Mathematician/Bioethicist challenges concept of whether DNA is naturalistic

[SelfSim]

What is this, tag team night?

This is a good indicator that you aren't in it for sincere discussion, friend. I'll take a quick pass on you.

But you are in my prayers, too! God bless!

biblegateway.com

Well that was easy .. burst your little bubble, did I?

Obviously that's exactly what I did, because you don't have any comebacks do you?

Here's a hint: I don't care about hearing nothing more than beliefs when that's all that's being asserted as truths.

Just about everything I've posted in this thread however, is supported by evidence.

 

[SelfSim]

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?

Our minds constantly update our knowledge, with new meanings, whenever new information becomes available.
An atom, an electron, a planet, a moon, a star, the universe, a brain, a lizard, etc have all changed meanings over the span of just the modern span of human history. This demonstrates the process but one has to actually look to see it .. (as opposed to just ignoring it).

 

[Bradskii]

Utterly missing the point, Brad. Why didn't the human brain house all knowledge from the very beginning?

I'm going to assume that the evolutionary process is not on your radar. Just as a very quick heads up, it's the process some believe that God used to get us where we are today. So I guess he decided that a baby, when born say 20,000 years ago, would not know calculus, wouldn't be aware of Newton's three laws, might find relativity something of a struggle and wouldn't be able to build a PC.

You don't think He used evolution? Well, alrighty. So maybe he set everything up from the time of Adam. Yet he still didn't think it necessary for a one day old baby to know all those things.

Now I know that the attainment of knowlege is a gradual process. It's how our brains develop. If you are around 20 years old then you'll have a few years to go before it's finished. It's like gradually building that computer that you were puzzled about. You have to feed it information otherwise there's nothing there. If you think it would have been a better system us to come fully loaded with all possible knowledge then you'll have to take it up with Him. Let me know what He says If you get a reply.

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?

We gain knowledge a piecemeal. Often by trial and error. Again, if you think we should emerge from the womb fully loaded with all that there is to know then you'll have to take it up with the big guy.

There are contemporary records available from that time you can reference? Do tell. I know my reference Book, what's yours?

Like I said, evolution appears to not be on your radar. The books I'd recommend and the knowledge therein would fall on fallow ground. I've read your reference. But you wouldn't want to read mine. But then I could be wrong. If I am let me know and I'll supply you with a reading list.

Here's an even sillier question. Why *are* you breathing? Why do your lungs expand and contract without being instructed to by your thoughts?

I agree. It is even sillier. Breathing is controlled by what is known as an autonomic nervous system. It doesn't require thought. I know why (you'd die when you fell asleep if it did) but if you think that God set it up that way then, yet again, you'll need to ask Him why. Maybe He'll give you the same reason (I reckon that He'll probably think that it's a dumb question as well and you should have been able to work that out yourself).

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?

That's up to you to decide. I can't decide for you. Either way, yeah - it comes in handy.

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?

No. Too hard to pronounce. And three z's seems like overkill to me.

A Creator God breathing life into two fully formed human beings and teaching them language to kickstart it all makes a lot more sense to me.

Then you should stick with that version. But why didn't they know everything? That's got both of us wondering. Don't forget to let me know what He says about that.

Your version takes faith in miracles, and so does mine. I'll go with the one that offers a profound element that the other doesn't - meaning, purpose and hope for the future now and beyond this temporal life.

Sounds like you should definitely stick with with yours if you think that the other option is as bad as you imagine.

God bless!

Don't forget to let me know what His answers are!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Au contraire. That is precisely what the secular humanist faction of science sell - something from nothing without any form of intelligence initiating the process. They cut God out of the equation and go to great lengths to control the narrative such as to preclude God being introduced back in.

Re-read your latest reply, Warden, and make up your mind. God - in or out - where do you really stand?

I don't need to separate God from science, but I know that God cannot be studied by science, nor can God actually have a part in science. The answer "God did it" answers everything and thus answers nothing.

 

[Joseph G]

I'm going to assume that the evolutionary process is not on your radar. Just as a very quick heads up, it's the process some believe that God used to get us where we are today.

Is that what you yourself believe? Do you believe in a Creator God?

I'm a bit confused because you will address the development of knowledge in man, but still avoid addressing the fact that it all pre-existed prior to man's perception of it. Who set all that, including the whole creation and the laws governing it, into motion and ready and waiting for man to discover?

Gravity pre-existed Newton's perception of it, no?

Don't forget to let me know what His answers are!

Don't wait on me. Ask Him yourself! He's eagerly waiting for us all to seek wisdom from Him out of gratitude for what He has done for us. How do I know? You guessed it:

biblegateway.com

Give Him another shot. The amassing of head knowledge doesn't quite fulfill all of our desires, does it?

 

[Hans Blaster]

There are contemporary records available from that time you can reference?

For starters, our ancestors are making tools long before we call them Human. For another, other animals do the same.

Do tell. I know my reference Book, what's yours?

It's good to read more than one book.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

It's a testimony to the blinding power of Satan.

