Inherent Characteristics of Design

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, your right. But multiplied by 300 million? That's 1.38 times ten to the 17th power.

Pfft. Still such small thing. Just a puny little mass compared to the sun... or what's it called again 1101 som'thing whatever. The giant star.

 

[Etritonakin]

Concrete? Well, that's great! If they've been just rocks, we can't see the stains of water from a flood, but do you know what happens to composite rock materials when they're exposed to water, especially for a longer time? It's called erosion (physical damage because of chemical reactions). If they're concrete, then it really is a greater magical trick to keep them from staining and eroding. What you're saying there isn't helping the case of a flood, but rather makes the case stronger than there wasn't. If the pyramids had been under sea or brackish water for a year (as the story says), they would show great sign of stress from it. They don't. Simple as that.

So the answer to this is that God intentionally made all things look like there never was a flood. He only redesigned physics to create a rainbow (because supposedly it didn't exist before that, so photons and atmosphere and such were obviously under a different world of physics), but everything else he made sure was hidden away. To intentionally hide things... that's deception.

I'm not trying to help the case of the flood -I'm just saying what someone else said.
I see no possible benefit in trying to make such a case.
I also have no response for your assumptions.
It sounds like you are satisfied with your views.
I wasn't there -or not there, as the case would otherwise be -and I'm not worried about it.
It is not as if I have failed somehow if I can not prove to you scientifically that it happened.
I cannot even prove it to myself scientifically, and I'm not worried about that, either.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm not trying to help the case of the flood -I'm just saying what someone else said.
I see no possible benefit in trying to make such a case.
I also have no response for your assumptions.
It sounds like you are satisfied with your views.
I wasn't there -or not there, as the case would otherwise be -and I'm not worried about it.
It is not as if I have failed somehow if I can not prove to you scientifically that it happened.
I cannot even prove it to myself scientifically, and I'm not worried about that, either.

Fair enough.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

In the following, I use "evolution" in a broad sense..... And am just throwing ideas out there....

It seems to me (now) that design and evolution are inseparable -that, in some form, some thing and someone have always acted upon each other...

....or, that everything Is an inherent characteristic of design.

When we affect something, it also affects us -but one is initiation and another is reaction. Or -when we design something, it also affects our design.

So -an initiator and a reactor must have always existed in some form -but how does this relate to awareness and non-awareness, animate and inanimate?

I will probably be seen as blasphemous for thinking this, but while God says he changes not, it does not mean he does not "evolve" -in a broad sense. He is always perfect, always logical, etc, but certainly God changes outward form and creates new things which in turn affect him, etc.

It is written that of the increase of the government of Christ/God there will be no end -but what does this indicate looking backward in time?

There is the governor and the governed -but how little was initially governed by God?

It is written that he (Melchizedek/I Am/the Word/Christ) is without descent, beginning of days or end of life, but what does that actually mean?
What does God actually mean by what he says?
How can a new human hope to completely and immediately understand all that an eternal God says -and all of the implications?

If God was always aware and self-aware -just what would that mean? He has created more for himself to be aware of -which is an extension of himself -but how little was there for him to be aware of at any point? If by him all things consist, then his changes and the changes in his environment are inseparable.

Was he always aware of infinite possibility?

I am making no assumptions -just wondering. I'm not saying I know the nature of God -just wondering about it. I hope to ask him for specifics later.

That which became what is must have always existed -but in a different form.
Or -God and his government have always existed -but changed form.

I think some error lies in trying to reduce that which is infinite. There was never less -only different -never more -only more ordered in a specific way.
The concept of "beginning" is a product of our own perspective. We tend to believe everything must have a beginning because we did -that which we see does, etc., but perhaps we should also realize that what we are actually seeing is that things infinitely begin and always have -and that those beginnings are rearrangements of that which has always been.

We know this to a certain degree, but perhaps we want an end result where there is none -a final answer to infinite questions -to solve an equation while the numbers, letters and symbols keep jumping from one side to the other.

I was thinking about the quest to find the "theory of everything" ..... And how it might be futile, as everything keeps changing -especially our level of understanding due to our perspective -so the theory would necessarily keep changing.
That is not to say there are not constants, but perhaps there are constantly more to consider in the future and an infinite number to consider in the past.
Certain things apply at certain levels but not at others -and there's nothing wrong with that -no error, no mistake, just a part of the big picture -which keeps getting bigger even as we know more about it (and may yet change because we are able to do more about it).

Infinitely increasing complexity is understandable to us, but Infinitely less complex seems impossible. It might help to consider that when we look at simplicities, we are really ceasing to consider all else.
Living forever forward in time is conceivable to us, but not living forever backward in time......
But it's really just a matter of looking the other way and not considering our own limitations.

We may have to get our head around the fact that we can never get our heads around all that is and has ever been -unless we are made able to do so by one who has been there for it all, caused it all and can make us able to contain and process it all -granting us a God-like perspective.

There is always action and reaction yes. But this does not indicate design. Design, as defined by ID, is a created form of life with a plan on how to function. That there was a plan that humans would be made. Evolution talks about these reactions. I guess one might be able to say that evolution is the "creation of life as we know it through the natural processes over billions of years". But the term "creation" when used here does not denote an intentional path.

 

[Sapiens]

Design, no. Selection, sure. Do they have similar effects ... yes.

 

[Skwim]

I believe the difference comes out to a little more that of a third of a billion cubic miles of water, a mere drop in the bucket.

FWIW:

V of earth at sea level ........................................................... 260,745,435,525 cubic miles
V of earth measured to top of Mt. Everest.................... 261,304,409,752 cubic miles
______________________________________________________________
Difference (amt of water from sea level to top of mt. E.)...558,974,229 cubic miles

 

[Ouroboros]

FWIW:

V of earth at sea level ........................................................... 260,745,435,525 cubic miles
V of earth measured to top of Mt. Everest.................... 261,304,409,752 cubic miles
______________________________________________________________
Difference (amt of water from sea level to top of mt. E.)...558,974,229 cubic miles

And, I looked up how much a cubic mile weights: 4.6 billion tons.

Which makes 2,571,281,453 billion tons, i.e. 2,571,281,453,000,000,000 tons (US tons, I think?)

 

[Sapiens]

FWIW:

V of earth at sea level ........................................................... 260,745,435,525 cubic miles
V of earth measured to top of Mt. Everest.................... 261,304,409,752 cubic miles
______________________________________________________________
Difference (amt of water from sea level to top of mt. E.)...558,974,229 cubic miles

You're more accurate, I did a quick and dirty estimate that I knew would be low.

 

[Skwim]

You're more accurate, I did a quick and dirty estimate that I knew would be low.

And I had the time on my hands and bored beyond belief. Your estimate was just fine.

 

[Etritonakin]

There is always action and reaction yes. But this does not indicate design. Design, as defined by ID, is a created form of life with a plan on how to function. That there was a plan that humans would be made. Evolution talks about these reactions. I guess one might be able to say that evolution is the "creation of life as we know it through the natural processes over billions of years". But the term "creation" when used here does not denote an intentional path.

Though it should be noted that it may one day "scientifically" denote an intentional path if evidence is found to support it. We may believe our ability to design was not designed because we see no evidence thereof, but that may change.
As God is described as directly interfacing -acting by fiat (which would leave little if any direct evidence) -that would probably mean God revealing himself to all.
I can't remember who said it, but someone said something to the effect that life on earth and humanity might have been designed, but the designer would have had to evolve (just as we believe we evolved, but could possibly design life which was unaware of us).
From a religious viewpoint, the question then becomes whether or not God has been eternally aware, self-aware and capable of intent -or traveled to be.
Was God initially just the original, initial "action" and his environment "reaction" -whatever that may mean -and became more complex and capable as he interacted with everything -one day becoming aware of it and himself -then being able to plan? Or... has he always been of a designing nature?
Was he always able to say "I AM" -or has he always been, but was only able to do so after a certain point. Both would technically qualify as eternal, but has he been eternally the same to such a degree?
I find that I have to constantly review scripture to find out what it actually says and does not say -ignoring preconception as much as possible -as I learn more.
Melchizedek (also the Word who became Christ) is said to be without mother or father, beginning of days or end of life -but what does that truly mean and what does it leave unsaid?
I only have a short time to think about it as a human, so I hope to ask God one day.
It sure would speed things along.

 

[shawn001]

There is always action and reaction yes. But this does not indicate design. Design, as defined by ID, is a created form of life with a plan on how to function. That there was a plan that humans would be made. Evolution talks about these reactions. I guess one might be able to say that evolution is the "creation of life as we know it through the natural processes over billions of years". But the term "creation" when used here does not denote an intentional path.

And we both know ID, was religious creationism repackaged by the discover institute.

 

[shawn001]

Everest is 29,029 feet tall.

And there is an ancient fossil bed left from plate tectonics.

"At the tops of the highest peaks, like Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottoms of shallow tropical seas that are now over 25,000 feet above sea level."

The Geology of Mount Everest: World's Highest Mountain

 

[Ouroboros]

You're more accurate, I did a quick and dirty estimate that I knew would be low.

Not bad estimate, I'd say.

