Where do Proponents Of Intelligent Design Propose the Designer Came From?

[1robin]

No. Those in Christ -the dead and the living at that time -are made immortal at his return -and reign a thousand years with him on earth.

The rest of the dead live after the the thousand years and are judged according to their works.

1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord

So far I do not disagree on any point.

Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.

You realize this is one of the most debated areas of eschatology there is I hope. I have never been a premillennial, postmillennial, or on any other side of that debate. I am only interested in the final tally. However I do not find anything in here which contradicts anything I have said. Maybe I misunderstood your question. My disagreement was with your idea that the ungodly are resurrected it immortality. Not with who sleeps and who is raised when or during what periods.

 

[Shad]

Yeah into something what you wish to see but what is in fact not on that post in any form.

Irrelevent as the way you constructed your arguments implies as much.

No I did not, and never have. Find any statement where my claim to faith is ever stated to be "hedged" upon a book or set of books. However that was not the issue. It was the rejection of learning from books I dismissed.

Learning truth from books you claimed which is revolves around a particular book which you view as containing truth which is the basis of your faith. However this "true" knowledge from scripture is not the same as other books which have nothing to do with religion such as chemistry.

Incorrect, the context is established by the opening statement within any given context. Your responses should reflect that context.

Again I am not obligated to follow fallacious thinking which used as support for an opening statement.

We are not talking about the same thing. One hand we have very emphatic criteria made by the founder of a faith which states what criteria a person must meet in order to be a true follower of that person. If I started a cult called the yellow car owners of America and established exactly what wavelengths of the light spectrum your car, and what percentage must be covered in that color paint to truly belong to my cult that would be a silly idea but not a fallacy. The true Scotsman fallacy is not of this type because the first Scot did not lay down any such emphatic claims which make them open for any subjective criteria, nor has there been and Scot capable of establishing any objective criteria as to what one is. It could even be argued that Jesus being God laid down the most objective criteria even uttered. However I even allowed for his being a nut case in which what a Christian is no longer has any relevance. They are not the same at all. I also think your hopelessly lost in all the verses about what "should" be true of a Christian from a man's imperfect point of view. It is true a Christian should be gentle, generous, sober, meek, etc...... but that is not what makes anyone a Christian nor is it said to be. You do not become a Christian by merit, you become one by first admitting your merit will not earn heaven, and that the only payment to make one a Christian has already been made. We become a true Christian by merely accepting it and are born again as the result. Look at the process.

Pure sophistry as you again hedge you views on "It could even be argued that Jesus being God laid down the most objective criteria even uttered." a position of faith nothing more. Again you are repeating Protestant views, justification by faith rather than works and faith as Catholicism follows thus you have already began defining "true" Christian from an ideological prospective of particular branches of Christianity you happen to follow.

The judgment:
God opens the book of life. Anyone's name not found within is cast into Hell.
The bible says as many as were born again (saved) names were written into the book of life.
Not those who did a good deed, lived a moral life, or wore a popes vestments.

Again repeating justification of faith which is a Protestant view.

I am too busy being buried under a pile of misused and irrelevant fallacies shoveled by your side as fast as you read inconvenient posts.

I used no fallacy but pointed out your continued use of flawed reasoning in order to support previously flawed reasoning. Your point has no merit.

Your inability or unwillingness to scrutinize your arguments before posting said argument is an excuse, nothing more. It has no merit when it comes to poking holes in your argument due to your fallacious reasoning.

All those who's names are not found in the book of life, by being born again, are unbelievers as far as God is concerned. It is the difference between believing in the theory of drag, and aerodynamics, and taking that leap out of the door at 15,000. I will give you a more appropriate example or two. When Jesus spoke more on being born again he was talking to one of the most moral and educated of the Jewish Rabbi's. Now if superficial faith could make one approved of God, or if devotion, standing, moral excellence, etc...... could make one approved of by God then Nicodemus was the man. He had even risked death to talk to Christ while the rest of his ilk plotted to destroy him. Yes Jesus told him, "what your a Pharisee a teacher and you do not even understand spiritual rebirth. IOW ho can you claim to be a highly thought of priest of God and not know this most basic of teachingings

Which is simply a position of faith while refusing to call it such.

Adding a fallacy to another misused fallacy does not make the first any more applicable.

I will take that as a big fat "NO" then. Since this will be an unending and infinitely boring misused fallacy after fallacy that I have to show are misused only to have you implore more misused fallacy's to attempt to rescue I don't think this warrants much more attention.

Irrelevant sophistry.

 

[Parsimony]

Using reply does not include everything contained within your post. All that shows up is just your replies with no reference to what you are specifically replying too.

Alright, if that makes it more convenient for you.

And fitness cannot affect how the process happens. Fitness can only possibly have an affect on which organisms survive. What does survive cannot change how changes occur (random mutation) in the first place nor can it affect the selection process. The only dependence between evolution and dna is that dna must exist in order for the hypothetical process of evolution to act on.

I think I get you now. Maybe.

Keep in mind I am specifically discussing the 'defined' process of evolution not what you or anyone else feels it could be redefined as. When the process of evolution is redefined and taught in schools with that revision as I'm sure it will be at some future point in order to fit the evidence then I would be inclined to review its new rationalities.

Some parts of it as currently understood probably are wrong, just as with every other scientific theory.

Current evolutionary thought may not be at odds with it now but, it has historically been against it. A good reference here would be Lamarck since it was his concept that such a thing was possible to begin with. Now many decades later science is finding that there may be some truth in his assertions even though it was initially rejected based on the evidence. Isn't it amazing how evidence seems to be not so evidential as time passes. Which of course raises the question of whether currently held evidence that seem to back evolutionary thought may later be found to not be evidence.

