Witness says God isn't only possible designer

October 22, 2005

QR window:

I remember seeing the first electron scans of viruses. One in particular was longish -- having six smooth planes, and was double-terminated with a flagellum appended to a termination. Its appearance facsimiled a multi-faceted crystal. Perhaps,

it was specifically that virus that the Japanese referred to when adducing that certain viruses exhibited two attributes, the one anomalous --

1/ the virus was inorganic mineral

-- able, as conditions prevailed, of manifesting

2/ the specialty -- life.

(it was posited that whilst in its state as inorganic mineral…, life may have been inherent as silicone life)

The proposed hypothesis was -- that civilizations (orders of magnitude beyond our own) ‘seeded’ by panspermia -- the universe with these ‘organic/inorganic’ viruses. The hypothesis proposed that the virus, whilst journeying through the reaches of the interstellar, was uniquely adapted to, if needed, survive because of its ability to utilize energy via its silicone composition… whereas, a carbon-based unit would not have survived. Moreover, it was also proposed that these ‘silicone’ units contained encoded information the Japanese hoped to unravel. Whether

there was substance to the more arcane aspects of the hypothesis or not, the aforementioned ‘organic/inorganic’ compositional characteristic obtained.

Don’t ask it is -- as I recall the brouhaha.

Per Intelligent Design: It is presently ongoing. It is accelerating. It is evolutionary in its several senses of the word. Soon, life will be designed to withstand and/or adapt [to] the rigors involved in colonizing either habitable or uninhabitable planets or bodies -- and will colonize them.

It is genetic engineering (recombinant DNA engineering), and those whom Jesus Christ declared “gods” (Jn 10:34), that is, mankind (or more exactly, “unto whom the word of Gd came”) are diligently engineering its ‘design’. It may be

that in the relatively near future it can be truthfully stated per the moon, Mars, and so on… that life, as it originated on these bodies, was by intelligent design; further, its origin was by act of “gods” -- that is, man.

October 22, 2005

Quote:

It doesn't have to make any [testable predictions] to be science AND if there was a God that created life, what type of testable predictions would we be talking about?

You have got to be kidding. Testable predictions is the main staple of science. If something cannot be reproduced over and over again, it is not considered true in a scientific sense.

The problem with science is that it cannot provide a test to determine if there is a designer. There is no way to determine if God is the origin of all things because we cannot observe evidence for a first cause being within the known observable universe.

Quote:

He makes a theoretical explanation of a phenomena based on observations. That is science.

Saying that God made the world is not a theory. It is a philosophy. It is not a theory since there is no way to test it. All science can do is point out that much of the universe is orderly and complex. To conclude that it is that way because God designed it opens up the question, then who made God?

You are free to explore questions of morality, origin, etc. all you want in philosophy, but science does not provide a vehicle for God.

October 22, 2005

Quote:

cardw said:

That's the point. It is a belief.

Would it then be safe to say since one must believe in science, it also shouldn't be taught in the public schools!!

Quote:

And the more religion tries to use science to "prove" God, the smaller its god will become.

This I'm somewhat in agreement with, just as I don't believe one can disprove God by scientific reasoning. Especially since it is the Creator who establishes true science.

[:"red"] "Is that so?" retorted Pharaoh. "And who is the LORD that I should listen to him and let Israel go? I don't know the LORD, and I will not let Israel go." [/] Exodus 5:2

[:"red"] "But Moses protested, "If I go to the people of Israel and tell them, `The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,' they won't believe me. They will ask, `Which god are you talking about? What is his name?' Then what should I tell them?"

God replied, "I AM THE ONE WHO ALWAYS IS. Just tell them, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" [/] Ex 3:13,14 NLT

October 22, 2005

Quote:

Gregory Matthews said:

You do not have to pay much attention to me. But the fact remains, scientificly, gravity is a theory, with some aspects demonstratable, and replicatable, and other aspects relatively unknown.

It is not you that I have disagreement with, Gregory, as much as I find that the clay that God made us from, is hardly capable of explaining their own existence, let alone the complexity of the One Who created them.

