Offline
but this is the essence of what you're arguingAnd this is why I have said countless times on this thread that it is the height of human arrogance to believe something can’t exist just because you can’t understand it..
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
but this is the essence of what you're arguingAnd this is why I have said countless times on this thread that it is the height of human arrogance to believe something can’t exist just because you can’t understand it..
so forever we've had the spiritual answer to the physical phenomenonI simply don't see it as being reasonable that all the parts needed to make a house would know where to fit without help in order to turn into a house. That is unless each part had it's own intelligence to do so.
But there's no doubt that some in the scientific community not only see it as plausible, but factual.
but this is the essence of what you're arguing
Sure, it is reasonable to say that the parts needed to make a house would not be able to put themselves together and form a house. Factual, even. And at face value, the idea that "complexity necessitates a design, design necessitates a designer" seems logical from the standpoint of building a house.I simply don't see it as being reasonable that all the parts needed to make a house would know where to fit without help in order to turn into a house. That is unless each part had it's own intelligence to do so.
But there's no doubt that some in the scientific community not only see it as plausible, but factual.
Just look at the human body - and according to the Bible, we are the center of the physical universe and were created in God's image - and see how flawed it is, from a design standpoint. We have useless extra organs, multiple single points of failure, some questionable structure/layout, we can't even see straight. And no one unit comes exactly the same way out the production line, some with extra parts, some with missing parts...
This is getting silly.
1.) We aren’t designed in the image of God physically. That isn’t even logical. You like logic right? How can a God who is spirit design us in His image physically? He means that, as He is a 3 part being, body (Jesus), mind (God) and soul (Holy Spirit), so are we. Where is my proof? Where is yours?
2.) A couple of issues here. Firstly, useless organs are produced as humans evolve. Secondly, genetic mutation through mass reproduction can and will lead to failures within the design of our bodies.
3.) We are not all the same from the eyes of someone who doesn’t know what to look for. But for the person that realizes our entire body follows the Golden Mean/Ratio, we are all identical.
Please don’t write a 14 inch post. Thanks.
... and say you will pray for someone, do you actually DO it? I do but not always and feel like a fraud because I don't know what to say to God. I don't know why I always feel disingenuous though I feel like a genuine person.
I thought you have given up on me.
As long as I observe the TOS, or the site owner tells me differently, the length of my post is no concern to you. If you don't want to read them, that's fine with me.
1) It is not my logic. It says so in Genesis 1:27. Are you making a distinction between physical and body? Seems your statements are a bit contradictory.
Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile your Christian belief with Jews not believing in the Holy Trinity? After all, the Book of Genesis is the first book of the Torah, and according to the Torah, the Israelite had a direct line to Yahweh himself, yet he never mentioned the Holy Trinity to Moses, or Abraham, etc, even though he laid rules about not eating shellfish or what to wear. Do you think he held out on his people?
2) Oh, absolutely. But I didn't draw an analogy to building houses or assembling watches. At least you believe in evolution. Although, if you believe in evolution... what do you believe we humans started as? Do you go further back from the origin of species into the origin of life theories? There are a few theories about the beginning of life, but those theories start with mere molecules. Is a molecule a body?
3) Again, I am not the one drawing analogies to building houses or assembling watches. But out of curiosity, what do you think the 2 extremes are?
I’ve answered enough questions about what I believe. So I’m curious now about what you believe. You’re obviously an incredibly intelligent person, so what do you believe?
I
A very logical & reasoning man once said, "Of course every house is constructed by someone". That eloquent line is the basis for the logic that I use for my own personal conclusion to our existence. Were any of us to happen upon a beautiful, full featured house in the middle of a vast wasteland, it would be hard to imagine that anyone here would exclaim, "Look what just sprang up right here all on it's own!"
.
Please understand that to me it will never seem reasonable or logical that any discussion about the origin of life or matter can be answered by simply throwing enough time at it. I personally will never conclude that even if all the elements of that house were always in existence somewhere in the vast universe around us that given enough time it's inevitable that a house was going to spring up somewhere.That's a problematic argument and example. First, we're taking into account something we're familiar with (the innately human intelligence, perfected over many, many years, needed to build a home) and comparing it to something we can't possibly understand firsthand because it is a process of typically millions of years, a timescale of which our brains can barely comprehend.
Please understand that to me it will never seem reasonable or logical that any discussion about the origin of life or matter can be answered by simply throwing enough time at it.
I personally will never conclude that even if all the elements of that house were always in existence somewhere in the vast universe around us that given enough time it's inevitable that a house was going to spring up somewhere.
I completely understand why some people chose to accept that teaching. But it's not one that I will ever conclude as even being possible. And the most beautiful thing of all is that I'm not obligated in any way to do so.
I'm insinuating that evolution wasn't necessary to have what existed or what currently exists.So you're insinuating here that evolution, because it involves a large time scale, is not reasonable/logical and/or cannot be inferred with great confidence?
Biological life is still here for me to study and enjoy. Why insist that those things happened by accident rather than were created? You are correct to say that biological organisms are much more complex than house... which is all the more reason to conclude intelligent design was involved. What possible reason would I have for denying the existence of the fossils, the shared DNA, or any other ancient organism in order to hold to the conclusion of intelligent design? I see no conflict at all.You keep going back to the house example -- again, you're comparing statues to coyotes here. Or quite literally nonliving to a living thing -- so you're essentially skipping out on so many wonderful natural processes involved in biological life in making this analogy,. Homes aren't complex biological organisms of whose relatives we have fossils of, DNA with whom we share, and a breadth of genetic information linking them via phylogenetic trees upon, to meander very shallow into that topic.
I recognize my insignificance and realize that there is so much to learn both about the natural world as well as the divine. But our stewardship of the Earth becomes a greater responsibility to humans by reason of having been deliberately created here. But if we are only here by chance, then we have no obligation to accept that responsibility except through an individual's personal conviction. On the contrary, I recognize that this is our given assignment.And it's sad to me that you seem to have firmly closed off your mind in this area. I think that not knowing, realizing you're so, so insignificant in relation to the universe but share a common responsibility to be a steward to all of your living counterparts on this Earth is a humbling and beautifully transcendent experience. But you're right -- you can believe whatever you want to.
Just to quibble, you should not “conclude” any such thing about an intelligent designer since there is zero evidence for itI'm insinuating that evolution wasn't necessary to have what existed or what currently exists.
Biological life is still here for me to study and enjoy. Why insist that those things happened by accident rather than were created? You are correct to say that biological organisms are much more complex than house... which is all the more reason to conclude intelligent design was involved. What possible reason would I have for denying the existence of the fossils, the shared DNA, or any other ancient organism in order to hold to the conclusion of intelligent design? I see no conflict at all.
I recognize my insignificance and realize that there is so much to learn both about the natural world as well as the divine. But our stewardship of the Earth becomes a greater responsibility to humans by reason of having been deliberately created here. But if we are only here by chance, then we have no obligation to accept that responsibility except through an individual's personal conviction. On the contrary, I recognize that this is our given assignment.