The same thing could be said of not only all of the sciences, but also of every aspect of life. Any knowledge we have could prove to be wrong in the future.

Chemicals will always have their distinctive properties and the same impact on each reaction type. They have no choice. They cannot rearrange their atomic makeup and still be the same chemicals.

Yes, dna can contain information to rearrange itself to produce different results and it still remains dna much like a computer or robot program can be designed to modify itself based on any number of parameters and still be a program.

No. Chemicals have static functionality that cannot be changed from within the chemical itself. Living things have genes which can initiate changes from within itself to provide all different types of functionality. Apples and oranges. Don't you comprehend the complexity difference between them? Apparently you don't see the problem making an analogy between a simple lever and the space shuttle, from your perspective these would essentially be the same type of things.

Okay, before I continue with this analogy, I need to know whether or not I understand your position correctly. I'm not sure that I do. Does your position boil down to "if we don't understand the first step in a process, then we can't understand any of the following steps either" or is it something else?

I am positing self-mutation which is quite similar to how an intelligently designed program works. A programmed can be designed from its inception to sense specific things and then initiate changes in form or action to respond to those changes. Further, there is also the probability that the self-mutation program initiates changes without any outside influence simply to create variety. You should consider the level of complexity that such a program would need to contain in order for function to be realized and if it came into existence without the aid of the proposed evolutionary mechanisms then how much dependence would it have on survivability by those same mechanisms?

In the end random mutation would have no meaning for survivability and selection would be simply be an effect already accounted for in the design of the programming.

Selection accounted for? Only if each and every single mutation is designed-in and beneficial, which they aren't. Otherwise we wouldn't have mutation-based diseases. Selection pressures are very much responsible for rooting out the bad ones.

If your unsure that such a thing is possible you should consider how our bodies fight diseases via the adaptive immune system.

Yes, it is pretty amazing. Hypermutation.

I did not say that "chemicals are not multi-component systems" I did however say that "Chemicals are not multi-component systems with abilities to change their own functionality" and I was specific about a chemical being able to "change their own functionality". There is no implication anywhere in my wording about reacting with anything else. If you want to continue this discussion don't play with the clear intent of the words being used.

It was not my intention to misconstrue your words, but I do understand what you meant now.

What you mean is that the robots you know about "don't have the traits required to evolve" and who says that they must be "the way living things do"?

Look what can be achieved by intelligent design ---- Engineers have developed a robotic system that can evolve and improve its performance. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33867941
Even now intelligent agents are creating multi-component systems with programming that can exhibit similar existence properties of life even to the point where they assert that they can "evolve". Imagine that an intelligently designed formation that can "appear" to evolve without any outside assistance during its operation.

Yes, I was making reference to robots that I was currently aware of. Whether or not one would assume that a robot on Mars evolved or not would be heavily-dependent upon the specifics. Do they reproduce with variation? Are they subject to selective pressures? Can we find other robots (both active and preserved) on Mars to compare their characteristics with?

I don't know if these types of changes of heart exist in any meaningful proportion of people who claimed to have been born again. It is as if a person was deathly sick and all the traditional meds had failed, out of desperation she went to Tibet and came to believe that the disease (lets say cancer) that was eating her away could be cured by one of their elaborate rituals. Lets say she comes to believe it so much that she participates in them and literally comes home from Tibet without any noticeable sign of tumors or cancer. Then 20 years later decided it must have actually been the exercise, the clean water, or food that cured her. She then decides that the Buddhism is false and the nation of Tibet does not even exist. I would say the best explanation for that is that she is getting senile.

It depends on what caused her to stop believing. If it was because other religions had done the same things for other people, then she could have still had her healing experience while doubting the veracity of that religion if it claimed that it was the only one, true religion. I'm not sure how she would decide that Tibet doesn't exist from that, however.

If your asking if a born again person can lose their faith and still make it to heaven. I would say yes.

New International Version
if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

The idea of a person who lost their faith living like a sinner and still getting into Heaven seems to go against the whole "a tree is known by their fruit" concept.

BTW I see you consider your self a Christian. Would you think God was just and righteous if you did exactly as Christ commanded when he said "you must be born again" and were born again. Then six months later had a car crash which gave you permanent amnesia?

Presumably, the Holy Spirit wouldn't be dependent upon what I can or can't remember from the past in order to witness to my heart. Even if I couldn't remember being saved, I should still experience the life style change that came from salvation since the Holy Ghost is still within me. I only think He would leave me if I made the conscious decision to reject Him or if I stopped loving Him.

If your method of salvation includes merit of any kind, type, and is not grace and grace alone. Please spell out the details of your own salvation model. Many times the inevitability or necessity of a thing is better seen when it is compared to a thing when which exposed reveals massive faults, self contradictions, and irrational features. I do not merely claim that salvation comes by grace alone I claim it is the only coherent and rational means by which it could.

To me, it's more a matter of "doing good deeds because you are saved" and not "doing good deeds to become saved".

BTW you said something was testable, what was it, and how is it tested?

I mean the claim that a person who had a life-changing salvation experience can never lose their faith. If someone had a life-changing salvation experience and later lost their faith, it would be evidence against the claim. I'm not saying I know anyone personally like that, but that possibility does still remain.

 

[Etritonakin]

So far I do not disagree on any point.

You realize this is one of the most debated areas of eschatology there is I hope. I have never been a premillennial, postmillennial, or on any other side of that debate. I am only interested in the final tally. However I do not find anything in here which contradicts anything I have said. Maybe I misunderstood your question. My disagreement was with your idea that the ungodly are resurrected it immortality. Not with who sleeps and who is raised when or during what periods.

The most important thing to realize is that God wants everyone to live forever.

However, "forever" cannot be inhabited by the ungodly -or forever will be a miserable mess.

All are ungodly -but those resurrected to immortality are those who are willing to obey God.

When God first makes them willing, then God can make them godly.

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Even the "godly" are quite ungodly, and only by the grace of God are they resurrected to life.

The "godly" did not make themselves godly -God made them godly -first.

The "godly" are the willing to be like God -but God made them willing -first.

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Jas 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

We see that those who are called first are then used in the service of calling others to God.

The Jews are God's chosen people -to begin to bring all people to God -and God first judged them. So it is with spiritual Israel -the "godly" -of any lineage.

Saul -also eventually known as Paul -was quite ungodly. The church of God feared him. God judged him. God began to make him godly. The judgment of God is toward life.

Act 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Act 7:57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
Act 7:58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.
Act 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Act 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
Act 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
Act 8:2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
Act 8:3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
Act 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

Act 9:26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.

The will of God is that the final tally be all alive -and none dead.

There is an ultimatum. Ungodliness will not be given immortality. The judgment of God is to bring all to a point of understanding and willingness -every man in order -to be made godly.

Saul was not only ungodly, but an enemy of God and his people.

God loved his enemy.

If you can realize that God's will is that the prodigal son parable apply even to the devil -then you can understand that God's mercy never fails.

He cannot make the decision for any -but the judgment of God is to bring all to the correct decision.

If they utterly refuse -they can be destroyed -but we do not know whether or not God is able to bring all to make the correct decision.

Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

 

[KBC1963]

.Some parts of it as currently understood probably are wrong, just as with every other scientific theory.
The same thing could be said of not only all of the sciences, but also of every aspect of life. Any knowledge we have could prove to be wrong in the future.

If that were true then theory as currently used has no meaning beyond a hypothesis if we cannot trust the interpretation of evidence by scientific method. There is either sufficient evidence to make it a theory or there is not. Physical sciences do not appear to have any of these problems and they are quite well substantiated by a plethora of repeatable testing methods and predictions that can be confirmed in real time. The evolutionary concept on the other hand tries to determine a historical occurrence which cannot be tested by scientific method and as we can see quite clearly it makes many erroneous predictions (junk dna, random mutation, etc. etc.)

Okay, before I continue with this analogy, I need to know whether or not I understand your position correctly. I'm not sure that I do. Does your position boil down to "if we don't understand the first step in a process, then we can't understand any of the following steps either" or is it something else?

Essentially if you don't know what was contained in the first genes then its an entire crap shoot of guessing with no recourse by scientific method to ascertain whether a specific property of information we see exhibited now was there from the beginning. First If the first genes were not in a single ancestor but rather in a multitude of first ancestors how could this be derived? what testing could reveal this information? Secondly if the first genes had the ability from the beginning to form a multitude of variants without the need for outside influence and passed that on to every offspring then of what need is there for the assumption of random mutation being a necessary mechanism for its survival? All that would be left of the evolutionary hypothesis would be natural selection. Does the concept of evolution have any substantive explanatory force if all it has is the mechanism of natural selection? No it wouldn't since it couldn't explain how the varieties of life came to exist. All it could possibly explain is why there isn't a mass of living forms still existing that are unsuited to their environment.

In the end random mutation would have no meaning for survivability and selection would be simply be an effect already accounted for in the design of the programming.

Selection accounted for? Only if each and every single mutation is designed-in and beneficial, which they aren't. Otherwise we wouldn't have mutation-based diseases. Selection pressures are very much responsible for rooting out the bad ones

.

How can one know that all the variants we feel aren't beneficial now did not have a place in time where they were beneficial? and you can't assume that mutation-based diseases have always existed. Like any designed system they can deteriorate over time. What we see now may not always have been the norm.
Now let's consider your assumption for the role of selection. Supposed for a moment that a genetic set from the beginning was programmed to form 1000 different variants and each of those offspring had the same ability to form the exact same variants then how exactly do the specific bad offspring get weeded out from the line? Consider this;

Plants defy Mendel's inheritance laws
Contrary to inheritance laws the scientific world has accepted for more than 100 years, some plants revert to normal traits carried by their grandparents, bypassing genetic abnormalities carried by both parents. These mutant parent plants apparently have hidden templates containing genetic information from the preceding generation that can be transferred to their offspring, even though the traits aren't evident in the parents, according to Purdue University researchers. This discovery flies in the face of the scientific laws of inheritance first described by Gregor Mendel in the mid-1800s and still taught in classrooms around the world today. http://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/2005/050323.Pruitt.inheritance.html

Do plants 'veto' bad genes?
....Lolle reports that cells in parts of a single adult thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana) plant can bear an ancestral gene, rather than the parental version found in the rest of the plant....
http://www.nature.com/news/do-plants-veto-bad-genes-1.12401

If variations are controlled at the genetic level then this is where selection is accounted for. This is also a signature of intelligent design to provide protection from environmental forces such as selection and allow the genome to keep a possible beneficial variant within the gene pool till such a time when its specific properties would be the beneficial ones determined by the environment.

Yes, it is pretty amazing. Hypermutation.

You do understand that the "mutations" or changes are entirely controlled (directed) from within the organism. Right? There is no random chance mechanism involved. There is a genetically formed system whose function is to form variants. So why couldn't a similar mechanism be involved in the variation of life? Why couldn't this internal mechanism which could have existed from the very first specie be the reason for the origin of species?
Ultimately, this is what would make it necessary to know about the first specie in order to fully explain the existence of all others after it. Assuming as evolutionary thought has that lifes variation after it arrived was merely the action of various outside influences has kept scientific inquiry from looking for the possibility that it may have arrived with everything needed to fit to a changing environment.
We are even now considering ways to terraform other planets and scientists are considering using genetically modified organisms to be part of the process so why couldn't a previous intelligent agency have performed the same action on earth?

