Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you're prepared to completely ignore incoherence and dechoerence.. and that is your reason?
The inspiration is evident in the exaltation of natural processes alone.That's weird. In all the places of science I've worked in, with, and adjacent to, I've never seen anything like a "secular humanist faction". Is that a specific branch on an org chart at a science office that you know about?
He's not. He is the cause.I wasn't aware God could be incorporated into an equation.
The full comprehension of all that the infinite God is cannot be reduced to an equation formulated by His own finite creation. That a flawed human being would demand such reveals a bit of hubris on our part, does it not?What value would you assign God and can you give an example of a scientific equation with a God value in it?
Do you complain about IT techs, electricians, or firefighters relying only on natural processes?The inspiration is evident in the exaltation of natural processes alone.
Then you can't complain about scientists not incorporating God into their equations.He's not. He is the cause.
The full comprehension of all that the infinite God is cannot be reduced to an equation formulated by His own finite creation. That a flawed human being would demand such reveals a bit of hubris on our part, does it not?
So when an AI chess computer trains itself to play chess without any human intervention bar telling it the rules of chess, and the end product is a knowledge of strategic and tactical chess play way beyond the best human players, did the knowledge come from God or learnt by AI?You're still ignoring the question of the origin of knowledge. I know it grates you, but there is no escaping the reality that knowledge - like all creation - originates with a Superior Force which we cannot see/touch that is so obviously intelligent that we are like strutting ants in comparison.
Not in the least. But I do cheerfully encourage them to give glory where glory is due. Their eternal fate hinges upon it.Do you complain about IT techs, electricians, or firefighters relying only on natural processes?
Who is complaining? Just challenging. Just as I pray the children from kindergarten to college are doing in the face of relentless indoctrination to fantasy conclusions based on so-called iron-clad science.Then you can't complain about scientists not incorporating God into their equations.
Then why does it bother you when scientists operate the same way?Not in the least.
Ok.But I do cheerfully encourage them to give glory where glory is due. Their eternal fate hinges upon it.
What are you challenging?Who is complaining? Just challenging.
That would be meaningful if you knew much about how those conclusions were reached, but I suspect you don't.Just as I pray the children from kindergarten to college are doing in the face of relentless indoctrination to fantasy conclusions based on so-called iron-clad science.
Okey doke then. Here we go into the tired who-do-you-think-you-are routine. When you decide to get back to addressing the OP, perhaps I'll re-engage.Then why does it bother you when scientists operate the same way?
Ok.
What are you challenging?
That would be meaningful if you knew much about how those conclusions were reached, but I suspect you don't.
Another fundamentalist who doesn't like to discuss what they say.Okey doke then. Here we go into the tired who-do-you-think-you-are routine. When you decide to get back to addressing the OP, perhaps I'll re-engage.
Do you believe God is directly responsible (as in created) every genetic sequence that's existed?And the OP challenge is: Is the fact that there is Intelligence behind the design of DNA not obvious, why do we rely on our minds to perceive all if we believe they are a product of mindless "natural" chance,
A church warehouse, that sounds like taxable property.Oh, my favorite. ... I guess this means I need to grab some thermal concrete.... Maybe they have some in the church warehouse.
I guess I'll stay then.So I guess whoever isn't a scientist here should drop out of this thread?
It's to cold to post w/o clothes.Hey, even a child can point out that the Emperor is wearing no clothes... *smile*
I don't see why not. No being without firing synapses has ever been demonstrated to have a thought.The overarching question remains. Do cells and firing synapses alone create thought?
Communication requires *two* or more persons. Communicating in the common form of expression takes learning. Fortunately our brains are well primed to learn language.If so, why did it take our parents/others to teach us how to communicate - even to ourselves?
The cumulative knowledge of a society is just that -- cumulative and of a society. If you could survive without others, then you could go out on your own and gather your own knowledge through experience and observation. (No accounting for accuracy though), but frankly it is more efficient to build upon the accumulated knowledge of a society.Why do we need others to grow in knowledge if our own brains can handle the load?
As science has shown, long-term memories form during sleep by making new *connections* between neurons. Those don't require more volume.And if the mind and thought are merely products of a physical process, why don't our brains grow larger as our knowledge increases?
what "original teacher"?And Who taught the original teacher?
It is unlikely our last single celled ancestor was an amoeba, nor that any eukaryotic single-celled organism "crawled out of the goo". MOST animals today do not have anything directly like our language they do just fine. (Chemical and behavior signals do exist for many animal and even plant species.)Our ancestor the amoeba that crawled out of the primordial goo, Who taught him how to survive and procreate minus language?
I have no idea what you are trying to say.As I've said many times - the challenge before us is whether to remain in the delusion that all perception of reality emanates from us to us - including contemplating potentials that we cannot yet see - therefore proclaiming ourselves to be our own gods -
There is no evidence for 'design' in nature. (The rest is preaching.)or to recognize that the obvious design that predates our understanding (like the complexity and brilliance of DNA which Lennox appeals to) leads us to conclude there is a God greater than us.
