the self replicating watch argument

[st831]

there are actually spinning motors in nature:


A Rotary Motor Drives Bacterial Motion - Biochemistry - NCBI Bookshelf

awesome thought!

 

[GenemZ]

I view certainty, for the most part, as a form of arrogance.

Are you 'certain' .. about that?

Perhaps you see certainty that oppresses you as arrogant?

Little kids sometimes hate their parents for that reason.

 

[Ophiolite]

Are you 'certain' .. about that?

Perhaps you see certainty that oppresses you as arrogant?

Little kids sometimes hate their parents for that reason.

I think we both are native English speakers. The use of the subordinate clause "for the most part" indicates that the view of "certainty" and therefore the certainty of that view are conditional.

I'm not aware of being oppressed. What makes you think I am? [I must comment that several of your remarks to me and to truefiction1 seem rather presumptuous, inasmuch as they imply an understanding of our motives/character that have been wrong (in my case) and apparently wrong (in truefiction1's case). It's probably a stylistic thing, but it could become annoying. Note that being annoyed is generally unrelated to being oppressed.]

I see most certainty as arrogant. Oppression has nothing to do with it. Unequivocal certainty is possibly never, or almost never justified. Certainty, where certainty is a synonym for "I'll be blown into a million pieces of chicken tikka massala if this turns out not to be true", is only ever justified if there are mutiple lines of supporting evidence and no significant contrary evidence. All other forms of certainty that I can think of at present are arrogant. I repeat, oppression has nothing to do with it and I can't even figure out why you might think it does.

I realise I've already asked you why you think that, but since you ignored the last two requests for clarification I'm not holding my breath on this one. I don't imagine you overlooked those out of arrogance. It was probably just a normal discourtesy.

And reflecting on that has helped me grasp what you are driving at.

I dislike certainty because it is rarely justified, not because the ill-conceived certainty of some persons who believe they have access to the Truth makes me feel oppressed. It doesn't. It makes me,at best, amused and at worst, very sorry for the those persons. I will say that I am finding the content of your posts both arrogant and sanctimonious, so I think I'll now cease discussion with you. Of course, I'm not certain that will happen - a fulsome apology from you would go a long way towards mending fences and allowing for more dialogue.

 

[GenemZ]

I think we both are native English speakers. The use of the subordinate clause "for the most part" indicates that the view of "certainty" and therefore the certainty of that view are conditional.

I'm not aware of being oppressed. What makes you think I am?

You're not getting your way. There will always be some who are fooled all the time. Those are no indicator to how well you or anyone else is doing. You are not getting your way.

 

[GenemZ]

I think we both are native English speakers. The use of the subordinate clause "for the most part" indicates that the view of "certainty" and therefore the certainty of that view are conditional.

But, just the same? You were certain about what you were saying, even with the subordinate clause.

Were you not certain? Certainly, you know.

So, certainty is suddenly becoming a non issue... For arrogant people will always see others who are not arrogant as being arrogant.

 

[truefiction1]

Thank you for a lengthy, sincere, well-meaning reply. I regret we will not have a meeting of minds. I will feel sad for you, for what I perceive as your self-delusions. You, perhaps, will feel sad for me. The greatest difference between us is that you think you have seen "the answer", whereas I am certain I haven't. Though disappointed by this, I am not troubled by it. I prefer an honest uncertainty, to a contrived certainty.

You're welcome. There's nothing honest whatsoever about passion inspired rejection of reality, and there's nothing contrived from grace. It's real, as is the God Who gives it.

I'll add:

This concept of "honest uncertainty" is a contrived worldview: a purely fabricated symbolic fiction and part of an imaginary symbolic universe created to bring meaning and purpose to your life, and is no more "real" than the Greek myth myth of Zeus. What's preferable to the lie of "honest uncertainty" is a very real relationship with a very real, personal Being. This personal Being is not a myth, and provides clear evidence to anyone seeking to enter into a personal relationship with Him that they ought to be doing so. I prefer the very real, reciprocal relationship with a Person Who demonstrates His presence to me, with power, over any of mankind's cultural fictions.

 

[Jon Osterman]

because there is no stepwise from a self replicating molecule into a car. for instance: a minimal car need at least several parts like wheels, engine etc.

Of course there are. The bigger obstacle is the lack of roads, but one could set up a planet that was flat and non-rocky to overcome that.

 

[Jon Osterman]

To be frank, the part of this that I find saddest and most distressing is the lack of faith that creationists have in God. They seem to think that science can somehow undermine God by giving us forbidden knowledge, or perhaps that God has made his creation in order to trick us into blasphemy. What a strange notion! We need to have faith that what we see around us, the natural revelation that God gives us, is entirely compatible with his Word. We don't need to close our eyes and block our ears - we need to explore His wonderful world and marvel in His glory.

 

[truefiction1]

Believe 1 John 1:9 properly, and sins become simply a detail in this life. It teaches us not to dwell on what will always be forgiven instantly, and be made clean by grace. So, we can have happiness in life with a clarity of purpose. Dealing with our sins is taught to baby Christians like toilet training. We are to know what to do to keep ourselves clean before God. Its not something mature Christians dwell on. Its become a detail, just like knowing how to use a toilet and to wash your hands is a detail. Christians that fail to grow as God wants them to, keep dwelling upon what should have long become integrated in their spiritual life. Becoming no more an major effort as tying one's shoe laces. When we first learned to tie them we needed to concentrate and we might have even made mistakes. But, now its an automatic response.

That does not mean we so not sin. Rather, being able to forget what is behind, we press forward to the prize.



Spirituality is what causes believers to be able to grow and expand their never ended process of learning (and gasping) more and more of God's Word. Venturing into passages that were not learned yesterday. Scripture is the New Frontier. Many parts have yet to be explored. We are not to remain in the small village of the past where it all began. God created time so that we would advance and progress in more and more understanding of God's Word.

Contrition of heart is a gift of the Holy Spirit and leads to poverty of Spirit. It's a blessing and it is valuable. "The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit: a broken and contrite heart, Thou, O God, will not despise" (Psalm 51). Sin is usually not always behind us. Rarely if ever does a day go by in which we don't commit some sin, and even the majority of our thoughts (thoughts we may have befriended) may be sinful. If we are sorry and confess them, resisting these evils, then our spiritual Life continues as we progress in the acquisition of the Holy Spirit (grace). If not, we can very well fall from grace, and be lost.

But these things are not my teachings. They are all to be found in the grace filled teachings in Scripture, and I suspect you're not ignorant of them there.

 

[truefiction1]

Well then. You should remove chapter and verses from the Bible. That invention came later.

Revelation speaks of the future. Faith is not ancient. Its not bound by time.

We are not to remain stuck in time, living in the past. The body of Christ is to be a living organism that is always growing and learning and reproducing offspring..

When we board a plane today.. we do not board the Wright Brothers craft. Yet, they were the beginning.

Sad to say.. That is what Muslims also do. In nations controlled by Sharia law they live stuck back in time. To me, its living in a make believe world. One where they wish to freeze time as a means to control predictability.

All things are made new in Christ.... Always being made new. How can you evangelize people in the modern world, if one demands that they revert back in time to find what you have to offer? When Jesus died for our sins he was dying for sins to be committed in the the next century and beyond.

God does not remain in the past. He sees it as clearly as He sees the future. God is not afraid of the future. God does not fear change as long as the change is motivated by sound doctrinal thinking.

There may be some development of custom and the like over time, and this is to be expected. There is a certain "Apostolic Tradition", however, that has been established in the world, or in the Body of Christ in the world, that remains unchanged. Remembrance of the saints and the outcome of their lives of faith is one part of the Apostolic Tradition, and its existence in the Body of Christ is evidenced in Scripture and is taught by the holy Apostles there. If a thing like this is dropped from a Christian tradition, then that tradition is no longer complete and full, as was the holy Tradition of the Apostle's (2 Thessalonians 2:15). As for the addition of chapter and verse to the Bible, this doesn't do any harm to holy Tradition, and is a valuable and useful tool. "Sound doctrinal thinking", however, has introduced more false doctrines and deviations from the faith of the Apostle's than can be listed, because all souls are not perfectly sound. Most souls are not perfectly sound, even of those nearly perfect in the faith, and such souls can introduce errors in accordance with their own personal flaws. I think you're well aware of this too.

 

[pitabread]

To be frank, the part of this that I find saddest and most distressing is the lack of faith that creationists have in God. They seem to think that science can somehow undermine God by giving us forbidden knowledge, or perhaps that God has made his creation in order to trick us into blasphemy.

That is what I find odd as well. There have been creationists on this forum that have actively resisted learning about biological evolution seemly out of fear of some divine punishment. The idea of being afraid of knowledge, and for that matter that a divine being would require that of its followers, just doesn't compute to me.