Yes, I was making reference to robots that I was currently aware of. Whether or not one would assume that a robot on Mars evolved or not would be heavily-dependent upon the specifics. Do they reproduce with variation? Are they subject to selective pressures? Can we find other robots (both active and preserved) on Mars to compare their characteristics with?

Suppose they do reproduce with variation and suppose that selection kills off the bad ones does this automatically mean natural? or could there have been a programmer that set them up to function that way so there would be no need for hands on by the designer.
Our engineers today are seeking ways to make things that require as little subsequent repair as possible. How far away do you suppose our intellect is from forming things that will repair themselves and how long would it be before we would start applying that concept to designed life?

 

[Ultimatum]

I believe we live in a universe with multiple planes/dimensions beyond our senses. Beings of these higher planes fostered the development of life on our plane. I call this Intelligent Design (different than the Christian Intelligent Design proponents). But above all that is the ultimate designer, God/Brahman, who is the uncreated eternal consciousness for which the universe is His play/drama.

Special pleading.
Religion...

 

[1robin]

Had trouble replying to your other post. I was pointing out that if -as very clearly stated -those both dead and alive who are "in Christ" at his return are made immortal then -and are then ever with the Lord -they are not raised to a judgment.

That is not to say they will never give account, but there are not two judgments -as in a time of dividing and a deciding -except that those in Christ are judged while they live -and the rest are judged after they die.

1Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

...they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

There is simply no time for another judgment in the timeline -and only those who were not "in Christ" from Adam until the return of Christ will still be dead to be raised to the judgment after the thousand years.

All men need the judgment of God -to be corrected by him -but those God calls in this time are also judged in this time -during this life.

1Pe 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

One of the most awesome realizations I have had by reading scripture is that those who are called from Adam until the return of Christ are only the first to receive eternal life....

Jas_1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

1Ti 5:24 Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
1Ti 5:25 Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid

Though we all must be judged by God -not all will be raised to the "great white throne" judgment after the thousand years.

2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

If those who are in Christ -dead and alive -are given their reward at his return -then they will already have stood before the judgment seat -but that does not mean having to be raised to a judgment.

Those God calls in this time "receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done" during this life.

Joh 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
Joh 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Here it is plainly stated....

Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

There are two RESURRECTIONS -one to life, and one to damnation -but being resurrected to condemnation and damnation -the great white throne judgment -does not automatically mean that one will never receive eternal life.
Only the second resurrection is to a judgment, as such.

Those raised to that condemnation and damnation -the tribunal/judgment/punishment -are then judged according to their works -not their beliefs.
If they were simply raised to die -why bother?

Many who were not in Christ have done good works. Many who are in Christ have done evil works. Both are judged. That is to say, all will be chastened by God for their benefit.

Believers are not different -they are not better -they are simply the first to be drawn by God to believe and to be judged.
Just as all things are first to the Jew and then Gentile, so is judgment/chastening first to those called to believe and obey in this time -and then the rest of the dead.

We cannot say which persons God can bring to repentance -even though we can know from scripture that utter refusal to do good will eventually lead to non-existence.

1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world

That damnation and condemnation "of the world" is the judgment of the rest of the dead -but it is a mistake to believe that it is all doom and gloom.

Of that judgment it is written.... (and notice it says EVERY man)....

1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
1Co 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1Co 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

God is ABLE to destroy both body and spirit in Gehenna -but would certainly prefer that all come to repentance.

Another very important point is that those in Christ who are made immortal at his return DO NOT GO TO HEAVEN -they reign on Earth.
They are the meek that inherit the earth.

Consider the following....

Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Act 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

Eze 37:12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
Eze 37:13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
Eze 37:14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD..............
Eze 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

Furthermore.... if believers went to heaven and non-believers went to hell -why would God bother with renewing the earth and bringing down a new Jerusalem -OUT OF HEAVEN -to earth?

Rev_3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

I am having trouble finding what it is your claiming that I would reject. A lot of these claims are hotly debated and I have no settled position on them and do not dismiss your understanding, so I do not know what to debate against.

All three of your posts have been a sort of premise but I do not see the conclusion.

I did notice one misunderstanding that you may have felt I had made a mistake about. I believe that heaven currently is a spiritual realm without physical location, and I believe that is where God and the angels live, it also could possibly where some or all believers are or will be at some point and for some time. For example that is where Moses descended from and to with Christ in his transfiguration. However when the end actually comes God scorches the earth with fire and remolds it. He allows it to return to the state the garden of Eden was in before the fall. Then the NEW Jerusalem which will be the new dwelling place of God will descend from heaven and rest on the earth and the earth it's self will be heaven. I hope we are allowed to visit the rest of the universe but heaven will be here on earth. So I think you misunderstood what I meant but that is easy to do in a complex subject.

BTW out of curiosity what do criteria do you believe make one a Christian?

 

[1robin]

By definition, miracles are less likely than any natural explanation.

By definition less likely events occur. The standard just used would have made one hundred thousand sports plays that were improbable not the best explanation for events that they themselves are on tape occurring. When Muhammad's followers tried to sell Allah to some heretical Jews who lived in Saudi Arabia, the first question was could he show them a miracle. God reveals himself through miracles, miracles by definition are rare and should be.

Besides you did not give me an explanation, you misapplied a concept of math that I can show you does not apply here but it would take much more typing. What you did not show was an example of a natural explanation that was MORE probable than the supernatural. Probability applies to actual things. Where is you actually thing. Come on, I know them all, resuscitation, theft of the body, no body was ever in the tomb, etc...... Give me something here. So far I am punching a tar baby. BTW do you know what a tar baby is and where the term was popularized?

 

[1robin]

Irrelevent as the way you constructed your arguments implies as much.




Learning truth from books you claimed which is revolves around a particular book which you view as containing truth which is the basis of your faith. However this "true" knowledge from scripture is not the same as other books which have nothing to do with religion such as chemistry.





Again I am not obligated to follow fallacious thinking which used as support for an opening statement.




Pure sophistry as you again hedge you views on "It could even be argued that Jesus being God laid down the most objective criteria even uttered." a position of faith nothing more. Again you are repeating Protestant views, justification by faith rather than works and faith as Catholicism follows thus you have already began defining "true" Christian from an ideological prospective of particular branches of Christianity you happen to follow.



Again repeating justification of faith which is a Protestant view.



I used no fallacy but pointed out your continued use of flawed reasoning in order to support previously flawed reasoning. Your point has no merit.

Your inability or unwillingness to scrutinize your arguments before posting said argument is an excuse, nothing more. It has no merit when it comes to poking holes in your argument due to your fallacious reasoning.



Which is simply a position of faith while refusing to call it such.







Irrelevant sophistry.

Look this is too boring to continue, if it was a horse it needs to be shot in the head. Your arguing by category. "This is a Fallacy" - dismiss, "this is is sophistry" = dismiss, this is too blue, this is too tall. Sounds like Godly Lox in a comparative religion class. Nothing against you but your argumentation lacks an argument. I am here to debate. Your having a denial fest.

 

[1robin]

I deleted the part meant for the other person. The part left was a response to me 1Robin.

It depends on what caused her to stop believing. If it was because other religions had done the same things for other people, then she could have still had her healing experience while doubting the veracity of that religion if it claimed that it was the only one, true religion. I'm not sure how she would decide that Tibet doesn't exist from that, however.

Hi emergence, can I request you not mix two posts together. It makes it hard for me to spate them, please?

1. Can you quote me the scripture in the bible that gives the reasons one may lose their faith that will cause damnation and the list that will not?
2. I have already given you the verse that says God is faithful even if we are not. How about the one where he says that he will never leave us nor forsake us? I am not sure how much more emphatic Christ could have been.
3. The same reason that makes you think it bizarre to ever deny the existence of a place you have been to makes it absurd to deny the prescience of a person I have met in a way more intimate that any human being I have ever met.

It is my very studied opinion that anyone who claims to be a former Christian was a superficial Christian and had never known Christ and as the bible says on judgment day to them when they are appealing to how many times they went to church, fed the hungry, or broke up a fight "be gone, for I never knew you". Doing all that stuff is great but God made one way to get to heaven at least for those who have heard and that is through knowing Christ personally. Merit does not cause that meeting, being born again is not a reward (the bible emphatically states that over and over again). Why would I have to maintain a thing by merit which I received by grace.

The idea of a person who lost their faith living like a sinner and still getting into Heaven seems to go against the whole "a tree is known by their fruit" concept.

That is not a statement of absolutes. It is not a statement that every Christian would at all times be seen doing good. That's just nuts. It also contradicts the statements about a new Christian being like a baby and making constant mistakes and being need to be fed milk. Yes it is true that a Christian should be a moral person and being seen to do the right thing but those things but this is not a statement of what makes a person a Christians or keeps him there. You probably will not believe this but I used to play a personal game with myself. For a few years I would met a new person and watch them for a few days and try and guess if they were a Christian. At some point I would bring up the subject and ran about a 90% success rate. However some of the things I noticed would seem subtle to a non-Christian. No, this is not a statement about what makes a Christian but it should be true in general, since the Christian conservative demographic is the most generous demographic on Earth and the Christian nations the most giving and first on the scene of crisis I think it can be easily seen. You cannot read into a verse what it does not say, one verse says be perfect as your father is perfect. You ever met a perfect person? That is a goal not a qualification nor destination.

Presumably, the Holy Spirit wouldn't be dependent upon what I can or can't remember from the past in order to witness to my heart. Even if I couldn't remember being saved, I should still experience the life style change that came from salvation since the Holy Ghost is still within me. I only think He would leave me if I made the conscious decision to reject Him or if I stopped loving Him.

I have never read any data either way but I would bet you would still be under the influence of the Holy Spirit and slightly or greatly different in your attitude than if you had never born again. I even imagine if you were obedient to that small voice in your head he would restore your memory, but God does not make all wrongs into rights until resurrection. At that point because of his merit (not yours) you would receive aa body better than you had ever had or has ever existed.

To me, it's more a matter of "doing good deeds because you are saved" and not "doing good deeds to become saved".

Well now you have converted to my side of this discussion. I agree with this and so does the bible, but keep in mind those good deeds are produced by obedience to God and even as Christians we retain lesser or greater rebellion in our spirits. For example in some ways I can come close to Christ's expectations. I will spend an hour in pouring rain to give the reasons for me faith, but I also might let a curse word slip if mad enough. I have both rescued people (including drunks) from the side of the road and probably passed Christians who desperately needed a ride.

I mean the claim that a person who had a life-changing salvation experience can never lose their faith. If someone had a life-changing salvation experience and later lost their faith, it would be evidence against the claim. I'm not saying I know anyone personally like that, but that possibility does still remain.

Actually I might agree with you there. If you define evidence as data which makes a conclusion stronger by its inclusion than its exclusion I might agree. However those that did not lose their faith during their lifetimes of troubles here in this life would then also count as evidence and the amount who have kept it would eclipse the amount who were born again and then gave up faith so my position would be greatly strengthened by the inclusion of that type of data but it is a little bit of an appeal to numbers to suggest 2 billion kept their faith so it is true, or to say 2 million born against gave it up so faith is not true.

 

[1robin]

The most important thing to realize is that God wants everyone to live forever.

I agree in general.

However, "forever" cannot be inhabited by the ungodly -or forever will be a miserable mess.

Unless that place is sustained by a being with infinite power. I think it would be more accurate to say God must make us sinless or we would make heaven into what we have now on earth.