And whether He is worth knowing and discovering just what He requires from us.
God bless!
biblegateway.com
And eventually, even the Horta had to be taken very seriously ..
A church warehouse, that sounds like taxable property.
So why engage a non-scientist? Is it worth the effort for you to attempt to persuade your inferiors? What exactly is your motivation, Hans? Just curious...I guess I'll stay then.
Amen to that. 23° F. here.It's to cold to post w/o clothes.
And yet sperm manages to find egg, imagine that!I don't see why not. No being without firing synapses has ever been demonstrated to have a thought.
Yes, but my point is, why does one self-sufficient self-fed brain *need* another brain's input to increase it's own knowledge? For such massive physical capabilities - why does it operate as a big "duh" upon emerging from the womb? Why is Evolution failing to pass down all of it's stored knowledge to it's progeny? Not such an awesome "natural" process after all, is it?Communication requires *two* or more persons. Communicating in the common form of expression takes learning. Fortunately our brains are well primed to learn language.
Yes, but again, why the need for co-dependency? As superlative and worthy of exaltation as the human brain is, why for example, didn't one ancient man look around at the available elements and create a computer? He has all the physical components in his brain to do so - and the brain is the source of its own knowledge, right? So why the delay?The cumulative knowledge of a society is just that -- cumulative and of a society. If you could survive without others, then you could go out on your own and gather your own knowledge through experience and observation. (No accounting for accuracy though), but frankly it is more efficient to build upon the accumulated knowledge of a society.
The first humans capable of thought and speech. Who taught them? Please don't say observation alone.what "original teacher"?
So what is the current fad these days amongst evolutionary theorists? The salamander? The eggplant? I confess I don't closely monitor each re-writing of the theory.It is unlikely our last single celled ancestor was an amoeba, nor that any eukaryotic single-celled organism "crawled out of the goo".
Ah... now you're opening an area ripe for discussion - the curiously intelligent instincts of the animal world. Perhaps that deserves its own thread - so I'll table it for now.MOST animals today do not have anything directly like our language they do just fine. (Chemical and behavior signals do exist for many animal and even plant species.)
Ok.I have no idea what you are trying to say.
*stunned silence*There is no evidence for 'design' in nature. (The rest is preaching.)
Where did you get your PC? You bought it? What was the delay? Why didn't you make one twenty years ago?Yes, but again, why the need for co-dependency? As superlative and worthy of exaltation as the human brain is, why for example, didn't one ancient man look around at the available elements and create a computer? He has all the physical components in his brain to do so - and the brain is the source of its own knowledge, right? So why the delay?
The ability to think happened a very long time time before humans came onto the scene. And asking who taught someone to think is like asking who taught them to breathe. I don't want to be rude, but it's a silly question.The first humans capable of thought and speech. Who taught them?
I want to discuss science and pseudoscience. That is why I am here. Biology is not my field, but I seem to know more about it than what you have presented.So why engage a non-scientist? Is it worth the effort for you to attempt to persuade your inferiors? What exactly is your motivation, Hans? Just curious...
Chemical signals. It's all chemical signals, even the nerves communicate with each other by chemical signals.Amen to that. 23° F. here.
And yet sperm manages to find egg, imagine that!
Yes, but my point is, why does one self-sufficient self-fed brain *need* another brain's input to increase it's own knowledge? For such massive physical capabilities - why does it operate as a big "duh" upon emerging from the womb? Why is Evolution failing to pass down all of it's stored knowledge to it's progeny? Not such an awesome "natural" process after all, is it?
Because it isn't about the brain hardware, but the accumulated knowledge of society. What you seem to need here is to read on the history of science and technologies. It would be enlightening to your inquiry.Yes, but again, why the need for co-dependency? As superlative and worthy of exaltation as the human brain is, why for example, didn't one ancient man look around at the available elements and create a computer? He has all the physical components in his brain to do so - and the brain is the source of its own knowledge, right? So why the delay?
The pre-humans also had thoughts and communication. Just look at how our primate cousins communicate.The first humans capable of thought and speech. Who taught them? Please don't say observation alone.
The "ooze" is some strawman impression of abiogenesis. If you're going to make these attacks, you should at least learn how they are done.So what is the current fad these days amongst evolutionary theorists? The salamander? The eggplant? I confess I don't closely monitor each re-writing of the theory.
Ah... now you're opening an area ripe for discussion - the curiously intelligent instincts of the animal world. Perhaps that deserves its own thread - so I'll table it for now.
Ok.
Now see? I *can* resist the temptation for a snide rejoinder. Where's my cookie?
*stunned silence*
Darn, lost my cookie!