[:"red"] "... he called on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God. " [/] Genesis 21:33 NASB

[:"red"] "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." [/] Revelation 1:8 KJV

[:"red"] "Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?" [/] Isaiah 29:16 KJV

It is not gravity that is a theory. It is man's understanding of what gravity is, that is the theory.

Keep the faith!!

October 22, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Would it then be safe to say since one must believe in science, it also shouldn't be taught in the public schools!

In science education we sometimes use the distinction between 'believe in' and 'believe that'. One beleives in a God, but believes that the acceleration of objects due to gravity close to the earth's surface is 9.8 ms^2. In that sense, we don;t ask our students to 'believe in' science.

October 22, 2005

Shane wrote: <blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Problem with the orgins forum is that it has so many rules and regulations that many are discouraged from participating there. It is quite intimidating. Townhall is a much less rigid and relaxed environment.

I'm very happy to have the discussion continue here in Town Hall, certainly.

I honestly don't think Origins is all that rule-bound, really: it's just that the rules are clearly stated, and that the aim is to avoid flamewars. I'd like to avoid flamewars in Town Hall, too, if at all possible.

It'd be great if people were willing to give Origins a try - it's really impossible to demonstrate how it will work in practice unless we can get some discussion going there.

So far, everyone who has asked to join has been welcomed with open arms, and as far as I know no post has been edited.

October 22, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Testable predictions is the main staple of science. If something cannot be reproduced over and over again, it is not considered true in a scientific sense.

God created life. Only God can reproduce that. However science can make theoretical explanations of phenomenas based on observations of creation without reproducing it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Saying that God made the world is not a theory. It is a philosophy.

Teaching that God created the world, like we do, is not science. That is true. However speculating that perhaps there is a god that created the world based on scientific observation is science, even though pointy-head secularists don't like it.

October 22, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I honestly don't think Origins is all that rule-bound, really

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

In the 'Origins' forum we will be using 'active moderation'. That is, you will make a post, but it won't appear on the forum until a moderator has approved it.

I don't think a forum can get much more "rule-bound" than that.

October 22, 2005

Hmmm - I'm not sure that ended up being technically possible... I'd have to go back and look, but I suspect it ended up being impossible and we just have to passively moderate... Someone wanna make a post, just as a test, and see what happens? If what I remember is correct we need to modify that post...

(Norm is out of town and off the board at the moment due to family illness, so I'm on my own with this stuff.)

October 23, 2005

Sure. I'll try.

Posting now to the Origins forum....

October 23, 2005

Thanks for that test, Jeannie. Looks like we did figure out how to do the active moderation. I'm still not sure that should be a huge boundary, but maybe we do need to rethink that. The aim was to make it safe, but maybe there's a lesson in the fact that trying to make it perfectly safe made it almost perfectly useless... <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Anyway, back to the discussion. I copied a long post about Intelligent Design from my blog into the Origins forum today, if anyone is interested.

October 23, 2005

Quote:

Bravus said:

Quote:

In that sense, we don;t ask our students to 'believe in' science.

I think I could accept that premise, without 'what is' being violated.

I believe that when I step off a precipice I will surely fall as far as the edge of the precipice was high.

I also believe that God exists. On the other hand I also believe in His total trustworthiness, a fact that has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt in this classroom of one. Two if we see Him as the Teacher.

Thanks for that insight, Bravus.

Keep the faith!

October 23, 2005

Quote:

God created life. Only God can reproduce that. However science can make theoretical explanations of phenomenas based on observations of creation without reproducing it.

God creating life is not a theoretical explanation. We have no definition for God that can be observed directly. This is still philosophically based language, not science.

Quote:

Teaching that God created the world, like we do, is not science. That is true. However speculating that perhaps there is a god that created the world based on scientific observation is science, even though pointy-head secularists don't like it.

Like I said before, science can only observe that there is order and that it is complex. Speculation about the orgin of these observations is not science at all. It is simply speculation. And its forming beliefs about God, who has no directly observable form. If God had a directly observable form there is no test to determine if it is God or some superior created being. Science cannot test for or against God. It simply has nothing to say either way.

When you use gross generalizations like "pointy-head secularists", you just demonstrate your own ignorance of science and its language. It is also a form of lying through insult and exaggeration. It also prevents you from communicating with people who know science. They will write you off as a fool.