All are ungodly -but those resurrected to immortality are those who are willing to obey God.

Those born again, not those who's works merit salvation. That is pointed out time after time in the bible. Ex....... the man who was saved even though he did not have one good work to his name, the promise that Jesus would never leave nor forsake us, that works will never save a man so that he may boast in heaven, or the other thousand scriptures that point out obedience flows from salvation but does not have any role in it. Paul said that he was the chief of sinners, your statement would mean he is in Hell because he was constantly doing what he did not want to do (in his words).

When God first makes them willing, then God can make them godly.

Not sure what you mean by this. No Christian who ever lived (beyond Christ) lived a life without sin. The bible says that if any man claim to be without sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him. .

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Even the "godly" are quite ungodly, and only by the grace of God are they resurrected to life.

The only way this statement and the second statement up from this one can both be true is if there is some magical percentage of sin which is not enough to condemn a Christian but any more would be. I hope to God that is not what your saying because that is the only way those two statements are both true is if you think you must maintain by obedience what you received by grace.

The "godly" did not make themselves godly -God made them godly -first.

Where is this Godly man? Who decided he was Godly? How do you know who you think is Godly actually is according to God. It we are 'Godly" at all we were made so when we were born again. When our filthy rags of righteousness were exchanged for Christ's record of perfection.

The "godly" are the willing to be like God -but God made them willing -first.

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Jas 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

We see that those who are called first are then used in the service of calling others to God.

The Jews are God's chosen people -to begin to bring all people to God -and God first judged them. So it is with spiritual Israel -the "godly" -of any lineage.

Saul -also eventually known as Paul -was quite ungodly. The church of God feared him. God judged him. God began to make him godly. The judgment of God is toward life.

Act 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Act 7:57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
Act 7:58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.
Act 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Act 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
Act 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
Act 8:2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
Act 8:3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
Act 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

Act 9:26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.

The will of God is that the final tally be all alive -and none dead.

There is an ultimatum. Ungodliness will not be given immortality. The judgment of God is to bring all to a point of understanding and willingness -every man in order -to be made godly.

Saul was not only ungodly, but an enemy of God and his people.

God loved his enemy.

If you can realize that God's will is that the prodigal son parable apply even to the devil -then you can understand that God's mercy never fails.

He cannot make the decision for any -but the judgment of God is to bring all to the correct decision.

If they utterly refuse -they can be destroyed -but we do not know whether or not God is able to bring all to make the correct decision.

Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Is the rest of this a defense of predestinations? Sounds like preaching a sermon but leaving out the conclusion.

In a few short sentences explain what all this sermonizing is attempting to prove or what statement I made your countering please. Juts one or two emphatic doctrinal agreements or disagreements. We can argue for or against them once I have a clue what they are.

 

[Parsimony]

If that were true then theory as currently used has no meaning beyond a hypothesis if we cannot trust the interpretation of evidence by scientific method. There is either sufficient evidence to make it a theory or there is not.

It comes in degrees. The greater the evidence, the more likely that it qualifies as a theory.

Physical sciences do not appear to have any of these problems and they are quite well substantiated by a plethora of repeatable testing methods and predictions that can be confirmed in real time.

Historically, they have had problems. Newtonian physics is repeatable but turned out to have certain things wrong (such as kinetic energy at relativistic velocities). We also know that quantum physics and relativity have problems because, while they are both very good at describing the results of observations, they are incompatible with each other. Even chemistry has had its share of surprises (such as noble gases being found to form compounds).

The evolutionary concept on the other hand tries to determine a historical occurrence which cannot be tested by scientific method and as we can see quite clearly it makes many erroneous predictions (junk dna, random mutation, etc. etc.)

It is testable because it makes testable predictions. Common descent has consequences which which are observable in the fossil record and in genes. If all life evolved from the same population of single-celled organisms, then there should be a particular chronological order of fossils. The oldest fossils should be single-celled prokaryotes (or something even simpler), followed by single-celled eukaryotes, followed by colonial and simple body-planned multicellular organisms, followed by more complex invertebrates with brains, followed by invertebrates with notochords, followed by true vertebrates. So far, there are no verified fossils which call this order into question. They fit the predicted pattern. Evolution also predicts pseudogenes, neutral mutations, and ERVs to be in common between species that split from a common ancestor. This is also testable and has much supporting evidence.

Also, junk DNA does exist. That is, there are segments of DNA that have the genes required for coding proteins but are too mutated to produce them (such as L-gulonolactone oxidase in the great apes and humans). That's not to say that all forms of DNA described as junk DNA actually are without function. It's just that they no longer code for proteins.

Essentially if you don't know what was contained in the first genes then its an entire crap shoot of guessing with no recourse by scientific method to ascertain whether a specific property of information we see exhibited now was there from the beginning.

I would agree to some extent. Properties that living things have now is by no means guaranteed to have been present in the first living thing. We could not assume, for example, that the first living thing was a vertebrate just because many modern creatures are vertebrates. We do know that it had to have some of the same qualities at least, such as the ability to reproduce and evolve.

First If the first genes were not in a single ancestor but rather in a multitude of first ancestors how could this be derived? what testing could reveal this information?

By looking at the fossil record and in the mutations in genes from a wide variety of species. It is unlikely that two completely unrelated organisms would share the same mutations in the same genes or even have the same genes in the same order. It is technically possible for all life to have derived from a large population of individually unique unicellular ancestors which readily exchanged genetic information with each other. This is a view that is actually starting to become favored. There would then be no one common ancestor, but many. It is, however, possible to model all these various cells as being the same species if they were capable of interbreeding.

