ken: Interesting question. What is the purpose of designing identical …

Comment on The God of the Gaps by BobRyan.

ken: Interesting question. What is the purpose of designing identical twins? 🙂

What is the point of “designing” a car with wheels that make evenly spaced marks on the road if you put a wet paint streak on one of the tires?

Are those kinds of questions really serious or even applicable to the subject of design?

The “design” in a car is pretty hard to ignore. The design in an infinitely more complex system like a living cell is even harder to ignore.

The ill-advised path of claiming that a rock hitting a window and cracking the window — is by “design” of the manufacturer — misses the point. It would be more correct to say that the manufacturer designs the window to be of a certain strength and thickness so that it provides protection “to a point”.

But why argue the case as if GM designed the acorn to zero in on the window or else “the car was not designed”?

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan Also Commented

The God of the Gaps
@pauluc:

pauluc: Like Bonhoeffer, Barth and more recently Alister McGrath I would see natural theology as a largely meaningless endeavor in terms of our knowledge of of God which only comes through his revelation in the life and death of the person Jesus.

We can argue ad infinitum as we have done before about how this knowledge can be imparted but I make no apology that it is not by the rational and logical process …

Paul makes the exact opposite point in Romans 1 where he tells us that even non-Bible-aware pagans are “without excuse” when they act in ways that they know to be wrong based on the knowledge they get from “observations in nature” regarding not only it’s designer, but the judgment and authority of that designer.

(going far beyond the I.D. concepts proposed today).

And Paul hammers this point home again in Romans 10 telling us that observations in nature itself are not only telling the non-christian about God – but also about the Gospel.

When you take this larger view of Paul on the subject of “observations in nature” it is not too very difficult to see complete harmony with that view in the insights we find in 3SG90-91 regarding the problem with belief in Theistic Evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob


The God of the Gaps
By way of context — my references to Isaac Asimov’s bold statements about evolutionism’s “molecule to human mind” story telling – requiring a “vast decrease in entropy” over billions of years of time (solved only by an appeal to the sun 98 million miles from the events being cited) – is an appeal to an atheist evolutionist icon making a clear confession that in his mind the story of evolutionism is at odds with observed science regarding the 2LOT.

Not everyone will agree with my willingness to quote Asimov.

BobRyan: I never make the claim about the storytelling of evolutionism requiring “a vast decrease in entropy” from an non-evolutionist source. I usually quote atheist agnostic scientists like Isaac Asimov for that claim.

My point is simply to agree with what they are already claiming since they are willing to make that claim.

The fact that they would think to go there – knowing that it flies in the face of known science – more than a little satisfying given that it amounts to a “confession” on their part.

Sean Pitman: @BobRyan:

It doesn’t matter who you are quoting, you should never argue that the ToE violates the 2LoT. That’s clearly not the case and therefore it only makes you look ignorant when you use this argument and it reduces the credibility of anything else you have to say…

1. I suppose you meant to say “IF evolution actually existed, were actually real – then it would be careful not to violate 2LOT in the way that Isaac Asmov claims it does”.

Your argument appears to be more hypothetical than “observed in nature” – since it is unclear how much physics “bending” would be needed to make something that does not actually exist in nature – “work”.

2. By way of context – I am the one that on this board has been insisting that every chemical reaction – whether in living systems or non-living systems demonstrates the 2LOT without “an appeal to the sun” if you take into account the reaction and its immediate surroundings. I show that in the case of water melting and water freezing to demonstrate the point.

Far be it from me to argue that living systems do not demonstrate what I keep claiming – they demonstrate.

If you claim this reduces my credibility – so be it. I am willing to stick with the science.

My reason for demonstrating the case with Asimov is to make the point that evolutionists are arguing their case against known science. Which is to say that “they are the ones” claiming that their story telling requires a “vast decrease in entropy” over a span of billions of years of time – at the level of all of planet earth.

If that point is lost on some here – I will not fault them for it.

in Christ,

Bob


The God of the Gaps

David Read: I deny that anyone is unbiased and objective, least of all anyone with even the most superficial interest in the origins controversy.

In Romans 1 God says that all of mankind – even pagans with no access at all to the Bible are “without excuse” when they pretend not to see intelligent design in its most extreme and explicit form – in nature. Purely on the basis of what is “Seen in the things that have been MADE”.

In the pure nonscience of evolutionist mythology – the sun shining on a barren desert produces ever increasingly self-organized complex Rube Goldberg machines that defy the 2nd law. In those fictions the self-organizing machines become increasingly more organized and complex as the sun continues to shine on them.

And apparently some of those machines include sand and water self-organizing into living cells in true alchemist fashion.

In the uniquely atheist form of evolutionism – humans are so befuddled and stumped when it comes to observing design – that looking at the machine does not give them any clue at all that the chain reactions observed were designed so as to create the events they see in motion. In this way they are daily confirming the truth of Patterson’s observation that blind-faith evolutionism conveys “antiknowledge”.

Thus Patterson demonstrates (at least at times) the attribute of unbiased objectivity when he notes the flaws in his own belief system. Those supposedly Christian observers who pretend that they cannot even see the very flaws their atheist icons like Patterson explain to them – show a bias that is almost beyond belief.

And so my argument is that while David’s statement is true about those turning a blind eye to the design so glaringly apparent in the Rube Goldberg machine – I do not claim that those who admit to the design already present in it – are also showing a lack of objectivity.

in Christ,

Bob


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?

Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?

Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.

“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)

Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.

(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)

By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
Gentlemen,

What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.

An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.

1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..

2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.

3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.

4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).

In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.

Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??

Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.

hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.

The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis

Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind