunately as a CINO (Christian in name only) I really don't care.

etc.

You seem to keep telling us how much you really don't care.

You seem to tell us that a lot more than necessary, for someone who really doesn't care.

And as a believer in a "Created" Universe, I'd suggest that Creation certainly doesn't need to be Industrial (or anything, by human understanding) in design.

The Universe is a wonder-filled "machine" working by a design or by a process Man does not (and as to its origins, perhaps cannot ever)comprehend.

Even by our simple standards, we should not be very impressed by tiny gear-wheels, so much as by Thought that arises from Nothingness and pre-atomic debris.

Thinking machines who arise from nothingness and then via mindless dust become Self-aware beings ... there is a great Thing to Design or to Create.

Yet here we are. Here the Universe is. We can spend lifetimes and argue about what we call it, Created or Designed or "Just Happened" ...

But here we are.

If some cannot agree where we came from or where we go ... We Are Here.

We should be or do something Meaningful, once we understand the concept of Meaning.

Higgins · Nov 7, 2007

small axe said:
We should be or do something Meaningful, once we understand the concept of Meaning.

What's holding you up? You seem to have run through a few permutations. Why were they inadequate?

small axe · Nov 8, 2007

Originally Posted by small axe
We should be or do something Meaningful, once we understand the concept of Meaning.

Sokal said:
What's holding you up? You seem to have run through a few permutations. Why were they inadequate?

Why (and How) do you assume they were 'inadequate' ???

And before we should care about your notion of the 'inadequate' ... we'd need to know what would satisfy your notion of 'adequate'

So,what is 'adequate' for you?

Higgins · Nov 8, 2007

small axe said:
Why (and How) do you assume they were 'inadequate' ???

And before we should care about your notion of the 'inadequate' ... we'd need to know what would satisfy your notion of 'adequate'

So,what is 'adequate' for you?

The world as science describes it is adequate for me.

Come Back Kid · Nov 8, 2007

Sokal:
What does science say about the hereafter? I'm most serious.
Something keeps drawing you to this board. It seems you are almost apologizing for being called a Christian. If most here are like me, when I do the same sin again and again, I FEEL like a CINO.
You remind me of myself when I first found the Truth: I would say, "I'm a Christian, but not a good Christian." God spoke to my heart one day and suggested I quit saying that. He told me (in strong thought) There are no GOOD Christians.
It seems to me that CINO was coined by a non-believer who knows Christians fall short and CINO was a neat way to judge us.
I think most on the board, know by now, that you consider yourself "in name only," so you can leave that out, or place it by your user name.
I can't imagine anyone standing at the judgement and telling God "Be merciful I was a CINO."
I'm not criticizing, just offering some food for thought, since words are very powerful.
With Love,
Jim

Higgins · Nov 8, 2007

Come Back Kid said:
Sokal:
What does science say about the hereafter? I'm most serious.
Something keeps drawing you to this board. It seems you are almost apologizing for being called a Christian. If most here are like me, when I do the same sin again and again, I FEEL like a CINO.
You remind me of myself when I first found the Truth: I would say, "I'm a Christian, but not a good Christian." God spoke to my heart one day and suggested I quit saying that. He told me (in strong thought) There are no GOOD Christians.
It seems to me that CINO was coined by a non-believer who knows Christians fall short and CINO was a neat way to judge us.
I think most on the board, know by now, that you consider yourself "in name only," so you can leave that out, or place it by your user name.
I can't imagine anyone standing at the judgement and telling God "Be merciful I was a CINO."
I'm not criticizing, just offering some food for thought, since words are very powerful.
With Love,
Jim

In the world of science, when you're dead, you're dead. I have to say that the prospect of being alive after I'm dead was one of the things that made me utterly reject religion when I was a boy. Call me a savage, but the prospect of living among the ghostly dead in any state made me ill.
Now I'm willing to believe that some people find that sort of thing comforting (even if I find it unpleasant).
Oh...drawn to the Christian board. Well, I was raised in an extremely Christian household...though I suppose they were more like Dark Age Christians in that we spent time visiting ancestral graves and rebuilding churches and what not. I was a happy participant, but I considered the whole God thing to be yet another absurd adult delusion.
CINO...was a term I never used until I saw it on this here Christian board where it was applied to the vast majority of Christians who actually had sexual things that they enjoyed and were not particularly worried about it.
So, I says to myself: finally, a term for me: somebody definitely culturally Christian, but without much sympathy for the more grand claims of the religion. So I like Churches and theology and lituries and graveyards, but I hope to be really most completely dead when I'm dead.

oscuridad · Nov 8, 2007

small axe said:
We Are Here.

I'd put money on the fact there are a few philosophers who would argue that with you, or at the very least, how you think you know you're here, or anywhere, for that matter.

And I'm with Sokal - I would hope to be not only really dead, but really most sincerely dead. I'd like to put it off for a while yet, though...

Roger J Carlson · Nov 8, 2007

oscuridad said:
I'd put money on the fact there are a few philosophers who would argue that with you, or at the very least, how you think you know you're here, or anywhere, for that matter.

And I'm with Sokal - I would hope to be not only really dead, but really most sincerely dead. I'd like to put it off for a while yet, though...

That's interesting. Why would you put more faith in the beliefs of philosophers?

Faith In Creation

Come Back Kid

Come Back Kid

sanssouci

Higgins

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only

Come Back Kid

Higgins

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

Higgins

oscuridad

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

Higgins

Higgins

oscuridad

Higgins

citymouse

fantasy dweller

Come Back Kid

small axe

memento mori

Higgins

small axe

memento mori

Higgins

Come Back Kid

Higgins

oscuridad

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only