Oracle Soup

[Belk]

The kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power. Therefore let me tell you what will happen to you. Even from this day forward you will go from bad to worse in your life. Your own strengths will diminish and you will come to your end through lawlessness. Because you fear man and not the only God in heaven, this is your lot. But woe to you if you never see it! For then God himself has hidden your future from you that you might not turn to him. But I will pray for you that in some way you might feel his displeasure lest in this life only you see the light of life.

 

[Ophiolite]

So also is all creation created without seams.

Then why is matter made of discrete particles? Why are electrons constrained to occupy specific quantum levels?

 

[Kevin Snow]

Then why is matter made of discrete particles? Why are electrons constrained to occupy specific quantum levels?

Why is this so hard for you? Did the creation account speak of discrete particles or did it speak of animals and plants? And so what is the context here? What have we been talking about all this time?

 

[HitchSlap]

Why is this so hard for you? Did the creation account speak of discrete particles or did it speak of animals and plants? And so what is the context here? What have we been talking about all this time?

Who's your favorite cdesign proponentsist? I mean, if you had to choose?

 

[Ophiolite]

Why is this so hard for you? Did the creation account speak of discrete particles or did it speak of animals and plants? And so what is the context here? What have we been talking about all this time?

I'm not sure why you are asking that. You made a specific statement: "So also is all creation created without seams." The statement did not appear to metaphorical, allegorical, or anything other than literal. As such, if accurate, it would deny the atomic theory and discrete electron energy levels. I'm asking how you reconcile your statement with theory that seems to be generally accepted by Believer and non-believer alike.

Now, if your rather obtuse post is equivalent to saying "I was speaking metaphorically, in relation to spiritual matters", fine. (Though I would then ask, how come you then prattled on about evolution, since it isn't normally in the top ten of spiritual matters.) If you meant something else I would still be interested to know what it was.

Taking this from a slightly different perspective, I'm confident you knew what message you wanted to get across: it didn't work for me. Berating my competence at understanding your writing won't get either of us very far.

 

[Kevin Snow]

I'm not sure why you are asking that. You made a specific statement: "So also is all creation created without seams." The statement did not appear to metaphorical, allegorical, or anything other than literal. As such, if accurate, it would deny the atomic theory and discrete electron energy levels. I'm asking how you reconcile your statement with theory that seems to be generally accepted by Believer and non-believer alike.

Now, if your rather obtuse post is equivalent to saying "I was speaking metaphorically, in relation to spiritual matters", fine. (Though I would then ask, how come you then prattled on about evolution, since it isn't normally in the top ten of spiritual matters.) If you meant something else I would still be interested to know what it was.

Taking this from a slightly different perspective, I'm confident you knew what message you wanted to get across: it didn't work for me. Berating my competence at understanding your writing won't get either of us very far.

Let me ask you, in order to simplify this for you, when you are speaking in a context, does that apply to everything outside that context? Or is the context there in order to establish a reference frame?

So, even in writing brainless computer programs, there must remain a distinct difference between the global and local name spaces in order to differentiate with how the functions are calling each other and how the variables are working.

So we've been talking at a macro scale so far, in terms of creation, which is the interrelation of species and how they vary; all of which are sentient, thinking creatures with intelligence. Then you somehow want to jump to an atomic scale with brainless physical interactions? Do you understand you have gone outside of the context of the discussion? If you can't see your mistake then you won't be able to even begin to learn the basics of the scriptures; which I'm pointing out to you.

You know this reminds me of something, a principle I've heard once,

The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters; the fountain of wisdom is a bubbling brook.
~Proverbs 18:4

 

[DogmaHunter]

Right man so are you starting to understand me then? Evolution explains it by saying what?

If I did, I wouldn't ask you what your point is...

They say it came of a lower order complex organism which through one reason or another jumped up into higher orders of complexity until it became human. The same elements are all there from human to microbe so why not think this?

That's a conclusion from the evidence. Not a claim that is super-imposed on it (like ID).
It is what the evidence conclusively shows: that species evolved and share ancestry.

The theory of evolution, explains how that happens.

But what I'm pointing to you in scripture is that God himself made everything interrelated because he made everything as one thing. He left nothing out.

There is no reason to believe this claim that isn't concluded from evidence, but super-imposed on it. This is not what has been concluded from the evidence. Instead it is just what is being believed on faith, as a doctrinal requirement of a certain denomination of some religion. One of many.

There is no reason to believe it and millions of reasons to not believe it.

The reason it is seamless is because that is how the work of God is made from the very beginning.

Which would mean that this god went out of his way to make it look as if he didn't do anything and that everything evolved instead. Because that is what the data conclusively shows.

And this is spiritually discerned. God wore a seamless tunic for this very reason, pointing to the character of God's handiwork: that everything is made from a common theme. So when I quoted to you the passage of all things being made through Yahshua, you can now understand how that actually looks like in a physical sense. It's not that some formless microbe grew in orders of complexity to be human but that the human image was the blueprint for breaking down its pieces into ALL of the different life forms we see today. That is how God made all of creation was through Jesus Christ.

Preaching. Without supporting evidence. Without accounting for the actual evidence.
In fact, completely flying in the face of the actual evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hello? When we are considering the understanding of the evidence you ask for evidence? The evidence is the same exact evidence you have for evolution! Just a different understanding of that evidence.

The evidence conclusively shows common ancestry of species through evolution.

Get a load of this. A man without understanding…​

Would you say biologists have a decent understanding of biology?​

 

[DogmaHunter]

News flash, yes it is! And I've already shown it to be the case you are just not picking up what I'm throwing down. Look back in my posts and start to dwell on what it is exactly I'm pointing out to you. Ask God for help and he will show it to you. I've already said three times that it's spiritually discerned.

How does one objectively "spiritually discern" something?
By what method? And how can this method be tested to see if it actually leads to accurate conclusions?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power. Therefore let me tell you what will happen to you. Even from this day forward you will go from bad to worse in your life. Your own strengths will diminish and you will come to your end through lawlessness. Because you fear man and not the only God in heaven, this is your lot. But woe to you if you never see it! For then God himself has hidden your future from you that you might not turn to him. But I will pray for you that in some way you might feel his displeasure lest in this life only you see the light of life.

Awesome.

Argument from "believe-me-or-else".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why is this so hard for you? Did the creation account speak of discrete particles or did it speak of animals and plants? And so what is the context here? What have we been talking about all this time?

Your faith-based religion.

 

[Kevin Snow]

Your faith-based religion.

AND your faith based dogma.

But the correct answer is animal species and whether they formed out of evolution or whether they were created by God.

The problem is that you don't even understand what your theory of evolution actually means. I'm talking about the understanding of SEEING multiple species having related parts. You want to INTERPRET that evidence through the lens of YOUR faith that you do NOT believe a God made it. But I do the opposite, I interpret the evidence through the lens of my faith that God did fashion them that way.

One has purpose and meaning, the other has nothing

 

[DogmaHunter]

AND your faith based dogma.

I don't hold to any faith based views, dogmatic or otherwise.

Science isn't faith based, nore is it dogmatic.

But the correct answer is animal species and whether they formed out of evolution or whether they were created by God.

All the evidence points to evolution.
No evidence points to god(s).

The problem is that you don't even understand what your theory of evolution actually means.

Says the guy who thinks evolution is random.

I'm talking about the understanding of SEEING multiple species having related parts. You want to INTERPRET that evidence through the lens of YOUR faith that you do NOT believe a God made it. But I do the opposite, I interpret the evidence through the lens of my faith that God did fashion them that way.

You are correct about one point. That point being, that you have a priori beliefs that cloud your judgement.

I don't have such a priori beliefs.
You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding that evolution theory is a conclusion from the evidence, not an assertion that is super-imposed on it (like your religion).

One has purpose and meaning, the other has nothing

One has faith. The other has evidence.

 

[Kevin Snow]

You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding that evolution theory is a conclusion from the evidence, not an assertion that is super-imposed on it (like your religion).

All in your own mind! But you are blind to the fact that your theory of evolution IS a faith based dogma and you ARE doing the very same things. It's fundamental. We walk by faith and not by sight whether you want to or not. You believe that God did not create it, then you interpret the evidence. You can't get around it but your view that somehow you are an impartial judge is entirely in your own mind and is not actually what you are doing.

 

[Ophiolite]

Let me ask you, in order to simplify this for you, when you are speaking in a context, does that apply to everything outside that context? Or is the context there in order to establish a reference frame?

So, even in writing brainless computer programs, there must remain a distinct difference between the global and local name spaces in order to differentiate with how the functions are calling each other and how the variables are working.

So we've been talking at a macro scale so far, in terms of creation, which is the interrelation of species and how they vary; all of which are sentient, thinking creatures with intelligence. Then you somehow want to jump to an atomic scale with brainless physical interactions? Do you understand you have gone outside of the context of the discussion? If you can't see your mistake then you won't be able to even begin to learn the basics of the scriptures; which I'm pointing out to you.

You know this reminds me of something, a principle I've heard once,

The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters; the fountain of wisdom is a bubbling brook.
~Proverbs 18:4

You know what Kevin, your insightful comments would have been much more palatable if they had been expressed without such condescension. Let me answer you using your own vernacular.

Let me ask you, in order to simplify this for you, when you are speaking in a context, do you understand that not all parties to the discussion will have extracted the same significance from the preceding exchanges of all parties in the discussion and may, consequently, have perceived and accepted that a different context is in play. This is especially true when the dialogue is taking place within a conversational space that extends beyond a single thread on a forum.

So I've been talking at a macro scale so far, in terms of creation, which is the formation of the universe and all it contains, including such life forms we are aware of and the manner by which they acquired their diversity. Such a discussion is most certainly not limited to the minority of species that have even a small degree of intelligence, but includes the much larger domains of eucharia and bacteria, as well as the bulk of the eukaryotes, including - though not limited to - fungi and plants. The functioning of DNA, the appearance of mutations and the complexity of metabolisms are intimately related to atomic behaviour and to evolution. But you somehow want to ignore the atomic scale despite its key role in the process.

However, since your focus and context are different, feel free to disregard my question, but in any future discussion I would welcome a less patronising response. Thank you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All in your own mind!

No. In reality.

But you are blind to the fact that your theory of evolution IS a faith based dogma

No, it's the exact opposite of that: a scientific theory.

It's fundamental. We walk by faith and not by sight whether you want to or not.

Theists like you do that.

You believe that God did not create it, then you interpret the evidence

No, I don't have any beliefs prior to looking at evidence.
I start with "i don't know" and then follow up with "let's try and find out".

And to be honest, even while accepting evolution theory - then still I wouldn't claim that "some god isn't responsible for evolution", because there is no way to validate such a claim.

Also, it's a negative claim, which is pretty useless right out the gates.
If you wish to claim that a god is responsible for it (either through evolution or through magical creation despite of the evidence to the contrary), then the onus is on you to prove / support such a claim.


Me? I don't make any claims regarding gods, pro OR con.
Because I have no reason to.

You can't get around it but your view that somehow you are an impartial judge is entirely in your own mind and is not actually what you are doing.

Your entire case, is a very extreme example of projection.

I advice you to look into how science is actually done and how theories come about.

 

[Kevin Snow]

No. In reality.



No, it's the exact opposite of that: a scientific theory.



Theists like you do that.



No, I don't have any beliefs prior to looking at evidence.
I start with "i don't know" and then follow up with "let's try and find out".

And to be honest, even while accepting evolution theory - then still I wouldn't claim that "some god isn't responsible for evolution", because there is no way to validate such a claim.

Also, it's a negative claim, which is pretty useless right out the gates.
If you wish to claim that a god is responsible for it (either through evolution or through magical creation despite of the evidence to the contrary), then the onus is on you to prove / support such a claim.


Me? I don't make any claims regarding gods, pro OR con.
Because I have no reason to.

Your entire case, is a very extreme example of projection.

I advice you to look into how science is actually done and how theories come about.

When a person blatantly goes off topic and misses the point of simple discussion simply because they are defensive then there is not much that will get them to learn anyway. The only thing they pick up on is the tone and like unreasoning beasts react. You don't really care for the truth but you only care to defend your sinful lifestyle. Ultimately, everything is connected and I LIVE with this in mind but you go from point to point without any understanding of where you are going. But one thing out of it all you know: that God is not real. So it's a faith based dogma and you're simply blind. There is not much more to discuss when we get to the bottom of the matter. Then, you act with an air of superiority because of what you believe you've accomplished in the discussion; although you have not proven anything.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When a person blatantly goes off topic and misses the point of simple discussion simply because they are defensive then

I'm just responding to what you are saying.

I have a hard time leaving nonsense unanswered and unchallenged, that is true.

You don't really care for the truth

Au contraire, it's the entire reason why I engage you on this topic.
The one who doesn't care about truth rather seems to be you - you only care about your fundamentalist theist beliefs.

but you only care to defend your sinful lifestyle.

You don't know anything about me, yet you feel like you can make such judgement calls about my "lifestyle". And then you wonder why I go into the defensive.
Well, perhaps it is because I feel attacked (and insulted) by you?

Ultimately, everything is connected and I LIVE with this in mind but you go from point to point without any understanding of where you are going. But one thing out of it all you know: that God is not real. So it's a faith based dogma and you're simply blind. There is not much more to discuss when we get to the bottom of the matter. Then, you act with an air of superiority because of what you believe you've accomplished in the discussion; although you have not proven anything.

When you make incorrect claims about what I supposedly believe, then it is my duty to correct it. But I see that you don't feel like playing along.

You apparantly don't care that you are wrong about what I believe or don't believe. You just repeat your nonsense even after it's been corrected.

So yea, we'll agree on one thing then: this conversation is utterly pointless.

 

[Kevin Snow]

I'm just responding to what you are saying.

I have a hard time leaving nonsense unanswered and unchallenged, that is true.



Au contraire, it's the entire reason why I engage you on this topic.
The one who doesn't care about truth rather seems to be you - you only care about your fundamentalist theist beliefs.



You don't know anything about me, yet you feel like you can make such judgement calls about my "lifestyle". And then you wonder why I go into the defensive.
Well, perhaps it is because I feel attacked (and insulted) by you?



When you make incorrect claims about what I supposedly believe, then it is my duty to correct it. But I see that you don't feel like playing along.

You apparantly don't care that you are wrong about what I believe or don't believe. You just repeat your nonsense even after it's been corrected.

So yea, we'll agree on one thing then: this conversation is utterly pointless.

The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. ~1 Corinthians 2:15

But the wisdom of God means nothing to you even though this is what is happening to your face.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. ~1 Corinthians 2:15

Matthew 7:1-3 King James Version (KJV)
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Seems to me Christians should give more heed to the words of Christ himself over those of a mere man such as Paul, no?