God warns us not to take His creation so seriously as to allow it to affect our thinking towards Him, or we'll end up outright denying Him.

 

[AV1611VET]

The answer "God did it" answers everything and thus answers nothing.

Confucius?

So if the Theory of Everything becomes the Law of Everything, should we take it as nothing?

Are physicists striving hard to work towards answering nothing?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's good to read more than one book.

Yup -- all 66 of them.

 

[River Jordan]

God warns us not to take His creation so seriously as to allow it to affect our thinking towards Him, or we'll end up outright denying Him.

I don't remember a passage in scripture where God says "don't take my creation too seriously or you might stop believing in Me". Where is that?

 

[River Jordan]

Confucius?

So if the Theory of Everything becomes the Law of Everything, should we take it as nothing?

Are physicists striving hard to work towards answering nothing?

It's just a colloquial term. Not everything has to be taken 100% literally you know.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Confucius?

So if the Theory of Everything becomes the Law of Everything, should we take it as nothing?

Are physicists striving hard to work towards answering nothing?

Since the Theory of Everything is just a hypothetical... I couldn't give two rats about it.

But saying 'God did it' is a non-answer in science, since it answers everything and thus is a worthless answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't remember a passage in scripture where God says "don't take my creation too seriously or you might stop believing in Me". Where is that?

Is that how you read my post?

God warns us not to take His creation the wrong way, or it will end up with the person denying Him.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Embracing evolution to the point that we are all Homo sapiens (wise men) can end up a person saying in his heart, "There is no God."

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Academia can spoil you, if you buy into her:

1. philosophers
2. empty arguments
3. men's traditions
4. the periodic table of the elements (reducing everything down to chemical reactions)

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Giving heed to endless genealogies (macroevolution):

1. generates questions after questions after questions (ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth)
2. prevents God from being edified through faith

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Here, the wisest secular man on earth, under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, points out that evolution is an "invention."

That is, not a "discovery," like academia teaches.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's just a colloquial term.

Suuure it is -- suuure it is.

Scientists working night and day on just a colloquial term?

I think not.

Not everything has to be taken 100% literally you know.

You don't know science, do you?

I'll admit, white coats like to play around with labeling things with divinity, such as attributing the weather to Jesus (El Niño), but it allows them to blasphemously say Jesus had a divine sister (La Niña).

And even I attribute some of the weather to Jesus, but not like scientists do.

 

[River Jordan]

Is that how you read my post?

It's what you posted.

"God warns us not to take His creation so seriously as to allow it to affect our thinking towards Him, or we'll end up outright denying Him"​

God warns us not to take His creation the wrong way, or it will end up with the person denying Him.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

That passage doesn't say anything about taking creation the wrong way.

Embracing evolution to the point that we are all Homo sapiens (wise men) can end up a person saying in his heart, "There is no God."

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

That passage says nothing about evolution or H. sapiens.

Academia can spoil you, if you buy into her:

1. philosophers
2. empty arguments
3. men's traditions
4. the periodic table of the elements (reducing everything down to chemical reactions)

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Giving heed to endless genealogies (macroevolution):

1. generates questions after questions after questions (ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth)
2. prevents God from being edified through faith

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Here, the wisest secular man on earth, under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, points out that evolution is an "invention."

That is, not a "discovery," like academia teaches.

None of those passages say anything about evolution, "taking creation too seriously", or either leading people away from God. Nothing.

 

[River Jordan]

Suuure it is -- suuure it is.

Scientists working night and day on just a colloquial term?

I think not.

You're not serious are you? Or do you really not understand the difference between an idea scientists research and the label they assign to it?

You don't know science, do you?

I'll admit, white coats like to play around with labeling things with divinity, such as attributing the weather to Jesus (El Niño), but it allows them to blasphemously say Jesus had a divine sister (La Niña).

And even I attribute some of the weather to Jesus, but not like scientists do.

You're not making any sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since the Theory of Everything is just a hypothetical... I couldn't give two rats about it.

Is it a hypothetical, or hypothesis?

Does it belong in that process you guys call "the scientific method"?

But saying 'God did it' is a non-answer in science,

No kidding.

This is one of my favorite pictures:

... since it answers everything and thus is a worthless answer.

I know.

Any answer in academia is a "worthless answer," isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

That passage doesn't say anything about taking creation the wrong way.

That passage says nothing about evolution or H. sapiens.

None of those passages say anything about evolution, "taking creation too seriously", or either leading people away from God. Nothing.

Of course not.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're not serious are you? Or do you really not understand the difference between an idea scientists research and the label they assign to it?

Yes or no:

Are scientists working on a theory of everything?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is it a hypothetical, or hypothesis?

A hypothetical hypothesis, since it proposes but there's nothing to support it. Still makes it hypothetical.

Does it belong in that process you guys call "the scientific method"?

Yes it does. What's it to you?

No kidding.

This is one of my favorite pictures:

We know it is.

I know.

Any answer in academia is a "worthless answer," isn't it?

To you, certainly.

After all: Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.