October 23, 2005

Quote:

Would it then be safe to say since one must believe in science, it also shouldn't be taught in the public schools!!

One is not asked to believe in science. It is simply a tool and one way to observe the world. Science cannot explore everything. We have many tools. Just like we don't use a chainsaw to make toothpicks, we don't use science to explain God.

October 23, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Speculation about the orgin of these observations is not science at all. It is simply speculation.

This sounds like we shouldn't be teaching evolution in school either. I disagree with that. With such a large number of people believing in evolution, it would be irresponsible not to teach this theory. Evolution should be taught as well as Intelligent Design (in public schools) or Creationism (in private schools).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

When you use gross generalizations like "pointy-head secularists", you just demonstrate your own ignorance of science and its language.

The term, used freaquently by Bill O'Reilly, shows contempt for those that look down their noses at those they consider ignorant. It is an effective means of communication. (Of course I doubt it applies to anyone here. I suspect we are all believers.)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

They will write you off as a fool.

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men" 1 Cor. 1:25

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." ibid 2:14

October 23, 2005

The question is "what would be taught about Intelligent Design?"

(a) There are complex biological systems.

Nobody disputes this, it is already taught in biology class.

( They are irreducibly complex.

Nobody can prove this. It is simply Behe's opinion.

This is known to be false. There are two ways to get an irreducibly complex system - one that can not fulfill its apparent purpose if anything is taken away - in an evolutionary framework. First, by adapting a system previously used for a different purpose - the panda's thumb comes to mind. Second, by building a more complex structure from other pieces, and then removing the unnecessary pieces. Actually a combination of these is the most likely scenario.

So, what the ID proponents are wanting is to have a short statement of "Biological systems are complex, we can't see today how some specific ones have evolved, therefore we believe there must be an Intelligent Designer".

This will be immediately followed by the science teacher explaining that a valid scientific theory makes predictions, and that the ID concept has no predictive power and is therefore not science.

/Bevin

October 23, 2005

Shane, is is easy for one to cite a text about the foolishness of God, and equate being called a fool with the foolishness of God.

Well, let us look at what was acutally said: "When you use gross generalizations like "pointy-head secularists", . . .

They will write you off as a fool."

Gross generalizations are poor logic, typically inacurate, and border on deceptive. Such are not to be equated with a "Godly fool." God does better than this.

You are quite capable of better than this. If I did not believe that you could do better, I might leave you alone. There is nothing about you that appears to me to be dumb. You are quite capable of engaging in dabate on higher levels than you do.

October 23, 2005

The term, used freaquently by Bill O'Reilly, shows contempt for those that look down their noses at those they consider ignorant. It is an effective means of communication. (Of course I doubt it applies to anyone here. I suspect we are all believers.)

October 24, 2005

Quote:

The term, used freaquently by Bill O'Reilly, shows contempt for those that look down their noses at those they consider ignorant. It is an effective means of communication.

Well it depends what you are trying to communicate. It seems paradoxical that you promote contempt to fight contempt.

Bill O'Reilly is not an accurate source of information. He makes money by being inflammatory and manipulating people's prejudice. This may explain why you are not able to understand what science is or are unwilling to understand what science is.

There is a point where someone is actually ignorant. I am ignorant of some things, just like everyone. Stating that someone is ignorant is, sometimes, simply stating the fact.

When you exaggerate, like Bill O'Reilly does, by calling people names, you promote lies and misrepresentations. This is hardly effective in communicating truth.

Quote:

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men" 1 Cor. 1:25

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." ibid 2:14

So Bill O'Reilly is your source for the foolishness of God? Come now.

October 26, 2005

[]http://images.ucomics.com/comics/nq/2005/nq051026.gif[/]

October 26, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Bill O'Reilly is not an accurate source of information.

I am convinced there is no single source of information that is reliable outside of the Bible.

Sign In

Witness says God isn't only possible designer

Recommended Posts

jasd

cardw

LifeHiscost

LifeHiscost

Bravus

Bravus

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Bravus

Jeannieb43

Bravus

LifeHiscost

cardw

cardw

Dr. Shane

bevin

Gregory Matthews

Dr. Shane

cardw

Amelia

Dr. Shane

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity