I suppose if you are a believer then a god can do anything, but these ideas start to look less than intelligent designed universe at that point and more like plaything universe.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
intelligent design
- Thread starter bushidogrendel
- Start date
Only God according to Psalm [90v2] is from everlasting.....
So having a beginning or start does not mean it was like God from everlasting.
God has a purpose that the earth will exist forever. -Psalm 104v5
So if God were not to sustain the sun, then yes, like everything else wearing out they would also.
Just like clothing wears out [Psalm 102vs25,26] we replace them.
So, too God will replace them or renew them.
Even though the physical/material earth and heavens [sun/stars] are perishable, they could be destroyed if it were not God's purpose to maintain them.
Psalm 148v6.
I'm going to try and respond as best I can, because I'm not entirely sure why you're introducing macroevolution into the infinity argument.
First of all, I've been aware of social evolution since I first saw the relation of the circulatory system and the industry of homeostatic physiology. It's witnessed in single-cell organisms, further complicated by multi-cellular life forms, pushing onward to the first sub-aquatic colonies, and continuously copied up, and up, and up all the way to humans. We build roads to maintain commerce as veins and arteries form to transfer blood. Central hubs, some more valuable than others, palpitate ideas and laws and education that may breathe life into the organism we know today as humanity....if this is in any way along the lines you were referring, I'm glad I haven't wasted your time. The reason I'm detailing your argument further (if indeed I am,) is because I don't see it as infinite at all. I see it as a form of life unique to this planet alone. Our behavior and social character may, in truth, be dictated by billions of years of evolution (perhaps a system tried and true by nature through various organisms over such a long period of time,) but it is unique to this form of life. Maybe carbon-based life is the only life allowable in the universe? Maybe not.
When I reference the very big and the very small, I refer of course to numbers, inner space, and outer space. It's also been theorized by "fun-ologists" that there may be an infinite number of parallel universes where cause and effect split endlessly. It's wholly unobservable and practically worthless to spend time on, insofar as our current understanding is concerned, but as we delve deeper and deeper into the constituent parts of life, we find cells. Delve deeper, we find particles. Deeper still atoms, protons, electrons, nuclei. Eventually sub-atomic particles and quarks enter the discussion. Anti-matter, the space between space. It's like pi, it seems no matter how many steps forward we take, we're just not quite there. The same is true for Outer space. There is strong enough evidence to believe the universe is constantly expanding, and has done so for some 5 - 6 billion years. But will it expand endlessly? What's to stop it? Are we thinning? Or, at some point, will the universe collapse on itself to a size no larger than the head of a pin? Some time later, it may explode again and billions of years later, life may evolve on a gravity-formed rock like our own. So, now we look at Time as being infinite. Having no beginning, and essentially no end. Time, in fact, become useless, unless you want to meet up with someone.
I guess my point was, it doesn't take an infinite amount of time to accomplish the seemingly miraculous things life has naturally evolved into. Complex, sure. Almost non-conceivable, I agree. But here we are. And I've always felt that this argument -- I won't use the word "answer" or "explanation," is vastly more beautiful than the God argument.
I hope I made sense of something for you, haha. It is late, and I've had a few drinks.
Also...additional thought, energy is also considered infinite in many scientific circles. I'm no brilliant mathematician, so I can't expound on the idea, but I'm aware of it.
Last edited:
Yeshe Dawa
Lotus Born
Hi DinChild!
That's okay! Everyone's entitled to unwind.Thank you for your explanation. It was very thought provoking. The theory of evolution makes a lot of sense to my unscientific mind. I understand changes in morphology, the idea of common ancestry, changes in organisms in the fossil record, vestigial organs, and stuff like that. Where my understanding breaks down is how the big changes occured - like the example of going from no circulatory system to a circulatory system, or how ridiculously complex systems like the female reproductive system could have come about in stages. Maybe we just can't explain those things.
Thanks for indulging my questions!
Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:
Hi DinChild!
