Originally Posted by rmills we can explain God in terms known by science is laughable.
We are not explaining God. We are discovering
how God created. That's very different.
The belief is the same fallacy when applied to how God created life. There is no question that you can do what you can do, but it will not explain God. God is.
I'm not explaining God. However, I can explain how God created life. Thru chemistry:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/ http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
Rmills, I think you have somehow made a very wrong turn in the discussion and have missed the point entirely. Let's try to get you back. We are simply reading God's Book of Creation to find out how He created. That's all. In the process, we can find some indication of what God is like or not like. We also find out whether our interpretation of the Bible is correct or incorrect.
the problem exists in the fundamental misconception that God and his abilities in any respect are somehow an attainable future.
We are not trying to attain God's abilities. We are just seeing what we can do and understand. Now, if it turns out that humans can do some things that
you thought only God can do, that is your problem. That doesn't mean we are God or are going to be God. It just means that you made a mistake in what you thought only God could do.
This is why Revelation is so critical in this age, as is the word of God. We ask God for a script, we beg God for answers, we don’t realize that he gave us one.
God gave us
two scripts. Not one. Two. The one you are referring to is the Bible. The second is Creation. The Bible tells us the who and why of creation. It also tells us how God wants us to relate to Him and to each other. The second script tells us
how God created. What you are doing is ignoring the second script and trying to get the Bible to do something it is not supposed to do.
Now, let's get to some of the science in your post.
[quoteI guess you refer to this statement...
Evolution isn't a march towards greater or lesser complexity, it just is. The D. melanogaster that were changed to bread and meat flies weren't any more or less complex.
So I say again, this is an example of microevolution. How does this equate to macroevolution?[/quote]
It's macroevolution. Because you now have separate gene pools. New species. Remember, species is all there is.
By having a new species, each species -- the original species and the new ones -- are able to continue to diverge along separate paths. That is, new changes acquired by the original species are not going to be in the daughter species because they no longer exchange genes. What you call macroevolution is simply an accumulation of microevolution and many speciations.
I am not totally familiar with what you do, but to make blanket statements that provides observed fact of evolution because you or someone else performs genetic manipulation in a controlled environment proves nothing but the fact that you perform genetic manipulation in a controlled environment.
I did not give you any examples of "genetic manipulation". I gave you examples of what happens when populations are placed in different environments. I do know what genetic manipulation is. I work with mice that have been genetically manipulated so that they have bacterial genes in their genome. Humans directly inserted the genes. This isn't what happened in the cases I gave you. Variations between individuals happen by a number of different mechanisms. Selection picks among these variations for the designs that work best in that particular environment. Over time, the genetic composition of the population changes so that, after several generations, the genomes are not the same as the genomes that started.
When did the premise, “You can build a house but a house cannot build itself.” suddenly disappear?
When natural selection was discovered. That's when the Argument from Design (your house analogy) went out the window. Natural selection is an unintelligent process that can build a house or any other design.
As for the statement, “The Bible is a terrible science book.” I have no idea what to say other than go back and read it again, maybe from a different perspective than you have. Start with the plane that God is described to be in.
Which verses are these?
We call light a certain speed, but math shows us that “the speed of light” is a contradiction in terms, especially depending on variables such as gravity, speed of actual observing perspective, ect.
Sorry, but no. The speed of light in a vacuum is the
same no matter the gravitational field or our frame of reference. That is the basis of Special and General Relativity.
Light knows no speed, but we do so we try to explain it in terms that we can understand to somehow fit God into observable terms. Light is not speed, light is event, and that event is infinite which is a concept that we cannot grasp due to our inability to be infinite until we are with God.
Light is an "event"? Light
has a speed, but no one ever said light
is a speed. No wonder you have problems with "science". What you have is
not science.
If the start and the finish of our time exist in God’s plane as an event, then we know through math that the start travels the opposite direction of the finish on that plane.
Where do we know this? References, please.