Secondly if the first genes had the ability from the beginning to form a multitude of variants without the need for outside influence and passed that on to every offspring then of what need is there for the assumption of random mutation being a necessary mechanism for its survival? All that would be left of the evolutionary hypothesis would be natural selection. Does the concept of evolution have any substantive explanatory force if all it has is the mechanism of natural selection? No it wouldn't since it couldn't explain how the varieties of life came to exist. All it could possibly explain is why there isn't a mass of living forms still existing that are unsuited to their environment.

Random mutation isn't necessary, but mutation of some kind is. Directed mutation and natural selection would still cause change over time, just as a model of random mutation and natural selection would.

How can one know that all the variants we feel aren't beneficial now did not have a place in time where they were beneficial?

This may be true for some mutations (since it is often dependent on the environment whether a mutation is beneficial or not), but lethal mutations certainly could not be beneficial.

and you can't assume that mutation-based diseases have always existed. Like any designed system they can deteriorate over time. What we see now may not always have been the norm.

Parsimony and the fact that those organisms in this hypothetical designed population which developed the ability to mutate genetic diseases into existence would have been removed by natural selection since they would be less fit than those organisms which never develop genetic diseases.

Now let's consider your assumption for the role of selection. Supposed for a moment that a genetic set from the beginning was programmed to form 1000 different variants and each of those offspring had the same ability to form the exact same variants then how exactly do the specific bad offspring get weeded out from the line?

If by "bad" you mean "less fit", then they would be weeded out exactly as natural selection describes: they either don't reproduce or reproduce less often than more fit variants do.

Consider this;

Plants defy Mendel's inheritance laws
Contrary to inheritance laws the scientific world has accepted for more than 100 years, some plants revert to normal traits carried by their grandparents, bypassing genetic abnormalities carried by both parents. These mutant parent plants apparently have hidden templates containing genetic information from the preceding generation that can be transferred to their offspring, even though the traits aren't evident in the parents, according to Purdue University researchers. This discovery flies in the face of the scientific laws of inheritance first described by Gregor Mendel in the mid-1800s and still taught in classrooms around the world today. http://www.purdue.edu/uns/html4ever/2005/050323.Pruitt.inheritance.html

Do plants 'veto' bad genes?
....Lolle reports that cells in parts of a single adult thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana) plant can bear an ancestral gene, rather than the parental version found in the rest of the plant....
http://www.nature.com/news/do-plants-veto-bad-genes-1.12401

If variations are controlled at the genetic level then this is where selection is accounted for. This is also a signature of intelligent design to provide protection from environmental forces such as selection and allow the genome to keep a possible beneficial variant within the gene pool till such a time when its specific properties would be the beneficial ones determined by the environment.

Given that evolution works out ways for the fit to survive, saving genes from ancestors that were beneficial is right in line with the kind of thing you'd expect it to do. If an organism can inherit genes from its parents, then why not from other ancestors as well? (I suspect that RNA is the culprit here myself). One could argue that any aspect of an organism that helps it survive is a sign of intelligent design, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Nor does evolution's ability to explain something necessarily discount it.

You do understand that the "mutations" or changes are entirely controlled (directed) from within the organism. Right? There is no random chance mechanism involved. There is a genetically formed system whose function is to form variants. So why couldn't a similar mechanism be involved in the variation of life? Why couldn't this internal mechanism which could have existed from the very first specie be the reason for the origin of species?
Ultimately, this is what would make it necessary to know about the first specie in order to fully explain the existence of all others after it. Assuming as evolutionary thought has that lifes variation after it arrived was merely the action of various outside influences has kept scientific inquiry from looking for the possibility that it may have arrived with everything needed to fit to a changing environment.

After reading about this issue some more and deliberating on it, I think the idea of organisms having some ability to control mutations makes sense. It is known that different regions of the genome mutate at different rates, and this itself likely represents a fitness advantage. It would be beneficial to an organism to minimize the number of mutations occurring in sensitive, critical regions of the genome if mutations there were highly likely to be strongly deleterious or lethal. So having strong repair mechanisms in those areas would be selected for. Other regions which are not as crucial could allow for higher rates of mutations by having more sloppy repair mechanisms. This would allow for the generation of greater variety, also a potential advantage (as long as the rate wasn't too high).

Given the recent discovery of epigenetics, I do find it credible for microRNAs or other forms of RNA to regulate the expression of repair mechanisms for specific regions of the genome when a stress is introduced or removed, changing the mutation rate for those genes. Ultimately, I thank you for bringing this issue up as it has caused me to consider an aspect of genetics that I had not thought about much before. I do see it as conceivable for self-mutation of this sort to have evolved from random mutation in the past, though. If the first organisms only had one genetic repairing gene, that gene could have been copied by random mutations with further random mutations causing these new, duplicated repairing mechanisms to have different levels of repairing ability associated with them. Those associated with critical genes would be selected to have stronger repair mechanisms and those associated with less important genes would be selected to have weaker repair mechanisms. Gene expression itself, as controlled by RNA, would be selected for in accordance with the greater or lesser expression of repair mechanisms depending on what degree of expression resulted in the greatest fitness. Those RNA-repair associations with the greatest fitness benefits would be selected for, ultimately decreasing the randomness of mutations over the generations. I don't think it could get rid of randomness completely (i.e., the organism wouldn't "know" that it has to change a cytosine into a guanine in order to get the gene it needs), it would just work to filter out the need for wide-spread mutations everywhere in order to get that gene, making the process quicker than if it was truly random.

We are even now considering ways to terraform other planets and scientists are considering using genetically modified organisms to be part of the process so why couldn't a previous intelligent agency have performed the same action on earth?

They most certainly could have. That would be panspermia.

Suppose they do reproduce with variation and suppose that selection kills off the bad ones does this automatically mean natural?