Romans 1:20 NIV
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
You forgot to quote *stunned silence*I want to discuss science and pseudoscience. That is why I am here. Biology is not my field, but I seem to know more about it than what you have presented.
Chemical signals. It's all chemical signals, even the nerves communicate with each other by chemical signals.
We evolved the ability to learn. Isn't that awesome. It is far more useful than some pre-programmed knowledge that is fixed for all time.
Because it isn't about the brain hardware, but the accumulated knowledge of society. What you seem to need here is to read on the history of science and technologies. It would be enlightening to your inquiry.
The pre-humans also had thoughts and communication. Just look at how our primate cousins communicate.
The "ooze" is some strawman impression of abiogenesis. If you're going to make these attacks, you should at least learn how they are don
Evolution passes on the capacity for knowledge .. not the knowledge itself.Yes, but my point is, why does one self-sufficient self-fed brain *need* another brain's input to increase it's own knowledge? For such massive physical capabilities - why does it operate as a big "duh" upon emerging from the womb? Why is Evolution failing to pass down all of it's stored knowledge to it's progeny? Not such an awesome "natural" process after all, is it?
The more elements there are, the more rapid the development of other elements will be. The increase is exponential.Yes, but again, why the need for co-dependency? As superlative and worthy of exaltation as the human brain is, why for example, didn't one ancient man look around at the available elements and create a computer? He has all the physical components in his brain to do so - and the brain is the source of its own knowledge, right? So why the delay?
Ahh .. the lame way out is thus demonstrated ..You forgot to quote *stunned silence*
And that's where I'll have to leave it as we seemed to be destined to speak right past each other at present. I honestly cannot comprehend how towering intellects can look right into the face of complex and delightfully imaginative design and deny a Creator. Or if so acknowledging, to think Him unknowable.
Uh huh .. more lameness!To me it's tragic, because one is missing out on being taught personally by the One Who designed *them* - about spiritual parallels, applicable object lessons for life, the precious gift of awe at the grandeur of it all, and just being entertained far beyond what living vicariously through the boob tube can provide. All directly from God Almighty to you - personally. His whole intention is to speak both through His creation and His Word in harmony with each other. And to those with eyes and ears of faith - His effort is a resounding success!
It is great to be loved to such a degree. Sigh... I'll keep praying for all!
Utterly missing the point, Brad. Why didn't the human brain house all knowledge from the very beginning? How was it possible that all knowledge and the necessary elements to create a computer, as one wee example, already existed - just waiting to be discovered? To maintain that it was just so for no reason at all takes a lot more faith than to credit a massive pre-existent Intelligence. And this knowledge has been handed down piecemeal from the mind of God to man all along.Where did you get your PC? You bought it? What was the delay? Why didn't you make one twenty years ago?
There are contemporary records available from that time you can reference? Do tell. I know my reference Book, what's yours?The ability to think happened a very long time time before humans came onto the scene.
Here's an even sillier question. Why *are* you breathing? Why do your lungs expand and contract without being instructed to by your thoughts? What caused your first breath, and what will determine your last?And asking who taught someone to think is like asking who taught them to breathe. I don't want to be rude, but it's a silly question.
Ok. Its a nice gift to have to be able to express oneself in various ways, isn't it? Who should we give credit to for that as well? Random processes of chance origin? Or One Who expresses Himself likewise - in Whose image we are created?And I don't need speech to audibly indicate to you that I'm angry/surprised/happy/frightened.
You're not seriously suggesting that the complexities of language we employ have their source in a series of grunts and moans, are you? If so, then how did Thor convince Moe to agree to identify a rock as "blrgzzzt"? And why did it evolve to "rock"? Wasn't "blrgzzzt" good enough?And it doesn't take a great leap of of imagination to see that recognisable sounds that mean different things would develop into speech.
Apparently it does.Well, it doesn't take me a great leap of imagination anyway.
What is this, tag team night?Ahh .. the lame way out is thus demonstrated ..
Uh huh .. more lameness!
I did not forget. I'm not interested in your preaching. (or anyone else's)You forgot to quote *stunned silence*
And that's where I'll have to leave it as we seemed to be destined to speak right past each other at present. I honestly cannot comprehend how towering intellects can look right into the face of complex and delightfully imaginative design and deny a Creator. Or if so acknowledging, to think Him unknowable.
To me it's tragic, because one is missing out on being taught personally by the One Who designed *them* - about spiritual parallels, applicable object lessons for life, the precious gift of awe at the grandeur of it all, and just being entertained far beyond what living vicariously through the boob tube can provide. All directly from God Almighty to you - personally. His whole intention is to speak both through His creation and His Word in harmony with each other. And to those with eyes and ears of faith - His effort is a resounding success!
It is great to be loved to such a degree. Sigh... I'll keep praying for all!
God bless!
biblegateway.com
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?