Design on a Dime

Double postEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Six days according to the Scriptures, though some will use 2^nd Peter as a reason to assume that "days" is an unspecified amount of time according the Hebrew word for day, which is "Yom." (Even though Yom Kippur lasts one calender day) Not sure. If we extrapolate backwards using the genealogies, we come up with a figure around 6,200 years or so. But, radiometric dating, which is hotly debated, says that it began somewhere in the ball park of 4.5 billion years (plus or minus a few million years, respectively). I think creation is finished, but not procreation. I can only know what God has revealed. I know nothing of this, so I don't know. I don't know. I think that leaving things up to chance may be a part of His will, based on His ability to allow for freewill. If He doesn't micromanage my life, I don't think I have a reason to assume He would with nature.Or maybe its something like this:God establishes the rules beforehand, such as the laws of nature. The laws of nature dictates that if I fall of a cliff, I go splat. By chance I fall off said cliff. He didn't caused me to fall, but I'm still subject to the law. Depends on what you mean by 'whole.' I don't know. All I know is that He layed the foundation and that everything is accountable to Him. Beyond that, its just speculation I suppose.Good questions, Ana. But I fear that given the lack of knowledge, most of them may be insoluble-- or an enigma at the very least.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Then we can't know anything by the same token, and we'll be forced to concede to either the nihilist or solipsist view where everything is speculatory.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Then I would have to say I don't have a definitive one. I'm open to suggestion concerning timelines. Ursine, canine, feline, etc all have a great capacity for variation available within their DNA. For instance, in all likelihood there were no Chihuahua's during the beginning. But all of the genetic material necessary for there to be a Chihuahua has always existed, from the beginning, for a Chihuahua to develop through variation from its early canine ancestor.I don't see that as "creation." I see that as procreation. I don't know that you mean? Do I believe in evolution? Yes, I do, to an extent. Darwin made some excellent observations with finches and iguanas and what not. He determined how different traits could arise due to mutation (though he didn't fully understand the concept at the time), isolation, etc. But he somehow came to the conclusion that everything is ultimately related to some primordial bacterium, because without it, you must concede that there is/are a Creator(s). This is the issue I have with mainstream Darwinism. Oh, I see. I'm sorry I didn't initially understand the question. What I think about God is that He does not amble along with us on a time line because He lives outside of time. Whatever happens in the physical world, for Him, is happening, did happen, and will happen simultaneously.And basic physics explains that time, space, and matter are intimately connected. Because of this, I don't think that God thinks in a manner we are capable of understanding. Therefore, I don't think planning, which obviously includes thinking, is something that God does.I do think that God leaves much of the creation alone, as it seems to coincide with freewill. That is not to say that I do not believe also doesn't intervene divinely. I believe He can and does upon our request. I don't think its entirely up to chance. Like I said, I think He established the rules and laws that would govern the universe, but that He isn't, as you say, responsible for the immediate congregation of centipedes. The way I see it, Ana, is that we can't have our cake and eat it too. Why would God only begin to reveal Himself to man, 6,000 years ago, and say nothing about the 4.5 billion years of time before then? Why do we have a gospel geared for mankind, and not, say, some simian? It seems remarkably self-evident that humans are VASTLY different from all other creatures, to the point that there is no comparison. It appears very much intended that we were to be distinguished for His purpose.I think we forget that this is His life-- we're just in it. He is the Dreamer and we are His dream. We are the clay and He is the Claymaker. He may fashion us in whatever way seems fit.So, yes, I believe that God produced complex and simple life ex nihilo with a specific purpose. I couldn't agree more that I am unsatisfied that anyone would try and incorporate evolution, when the whole point of evolution is that it is a chance event. It makes Genesis inscrutable. How can we have it both ways when they are diametrically opposed? Either you believe what it says or you don't. We can't take little pieces here to believe, and brush aside the rest because it conforms to whatever we want it to.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

If God is infinite, then there exists the possibility that He has created and destroyed enumerable creations of His, unbeknownst to us, and that the only reason we are unaware of it, is because it is not applicable to us.But that's purely speculative, so I don't entertain the thought much. But, yes, I've thought about it. I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase this for me, please?

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

No, not at all. I started out as an evolutionist and rejected notions about God. If I did it before, I could hypothetically do it again. Again, no. Its just that often times that science is tentative. We go on what we know or what we think we know. A simple illustration would be that it was a fact that the earth was flat. Why? Because it conformed to observation.Obviously that wasn't a fact, but it was certainly posited as one. History is replete with these instances.In defense of the Bible, there are many instances in reverse. Such as, but not limited to, say, prophecy concerning Israel. Many theologians had come to the inevitable conclusion that when the Bible said it would reinstate Israel, that it must have been metaphorical.Well, it wasn't. But can we fault them for it? No. They made a reasonable deduction based on simple observation. Nothing inherently wrong with that. But the Bible seems to continually be supportive of a more literal translation.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Why do you say that?

Of course not! Because that kind of brutal honesty would open the flood gates of reason. Whether you like the implication or not, that is the very real deduction you are left with, good sir, in a world view solely in tune with strict naturalism.Its really very simple. Extrapolating backwards from all matter and energy, reducing life's components back of a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction, the sum total will eventually reach zero. What happened before the singularity is not something science is qualified to answer. If you live in a glass house, you probably shouldn't cast stones.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

A lot of people think they own the title rights to the theory, and someone seeking debunk creationism or ID will just throw out the assertion you've made.

quote:

---

Its just that often times that science is tentative.

---

Aren't you just being redundant then?

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

What kind of evidence is necessary for the self-evident? Put your thinking cap on for a moment. Nothing doesn't ordinarily create something. Causation is required, seeing that it is an unassailable fact. Nothing doesn't even possess the potential to create, let alone actually create. No, I'm saying that this is supposed to be the event that gave life a chance in the first place. Surely you won't disagree with that. I see the argument as the logical deduction of the stated premise. But if you truly feel that it cannot be reasonably tied in to this thread, then I will refrain from continuing in this vein. You should probably also respond to Dr. Adequate about the very same thing, seeing that arguments don't take place in vacuums.It takes two to tango, sir Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add small detail

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Philosophize with me, sister. Come let us reason together.Can something come from absolute nothingness? Are you going to dismiss this one? Or are you just going to foist a one poetic prose after another, as if I am supposed to derive much meaning from it?Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

I don't see option 2 as a viable solution. I don't see how any intelligent person could. If you didn't intend for me to derive meaning from it, you wouldn't have said it.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Sorry Doc, I'd respond but I was asked not to respond in this vein. You weren't, but I was. See msg 68 and 69 for details.

quote:

---

I don't see option 2 as a viable solution.

---

Ringo... You've neglected to explain how something can come from absolute nothingness. If you won't expand the argument, there is nothing more to object to than the premise itself.What exactly leads you to believe that anything could come into existence without causation when there is nothing to model this belief after?

quote:

---

If you didn't intend for me to derive meaning from it, you wouldn't have said it.

---

You addressed your reply to me. I'm the principle recipient.Must you play the devil's advocate with everything?

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Fair enough. Your reasoning makes sense since neither has been witnessed. However, if you are a strict naturalist, and thus you would be bound by the rules/laws.You are asking metaphysical and existential questions which have no earthly business being discussed from this view.If something is eternal, then that something has the potential to create something. If something can come from nothing, then it automatically assumes that something is eternal, does it not?What exactly leads you to believe that anything could come into existence without causation when there is nothing to model this belief after?Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt