Intelligent design, my version.

[gnostic]

"In other words...".

Thanks.

 

[Christ's Prophet]

Evolution is not getting rid of God, God or any other deities are IRRELEVANT.
If we look at every other branches of science (physics, chemistry, biology, etc), and every fields of those branches (like electromagneticism, relativity, optics in physics), none of the theory that we used in whatever science textbooks that we used today, mention anything about God, spirits, angels or heaven and hell, because they are NOT RELEVANT in understanding those fields.
Have you ever study (non-evolutionary) science subject before, prophet?
Did any of these (non-evolutionary) subjects give you a lesson in understanding about god?
If not, then why should evolution even mention creationism or creator?
I am more of engineer than scientist, but my civil engineering course did require me to have physics background with some chemistry. Much of it, were about motion and forces, or understand the physical properties of construction materials (like steel, concrete, and even wood). Or learn about hydrodynamics, with regarding to water or sewer pipes. I had also learn some of the basics of geology, for foundation and how to test soil, etc.
None of these subjects that I had taken with this course, required me know about god or about religion, because god and religion irrelevant.

Do you think we would need to study religion, creationism or theology, to learn about constructing public buildings, bridges or roads?
Do you think praying to god will magically or miraculously lay out pipelines or road network?​

But let's get back to evolution.
Understanding evolution has given us a greater understanding of biology of all life, whether it be animals, plants or microorganism, like viruses, bacterias. It also give us greater understanding of diseases.
Let face it, evolution is a field about biology.
What does creationism or the bible (or any other scriptures) teach people about biology? Does the bible teach anything about the human body?
If the bible teaches nothing about biology, then what bl@@dy use is creationism?
And here is the thing, Christ's Prophet. Evolution is not a study of origin of first life, and any of the theories (not just Darwin's Natural Selection) ever teach about origin of life, so how is it actually being anti-theism?
If you want to study or understand about scientific theory on the origin of life, then you are arguing against the wrong theory. The theory on the origin of life on Earth, is biochemistry subject called - ABIOGENESIS.
Abiogenesis and evolution are two different subjects, focusing on two fundamental fields.
Evolution is focused more on biological changes or adaption, or on biodiversity, whether it because of environmental effects (natural selection) or because of migration into or out of population (gene flow).
Abiogenesis on the other hand, scientists are trying to determine how life came to be, and what chemical formed biological life. They actually know what chemical make up organism, but what conditions made life possible. This is not evolution.
Creationism is not science, and shouldn't be treated as science, because it come from mythological and superstitious belief and books.
You wrote: And God being witness is based on what?
It is based on belief of book, that wasn't written till the Iron Age, borrowing ideas from older Bronze Age civilizations, the Old Babylonian literary and myths, and from an even older Sumerian myths.
It was traditionally believe that Moses wrote the Genesis, except we don't have any written records in the late Bronze Age by any Israelite. And Genesis wasn't written at the same time, in fact, it wasn't written by the same author.

My reply:-
Let me tell you a story. There was a gardener who loved his king, so the gardener went to the King and presented to the King his best produce. The King said ‘Well done, I want to give you additional land so that you can grow even more produce.’ The gardener was thrilled at this. But there was a Prince who was there in the king’s court, who said to himself’ well if I brought to the King my best horse, what will the king give me?’ The prince hatched this plan to be advanced in the kingdom. So the prince brought to the king his best horse, expecting to find favour with the king. But the king was awake to what the prince was up to. The king said ‘you are foolish because you thought you could get big favours from me. The gardener was rewarded because he loved me from the heart, but you are only interested in what you could get for yourself.’ The prince was therefore dismissed from the kings’ court.
God is interested in your heart toward earnestly seeking him. God is not interested in how much you know. He is not interested in your resume. You are not applying for a job. I unmistakably sense your anger and frustration in ascertaining that science cannot prove the Bible. To some extent you are right? Why? Because science is physically based in this world, that is what you see, repeated experiments, what you can smell or touch or what can be analysed in a laboratory or on a computer. The Bible is not thus, because it is Spiritual. It is in a different dimension. You cannot get a spirit of man or the Spirit of God and stick it in a test tube and play with it to your heart’s content. What you must understand is that science, no matter how advanced it is, is only finding out about God’s laws after Him; laws which He already has put in place from the beginning of time. The question needs to be asked ‘You have much knowledge, but do you have wisdom?’ Are you merely looking at the ‘created’ for your answers, instead to the Creator? The Apostle Paul talked about such a problem:-
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is TO THEM THAT PERISH, FOOLISHNESS; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
and again
1 Corinthians 1:26:- For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
If you understand any of this, it is because God has given you the understanding. So I am praying that you can understand what has been written. May you find peace? Christ’s prophet. Certainty for eternity.