Thus, we have an intersection in time and throughout time that proves the Biblical statement “there is nothing new under the sun.” This would confirm the statement that God is omnipresent.
Sorry, but there are new things "under the sun". For instance, Joyce and colleagues had natural selection make a DNA enzyme. This is
NOT present in nature.
20. Breaker RR, Joyce GF.A DNA enzyme that cleaves RNA. Chem Biol 1994 Dec;1(4):223-9
21. Ronald R Breaker, Gerald FA Joyce DNA enzyme with Mg2+-dependent RNA phosphoesterase activity Chemistry & Biology 1995, 2:655-660.
Never seen before. Brand new.
Also, physics shows that God is not omnipresent. This is done by the Schroedinger's Cat experiments. Schroedinger did a thought experiment in quantum mechanics in which the macro world was linked to the micro world of QM. The cat would be both dead and alive at the same time. As soon as it was observed, it would be one or the other. Well, scientists have constructed a couple of "cats" to test this. And yes, the "cats"
are both dead and alive. If God were omnipresent, He would be observing them and they would be one or the other. Ergo, God is not omnipresent.
5. G Taubes, Atomic mouse probes the lifetime of a quantum cat. Science, 274 (6 Dec): 1615, 1996.
6. P Yam, Bringing Schrodinger's cat to life. Scientific American, June, 1997, pp. 124-129. Summary of recent experiments of superposition (coherence) and dechoherence.
7. GP Collins, Schrodinger's SQUID. Scientific American 283: 23-24, October 2000. Electric current flows both ways around a superconducting loop at the same time.
This would also shatter the belief that God grew life through evolutionary precepts. Evolution requires time, yet God does not exist in the construct of time.
This does not follow. As you said,
we do. So the material processes in the universe that God uses work in time. By this logic, God had to create Israel instantaneously because He does not exist in time. Yet we know that the Exodus and conquest of Palestine -- the creation of Israel -- took over 40 years.
We cannot and will not explain how God created other than using the Biblical definition, which is quite clear.
Which definition? In Genesis 1 God speaks entities into existence. Animals and humans are formed instantaneously by the "let there be" of God. But in Genesis 2 God forms Adam and animals from the dust. Kind of like a supernatural potter.
It doesn't matter. Creationism has God making entities -- earth, stars, moon, animals, plants, people -- instantaneously in their present form. Yes, creationists don't know how He did the "instantaneously in present form" but that is not necessary. Because we know the "instantaneously in present form" is wrong.
Example of Job calling out to God, he states that he believes that God does not hear his cries, but Michael the angel explains that he was fighting the prince of Persia for a period of time. This would indicate that Michael the angel has the ability to move between event (light) and time based constructs.
That indicates that Michael is limited to movement in the material universe, which makes his
maximum speed the speed of light in a vacuum. It says nothing about God.
Again, Paul speaks of a vision in 2 Corinthians that transcends time, in life but out of life that we comprehend, and in that vision was seen things that cannot be spoken in terms used by or understood by man.
So? Anyone of us can mentally image events that happened in the past and events that have not happened and may never have happened. What do you think books, theater, art, and movies are about? Our "visions" put into material form. No different than what you ascribe to Paul. The question is whether Paul's vision was given by God and therefore is an accurate representation of some form of reality.
There is implication in these writings that are beyond our science,
I don't see any implications that would let us determine if they are beyond what we know thru science. It's pretty vague. Mostly the verses are Paul trying to avoid boasting that he was given this vision. He doesn't give any particulars about it.
We cannot comprehend that because we have no frame of reference. Why is there faith? Why do we as Christians require it? So what you do is not the problem, nor is what you will do, but rather the problem exists in the fundamental misconception that God and his abilities in any respect are somehow an attainable future. Without God we do not obtain the means to travel from time to light. Without God, we do not have the means to explain him or his constructs that he provided for us.[/quote]
Linear Mode