 

[Kylie]

Pretty sunsets aren't the sort of evidence I'm alluding to. Christ is risen from the dead. He's been seen after having risen, and is known to be risen forever, glorified, and all powerful. He Who rose from the dead has foretold the resurrection of all at the end of the ages. By the Holy Spirit we know it to be True. Examine this.

Sure, please provide a source for me to examine.

 

[Kylie]

so if we do have a self replicating molecule with mutations+ natural selection+ generations we will get a car in the end?

You didn't read a word of what I said, did you?

BY DEFINITION, A CAR CANNOT DO THE THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR EVOLUTION.

How can anything evolve into something that can never evolve?

 

[Skreeper]

You didn't read a word of what I said, did you?

BY DEFINITION, A CAR CANNOT DO THE THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR EVOLUTION.

How can anything evolve into something that can never evolve?

But but what about my self replicating robot penguin car? Can it evolve into a dog?

Checkmate evolutionist.

 

[Ophiolite]

.

You're welcome. There's nothing honest whatsoever about passion inspired rejection of reality, and there's nothing contrived from grace. It's real, as is the God Who gives it..

But as I have noted we are not going to have a meeting of minds on this one. I have not rejected reality - I have investigated reality, directly and indirectly, using the skills, talents and attitudes that, if you are correct, are God given. To reject the consequent findings would be a form of blasphemy, if I were a believer.

Jesus was passionate when he ejected the money lenders from the temple, Jesus was passionate when he delivered the sermon on the Mount, Jesus was passionate when he cried out on the cross, so please don't preach to me about the supposed evils of passion.

In the interests of courtesy I shall not respond to any further posts of yours on this topic, though perhaps we shall discuss other matters on other threads. Thank you again for your time.

 

[Ophiolite]

You're not getting your way. There will always be some who are fooled all the time. Those are no indicator to how well you or anyone else is doing. You are not getting your way.

But, just the same? You were certain about what you were saying, even with the subordinate clause.

Were you not certain? Certainly, you know.

So, certainty is suddenly becoming a non issue... For arrogant people will always see others who are not arrogant as being arrogant.

Semantic content: nil.
You need to listen to what people are saying and stop imagining that you know in advance. It is very unbecoming.
Don't waste time replying, I'm putting you on Ignore.

 

[Kylie]

But but what about my self replicating robot penguin car? Can it evolve into a dog?

Checkmate evolutionist.

Depends, what kind of penguin is the robot car pretending to be?

 

[GenemZ]

To be frank, the part of this that I find saddest and most distressing is the lack of faith that creationists have in God. They seem to think that science can somehow undermine God by giving us forbidden knowledge, or perhaps that God has made his creation in order to trick us into blasphemy. What a strange notion!

Please.... you speak of Young Earth Creationists only.

Young Earth creationists believe that the earth is only thousands of years old. Why? Because their scholarship fails to see there had been various other worlds created for the surface of this planet before this one.

Young Earth Creationists fail to see that in the Scriptures because they depend primarily upon English translations... that lack the type of scholarship required to extract from the Hebrew and Greek what most English translations gloss over.

I am not making this up. Young Earth Creationists set up their own standards of what is good scholarship ... and in earnest will be faithful to what they are fed to mislead them. Just like evolutionists follow their Vatican of secular scientists.

But, then again.. Secular evolutionists are equally guilty in intellectual dishonesty. For they can flash from genius to moron in a split second once facts begin to show the inconsistencies of their own brand of dogma. Denial oozes from both sides... Young Earth Creationists and Evolutionists both share the same weaknesses in reasoning.

Both appear to enjoy the battle of protecting their home teams reputation. Its like watching a local sports event where each one cheers for the team originating from their home town. No other reason. Its identification dogma.

If you truly are seeking after truth.. and want to know how this current creation is only thousands of years old? Yet, the planet being much older? Having its fossil evidence buried revealing older creations? Here is just one publication (there are others also) that explores and reveals how it was so.

But, one must want truth even if it hurts... that will end up correcting one's natural way of seeing things in order to find truth. Otherwise, we simply end up carving idols to adore that we name "truth" and carry around mentally like pagans used to carry idols for victory in war.

Here it is. Some will see it. Others will explain why God must judge us all.

Without Form and Void - Frontpage

 

[doubtingmerle]

because there is no stepwise from a self replicating molecule into a car. for instance: a minimal car need at least several parts like wheels, engine etc.

That, and the fact that cars can't have babies makes it impossible for them to evolve.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If there were survival pressures on it such that being a car provided greater survivability, why would it not?

A car cannot evolve because it cannot reproduce.