 

[shawn001]

I'm sorry, couldn't resist.

The predatory instincts of the biology on the planet are taken for granted. Animals can be affected by how a person behaves around them which comes from the persons state of mind or overall the spirit of the person.
I am uncertain if predation begins from the mind of man or the mind of man is ruled by an effect around the planet.

Noah had the Spirit of God and His mind would have been very quiet and he would have had no apparent aggressiveness. Food intake can be much less in this state of mind.

Isa 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

There are two versions one with two animals and one with seven?


"The predatory instincts of the biology on the planet are taken for granted. Animals can be affected by how a person behaves around them which comes from the persons state of mind or overall the spirit of the person.
I am uncertain if predation begins from the mind of man or the mind of man is ruled by an effect around the planet."

"predatory instincts of the biology on the planet "are WELL UNDERSTOOD. We are an animals, we just happen to be omnivores.

"Animals can be affected by how a person behaves around them which comes from the persons state of mind or overall the spirit of the person."

Lions take that into consideration before they attack you?

 

[AllanV]

There are two versions one with two animals and one with seven?


"The predatory instincts of the biology on the planet are taken for granted. Animals can be affected by how a person behaves around them which comes from the persons state of mind or overall the spirit of the person.
I am uncertain if predation begins from the mind of man or the mind of man is ruled by an effect around the planet."

"predatory instincts of the biology on the planet "are WELL UNDERSTOOD. We are an animals, we just happen to be omnivores.

"Animals can be affected by how a person behaves around them which comes from the persons state of mind or overall the spirit of the person."

Lions take that into consideration before they attack you?

Why are humans animals? Adam took on a biology and immortality was hidden from him.
Remember the story about Daniel and the lions den? A person with God's Spirit is not a threat and there is nothing predatory in the consciousness at all.
The person with God's Spirit is gentle, giving and demands nothing.

 

[shawn001]

Why are humans animals? Adam took on a biology and immortality was hidden from him.
Remember the story about Daniel and the lions den? A person with God's Spirit is not a threat and there is nothing predatory in the consciousness at all.
The person with God's Spirit is gentle, giving and demands nothing.

Why are humans animals?

Your not actually asking that as a question are you?

I do know the story and a shame the women and children were killed as well.

 

[AllanV]

Why are humans animals?

Your not actually asking that as a question are you?

I do know the story and a shame the women and children were killed as well.

If an over view of the scriptures is taken they are interesting.

An experience of God at 26 years showed exactly where God is.
I was energized and the mind of an immortal with much knowledge was shown as a comparison to mine.
God is not and object at all, humans make idols. Idols are stumbling blocks, that is what the word means, and opinions are included.
God energizes everything into existence immediately and instantly all the time.
We have our being and presence in God. God wears light as a garment.

 

[shawn001]

If an over view of the scriptures is taken they are interesting.

An experience of God at 26 years showed exactly where God is.
I was energized and the mind of an immortal with much knowledge was shown as a comparison to mine.
God is not and object at all, humans make idols. Idols are stumbling blocks, that is what the word means, and opinions are included.
God energizes everything into existence immediately and instantly all the time.
We have our being and presence in God. God wears light as a garment.

Yes, its interesting that the bible God let the women and children be killed in that story?

 

[AllanV]

Yes, its interesting that the bible God let the women and children be killed in that story?

God is and energizing Spirit.

When you drink some alcohol would you blame that if you drove and had an accident killing someone.

 

[shawn001]

God is and energizing Spirit.

When you drink some alcohol would you blame that if you drove and had an accident killing someone.

Not a good analogy, for God let the women and children be killed in that story?

 

[AllanV]

Not a good analogy, for God let the women and children be killed in that story?

God is an energizing Spirit and He speaks through the prophets.

 

[shawn001]

so what version are you going with two of every kind or seven?

"
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."

NOVA | Writers of the Bible

"
WHAT TO NOTICE:
In the first place, it is significant that it is possible to separate the text into two continuous stories like this. And it is even more significant that we can find this throughout the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Five Books of Moses. Thus:

The P text here always calls the deity "God" (16 times). The J text always calls the deity by the proper name "YHWH" (10 times).

The P text uses the word "expired." The J text uses the word "died."

In J, it rains for 40 days and nights, and the water recedes for 40 days. In P, the whole process adds up to a calendar year.

In J, Noah releases a dove. In P, he releases a raven.

P has two of each species of animal, a male and a female. J has 14 (seven pairs) of each species of the pure animals (animals that may be sacrificed) and only two of the animals that are not pure. This is important because J ends the story with Noah making a sacrifice—so he needs more than two of each animal or he would make a species extinct!

P has details of cubits, dates, and ages. J does not.

In J, God is personal and involved: known by a personal name ("YHWH"), personally closing the ark, personally smelling Noah's sacrifice, described as "grieved to his heart." In P, God's name is not yet known ("God," in Hebrew Elohim, is not a name; it is what God is), and there are none of the anthropomorphic descriptions that are found in J."

NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Who Wrote the Flood Story? | PBS

 

[gnostic]

God is interested in your heart toward earnestly seeking him. God is not interested in how much you know. He is not interested in your resume. You are not applying for a job. I unmistakably sense your anger and frustration in ascertaining that science cannot prove the Bible.

My frustration is not about using science trying to prove the bible, but with ignorant or dishonest creationists tried to use the bible and masquerading it as "science".

My problem is with creationists who don't know what they are talking about, especially when they attempt to debate about "science", or worse, when they resort to deception, such as misinformation (distortion of materials used), selective cut-and-paste that leave details out.

 

[Christ's Prophet]

My frustration is not about using science trying to prove the bible, but with ignorant or dishonest creationists tried to use the bible and masquerading it as "science".
My problem is with creationists who don't know what they are talking about, especially when they attempt to debate about "science", or worse, when they resort to deception, such as misinformation (distortion of materials used), selective cut-and-paste that leave details out.

My reply
When I talk about creation, I usually listen to the experts such as Mr John Mackay (qualified Geologist) of Creation Research, or Creation Science or Creation Ministries (I get their regular magazines). Such people know what they are talking about. May God’s Spirit be upon you and give you peace. Christ’s prophet. Certainty for eternity.

 

[AllanV]

Why are humans animals?

Your not actually asking that as a question are you?

I do know the story and a shame the women and children were killed as well.

Dan 6:24 And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces or ever they came at the bottom of the den.

Obviously that king had a murderous bent and he was going to kill someone.

Actually there may be an analogy there, perhaps it is more about the fate of the accuser of a prophet.

 

[Sapiens]

My reply
When I talk about creation, I usually listen to the experts such as Mr John Mackay (qualified Geologist) of Creation Research, or Creation Science or Creation Ministries (I get their regular magazines). Such people know what they are talking about. May God’s Spirit be upon you and give you peace. Christ’s prophet. Certainty for eternity.

Creation Ministries International, What's in a name?

Inherit the windbags Mackay and the AIG

'nuf said.

 

[shawn001]

My reply
When I talk about creation, I usually listen to the experts such as Mr John Mackay (qualified Geologist) of Creation Research, or Creation Science or Creation Ministries (I get their regular magazines). Such people know what they are talking about. May God’s Spirit be upon you and give you peace. Christ’s prophet. Certainty for eternity.