Thank you for your explanation. It was very thought provoking. The theory of evolution makes a lot of sense to my unscientific mind. I understand changes in morphology, the idea of common ancestry, changes in organisms in the fossil record, vestigial organs, and stuff like that. Where my understanding breaks down is how the big changes occured - like the example of going from no circulatory system to a circulatory system, or how ridiculously complex systems like the female reproductive system could have come about in stages. Maybe we just can't explain those things.
Thanks for indulging my questions!
Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:
You seem to be having issues with what is commonly referred to as irreducible complexity. As in, a device that needs all of it's parts to function as it does. Considering we can't physically see most of these come to be, only theories can be presented to explain. I personally have found that in many situations the best way to look at something that seems "irreducibly complex" is to try to think about the parts and not the object. We get stuck in the mindset that this device cannot function without all it's parts and therefore must've began this way. However, it can be helpful to think of the parts and note, what could this have been if that part wasn't here. One example is that of the Flagellum that is brought up very often in creationism debates. Creationists will argue that the flagellum needs all it's parts to act as a motor and therefoure must've been created that way. However, there is an interesting theory out there that suggests that the flagellum was originally a secretory gland and developed other parts through evolutionary means giving it the ability of a motor.
A segment from wikipedia's page on irreducible complexity:
"They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as Salmonella and Yersinia pestis use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work.[66] Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless."
-(I'd post the link but the site won't let me post URLs unless i've made 15 posts : \ )
I hope that this helps you think about it differently and maybe come to some realization about the systems you question.
-Benhamine
Yeshe Dawa
Lotus Born
Hi Benhamine!
Ahhh yes! Finally! And it even has a name! Thank you so much! Thank you for taking the time to write such a nice explanation. As soon as I figure out how this frubal thing works I will shower you with them! Until then here are some flowers :flower::flower::flower:
I will now go research this "irreducible complexity".
Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:
Hi DinChild!
Thank you for your explanation. It was very thought provoking. The theory of evolution makes a lot of sense to my unscientific mind. I understand changes in morphology, the idea of common ancestry, changes in organisms in the fossil record, vestigial organs, and stuff like that. Where my understanding breaks down is how the big changes occured - like the example of going from no circulatory system to a circulatory system, or how ridiculously complex systems like the female reproductive system could have come about in stages. Maybe we just can't explain those things.
Thanks for indulging my questions!
Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:
My head's a little clearer now, and I think I can offer you some food for thought.
To go from no system to a fully-functioning system doesn't take a single chance. Most likely (and in my opinion), millions of mutations all across the biological board occurred perhaps at once, at random, and maybe even often. It's my understanding that we currently undergo mutations all the time, but nothing that actually explodes into a new paradigm. On the evolutionary time-scale, it's doubtful we will. But we can consider the small things. And although they're "small," they are actually quite big in concept.
One such example Benhamine has already presented; the flagellum. I might offer an addendum. You may look at a lot of these functions as "unifunctional." That they burst onto the scene for a sole purpose, and the entire engine of life seemed to run. Consider the cilia. Both motile and immotile (primary) cilia. Where motile cilia, let's say in mammals, can be found in our trachea. Tiny hairs, protuberances that push and move, essentially carry dust particles -- foreign material, up through the mucous lining back to the mouth.
Primary cilia exist on nearly every cell in our body. Cilia and eukaryotic flagella is a sort of cytoskeleton. Without going into too much detail, we call it axoneme. Basically, a structure that gives and maintains its shape and allows it to bend. While flagella are larger than cilia, they act similar to cilia, and in both undulate to move cells. Cilia accomplish many other tasks within the cell structure, but you get the idea.
I'm wondering if you believe both these very similar (in function and structure) devices evolved together, or if the flagella is, maybe not more advanced, but carries the "spirit" of an ancestor (cilia.)
Another small, but large step in cell biology evolution was the prokaryote to eukaryote leap. I'm speaking of the development of a nucleus. There are several big theories for the construction of this inner-building, but each theory holds up with some form of empirical evidence. For example, and my biology is very rusty, assume there were a doomed evolutionary stage. In fact, we sometimes see these in simpler life-forms. Species that evolve and become extinct on their own. A closed-end evolutionary cul-de-sac, as George Carlin once put it. In this case, a sort of proto-eukaryotic cell evolved from a bacteria without an endosymbiotic stage. If I remember correctly, endosymbiosis is the theory of free-living bacteria being taken into other cells. Look up Planctomycetes. This is essentially a complex (for prokaryotes) cell wall made up of wholly different components. While it acts like a nucleus, in that it's a form of protection, it isn't. They're more primitive.