 

[Ouroboros]

And there is an ancient fossil bed left from plate tectonics.

"At the tops of the highest peaks, like Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottoms of shallow tropical seas that are now over 25,000 feet above sea level."

The Geology of Mount Everest: World's Highest Mountain

Pfft! It was put there by the flood! Duuuh!

 

[shawn001]

We know from ice core samples, ocean floor samples, anartica in places it hasn't rained in 14 million years and others like the Atacama desert where parts of it haven't had more then two inches in at least 23 million years there was no global flood. The last ice ages ended around ten thosand years ago and caused a lot of flooding around the world. There is lots of evidence left from these floods. The biggest in human history being the Glacial Lake Missoula and the Ice Age Floods, in the Pacific NW from a massive lake in Utah.


Glacial Lake Missoula and the Ice Age Floods
Flood Facts:

• The ice dam was over 2000 feet tall.
• Glacial Lake Missoula was as big as Lakes Erie and Ontario combined.
• The flood waters ran with the force equal to 60 Amazon Rivers.
• Car-sized boulders embedded in ice floated some 500 miles; they can still be seen today!

Glacial Lake Missoula and the Ice Age Floods


The Bible also has two stories of the flood.

"
Writers of the Bible

Biblical scholars since the 17th century have pointed to evidence that human writers, and in fact a number of different writers, composed the Bible. Mainstream Jewish and Christian organizations, including seminaries and rabbinical schools, generally embrace such scholarship—seeing the voice of God in a text compiled by human hands. In the following interview, Michael Coogan, Professor of Religious Studies at Stonehill College and Director of Publications for the Harvard Semitic Museum, offers insights into how scholars today understand how the first five books of the Bible were written.



What are some obvious inconsistencies, for instance in the Noah story?
In the story of the flood, in Genesis chapters 6 to 9, there seem to be two accounts that have been combined, and they have a number of inconsistencies. For example, how many of each species of animals is Noah supposed to bring into the ark? One text says two, a pair of every kind of animal. Another text says seven pairs of the clean animals and only two of the unclean animals.

[For more analysis of the flood story, see Who Wrote the Flood Story?.]

NOVA | Writers of the Bible


The weight as mention of that much water in the upper atmosphere would be 900 lbs per square inch, enough to crush anything. Not to mention it would cause an oxygen imbalance and life would suffocate.

It would also cause a tremendous amount of heat. .



.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Though it should be noted that it may one day "scientifically" denote an intentional path if evidence is found to support it. We may believe our ability to design was not designed because we see no evidence thereof, but that may change.
As God is described as directly interfacing -acting by fiat (which would leave little if any direct evidence) -that would probably mean God revealing himself to all.
I can't remember who said it, but someone said something to the effect that life on earth and humanity might have been designed, but the designer would have had to evolve (just as we believe we evolved, but could possibly design life which was unaware of us).
From a religious viewpoint, the question then becomes whether or not God has been eternally aware, self-aware and capable of intent -or traveled to be.
Was God initially just the original, initial "action" and his environment "reaction" -whatever that may mean -and became more complex and capable as he interacted with everything -one day becoming aware of it and himself -then being able to plan? Or... has he always been of a designing nature?
Was he always able to say "I AM" -or has he always been, but was only able to do so after a certain point. Both would technically qualify as eternal, but has he been eternally the same to such a degree?
I find that I have to constantly review scripture to find out what it actually says and does not say -ignoring preconception as much as possible -as I learn more.
Melchizedek (also the Word who became Christ) is said to be without mother or father, beginning of days or end of life -but what does that truly mean and what does it leave unsaid?
I only have a short time to think about it as a human, so I hope to ask God one day.
It sure would speed things along.

What kind of possible evidence could denote design?

And we both know ID, was religious creationism repackaged by the discover institute.

Yes. The proposal for creationism to be put in schools was rejected. They then kept the same document, edited some words and then re-submitted it.

 

[Sapiens]

What kind of possible evidence could denote design?


Yes. The proposal for creationism to be put in schools was rejected. They then kept the same document, edited some words and then re-submitted it.

and then lied about the process.

 

[shawn001]

The there were the death threats to the Judge and his family.

 

[Etritonakin]

What kind of possible evidence could denote design?

.

The designer, from what people have posted here. It may be correct to say that things could not have become so ordered and complex, etc., without a designer, but that which is correct is not necessarily confirmed.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The designer, from what people have posted here. It may be correct to say that things could not have become so ordered and complex, etc., without a designer, but that which is correct is not necessarily confirmed.

The problem is how would you know if it would "require" a designer? That is the pressing and inherent problem with ID.