Here is something that happened over here you should watch, since it included some of the people you follow.

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

If you can't watch it there is a transcript.

 

[Ouroboros]

The Hebrew God based Genesis on 100% science: it does take that long for the earth to be as it is today from a scientific view. Genesis is the first writing that that said the universe is finite with a beginning, that the first product was a duality of light & darkness, then separated.

Zoroastrian and the Sumerian creation stories have similar creation stories. They're just as old, if not older. Sumer must be older than the Jewish tradition simply because Ur, where Abram came from, was supposedly Sumerian. Where did he get his story from you wonder?

That is also how the first life form began:

"Male and female created He them" - then they were separated as male and female. No other way to allow a life to output both or either gender; the first had to be dual-gendered. It is also why the Big Bang Theory must be re-evaluated to express it began with a duality: no action is possible with one single entity - there is nothing to interact with.

It has to be re-evaluated to fit the Bible? Uhm... That's the wrong approach. Science works from natural observations, not Biblical assumptions (as the anti-scientists do).

That we have an ancient writing that even 'THINKS' in the Genesis mode in the time of mythical head-bashing deities and divine kings is fantastic. Not meriting ridicule.

Nah. There were others. Actually, it seems like all societies of any size had their own creation myths with some kind of "beginning".

 

[Ouroboros]

Because it would not be science w/o a cause & effect premise. And by the process of elimination in a finite universe there can be no scientific alternatives to a universe maker. Name one?

Multiverse, ekpyrotic, m-branes, 4D collapsing star, many others. They all are based on time outside of our time.

If cause&effect are something natural, was it created by God? Did God cause the "cause&effect" to come into existence before "cause" existed? It creates the infamous recursive definition, or infinite regression in more popular terms.

I agree that science must be thought free of religion. However, I do think it ok for a bottom post note that says there is a premise called Creationism. Genesis spurred science with the first translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek in 300 BCE, which is called THE SEPTUAGINT. It changed the mind of man, it is the only scripture that never said the earth is flat, and gave us our first scientific equation:

Then we should have all other 300 creation stories mentioned as well. That would fit for its own class... wait, it could be called: Comparative Religion. I think I've seen that class around...

"A seed shall follow its own kind."

Yeah. Life kind.

 

[Ouroboros]

Actually the ark is not large enough even if it was a global flood.

If we would have to put every "kind" on there, we'd need space for some hundred thousand animals. Not to forget insects, bacteria, yeast, and many other necessary parts of the ecosystem. Where did insects come from? All the hundreds of thousands of species (actually, ca 950,000 of them). That's a big undertaking to put on there. What about all the microbiotic flora that we all need, and animals as well, but of different kinds. Actually, it would be a great feat if this was possible, because there's been experiments trying to create closed ecosystems, but it's very, very unstable.

Dogs, wolves, cats, and big cats, bears and crocodiles, birds of prey, just to list a few, are all meat eaters.

Which reminds me of the problem of "kinds". Was the birds one kind or multiple kinds? They had doves and raven. Are they two different kinds or the same bird kind?

 

[Azihayya]

You can call it Intelligent Design all you want. But that isn't Intelligent Design. That is not what the ID-Groups support.

So you're telling me what Intelligent Design is? I don't care that you're taking the source from what ID-Groups suggest- in this scenario, my freedom to interpret the idea of Intelligent Design is hindered by YOUR definition of Intelligent Design, and your will to tell me what is and what is not the definition of ID.

So this is how you debate... If I can learn anything from this, it's that I can always stereotype groups together as long as I don't know of any conflicting group based on a similar premise. That's pretty much ALL that your post suggests, if it suggests anything, while considering it in its entirety.

Anyhow, just a personal remark from me that your posts are extremely satisfying and exactly what I enjoy reading here. Interesting? Check! Insightful? Check! And my favorite part about it- so personal! I can read your passion emanating from your words!