Essentially, the nucleus and the eukaryote won that battle, and a millenia later here we are! I wonder, if many years down the road, what life would have been like if HD-DVD prevailed over Blu-Ray. Or would it be merely forgotten...most likely. Damn, that was a long-winded response. Sorry! Hope this helps, and my information isn't too off.
Yeshe Dawa
Lotus Born
Hi DinChild!
I liked your response last night just fine - very philosophical! in vino veritas...
Your explanation is wonderful and after talking to you and Benhamine I feel much less confused. I had heard of the idea of other organisms working their way into other cells in connection with mitochondria, but not with nuclei - thank you for explaining that.
Thanks again for taking the time to explain science to me!
Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:
If I may take the liberty to add: 'Create' in what sense? Are they right?
I have heard some believe the earth will be destroyed and we'll get a new one. That idea comes from 2nd Peter. But if we look at chapter 3, I think we can discern what Peter meant for us.
Verse 5 mentions the heavens and earth of 'old'
Meaning: the earth at the time of Noah's day.
Verse 7 mentions the heavens and earth that are 'now'
Meaning from the Flood to our day.
Verse 13 mentions the heavens and earth that are 'new'
Meaning the promise in connection to Rev [21v5] 'all things new'.
Those new things mean, as Peter wrote in verse 7, destruction of ungodly.
Psalm 92v7 mentions annihilation or destruction of the wicked forever.
So, the earth will be 'new' because all wickedness will forever be gone.
Can't Revelation [11v18 B] be of comfort because it indicates we do not have to save the earth because God will bring to ruin those ruining the earth for us.
-Rev 19v15; Isaiah 11v4.
Yeshe Dawa
Lotus Born
Hi URAVIP2ME!
I really don't know. I just know that the fundamental Baptists where I grew up believed that the Bible was to be taken literally and understood the passage in Revelation that says "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away," to mean that the old ones would be destroyed and a new set would be made. I have no idea if they are right, but as my spirituality is about as far from fundamentalist Christian as you can get, I am guessing - no. At least in the literal sense. That said, I am sure those who hold such a belief are very sincere in their love of God and are very diligent following their spiritual path. The beauty of spirituality is that there are so many paths.
Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:
Last edited:
logician
Well-Known Member
These, of course, are posits that theists have no good answer for. That's why they say their belief is based upon faith, not reason.
It sounds like you are furiously agreeing with me. But I doubt it.
As I said, the evidence for the Bible's divine authorship is available to those willing to examine the evidence. The evidence for an invisible Creator is also abundant to those not blinded by their fidelity to the shifting sands of men's theories and self-seeking advocates of falsely called 'science'.
Really? Are you serious? I will leave it to each reader to consider the merits of your position, without further comment.
It would seem that to believe in evolution, one must not speak from reason.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
If there's a flaw in my logic, please point it out.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
As I said, all you do is stand around making bold unsubstantiated claims...
bushidogrendel
Member
i am honest in agreeing that a simple structure opens the possibility of a designer.
you, however are dishonest in disagreeing that a more complex structure greatly increases the chances of a designer.
given that anyone with half a brain understands this concept. it can only be intellectual dishonesty on your part to find it more likely that the more complex structure has NO designer.
now go run and hide.
outhouse
Atheistically
there is zero evidence for divine authorship.
There is a mountain of evidence ancient man put pen to paper to explain the natural world around him he knew nothing about.
There is zero evidence that a sky daddy created anything.
in the end all "YOU" have is faith in a ancient book that we know man wrote.
outhouse
Atheistically
is that why they teach evolution in every major university thoughout the whole world as higher education????
Does it bother you creation is outlawed from public schools?, they treat it like a disease and keep it from poisoning young minds by isolating it from learning minds. Deep down does it bother you your belief is outlawed ??