Depends on how exactly the term "natural" is defined. Surely the environment itself plays a large role in killing unfit organisms, and it would be natural unless every aspect of our environment was designed too. That's still ultimately semantics. Even if the environment was designed, the way that selection works would still be the same as if the environment was natural.

or could there have been a programmer that set them up to function that way so there would be no need for hands on by the designer.

In principle, yes, that could be so.

Our engineers today are seeking ways to make things that require as little subsequent repair as possible. How far away do you suppose our intellect is from forming things that will repair themselves and how long would it be before we would start applying that concept to designed life?

That's quite difficult for me to guess, since I'm not a computer or robotics expert. Probably sooner than later, though.

 

[Parsimony]

Hi emergence, can I request you not mix two posts together. It makes it hard for me to spate them, please?

I did it so that I wouldn't have to double-post. If the mods are cool with it, I can make them separate, however.

1. Can you quote me the scripture in the bible that gives the reasons one may lose their faith that will cause damnation and the list that will not?

Nope, but people do give their own reasons for losing their faith. As to whether them losing their faith causes them damnation, I obviously cannot know. Ceasing to love God would seem to be a good one just from my subjective reasoning. I don't see how one can call God their master while serving the Devil.

2. I have already given you the verse that says God is faithful even if we are not. How about the one where he says that he will never leave us nor forsake us? I am not sure how much more emphatic Christ could have been.

I would say that God choosing to leave us is different from us choosing to leave Him.

3. The same reason that makes you think it bizarre to ever deny the existence of a place you have been to makes it absurd to deny the prescience of a person I have met in a way more intimate that any human being I have ever met.

I don't find it too hard of a stretch for a former Christian to have reasoned their experiences with God were all in their head, since the amount of verifiable evidence that they had an experience with a spiritual being would be rather lacking when compared to that of the existence of a country. One possible exception to this would be some kind of physical effects that resulted from the experience (such as healing) or the revelation of specific knowledge that the person could not have gotten right by guessing. Again, even this could be questioned if other religions claimed similar phenomena, as it would be evidence that their gods are just as real as the Abrahamic God.

It is my very studied opinion that anyone who claims to be a former Christian was a superficial Christian and had never known Christ and as the bible says on judgment day to them when they are appealing to how many times they went to church, fed the hungry, or broke up a fight "be gone, for I never knew you". Doing all that stuff is great but God made one way to get to heaven at least for those who have heard and that is through knowing Christ personally. Merit does not cause that meeting, being born again is not a reward (the bible emphatically states that over and over again). Why would I have to maintain a thing by merit which I received by grace.

I have little doubt that a very large portion of Christians who leave Christianity did not have compelling spiritual experiences. That's rather sensible. I just find it wanting to claim that none of the Christians who leave Christianity have had divine experiences.

That is not a statement of absolutes. It is not a statement that every Christian would at all times be seen doing good. That's just nuts. It also contradicts the statements about a new Christian being like a baby and making constant mistakes and being need to be fed milk. Yes it is true that a Christian should be a moral person and being seen to do the right thing but those things but this is not a statement of what makes a person a Christians or keeps him there. You probably will not believe this but I used to play a personal game with myself. For a few years I would met a new person and watch them for a few days and try and guess if they were a Christian. At some point I would bring up the subject and ran about a 90% success rate. However some of the things I noticed would seem subtle to a non-Christian. No, this is not a statement about what makes a Christian but it should be true in general, since the Christian conservative demographic is the most generous demographic on Earth and the Christian nations the most giving and first on the scene of crisis I think it can be easily seen. You cannot read into a verse what it does not say, one verse says be perfect as your father is perfect. You ever met a perfect person? That is a goal not a qualification nor destination.

No, of course not. I don't expect a "true" Christian to be perfectly good. I would expect a true Christian to be consistently good, though (unless they are simply ignorant about specific issues of sin).

I have never read any data either way but I would bet you would still be under the influence of the Holy Spirit and slightly or greatly different in your attitude than if you had never born again. I even imagine if you were obedient to that small voice in your head he would restore your memory, but God does not make all wrongs into rights until resurrection. At that point because of his merit (not yours) you would receive aa body better than you had ever had or has ever existed.

Yes, that's just my best judgement as well. I don't have any anecdotes to go on in support of that.

Well now you have converted to my side of this discussion. I agree with this and so does the bible, but keep in mind those good deeds are produced by obedience to God and even as Christians we retain lesser or greater rebellion in our spirits. For example in some ways I can come close to Christ's expectations. I will spend an hour in pouring rain to give the reasons for me faith, but I also might let a curse word slip if mad enough. I have both rescued people (including drunks) from the side of the road and probably passed Christians who desperately needed a ride.

Agreed.

Actually I might agree with you there. If you define evidence as data which makes a conclusion stronger by its inclusion than its exclusion I might agree. However those that did not lose their faith during their lifetimes of troubles here in this life would then also count as evidence and the amount who have kept it would eclipse the amount who were born again and then gave up faith so my position would be greatly strengthened by the inclusion of that type of data but it is a little bit of an appeal to numbers to suggest 2 billion kept their faith so it is true, or to say 2 million born against gave it up so faith is not true.

I don't have any numbers myself, but I am just giving an example of a potential way of thinking. If members of other religions did not lose their faith after lifetimes of troubles that could count as evidence in their favor as well, although, as I said before, I don't have numbers of that.

 

[gnostic]

Nope, but people do give their own reasons for losing their faith. As to whether them losing their faith causes them damnation, I obviously cannot know. Ceasing to love God would seem to be a good one just from my subjective reasoning. I don't see how one can call God their master while serving the Devil.

But why serve one or the other? Must the choice be only of these two?

As to the idea of eternal damnation for one's losing faith, I think it is nothing more than illogical fear-mongering, spread by theistic religions and religious people.

 

[Etritonakin]

I agree in general.

Unless that place is sustained by a being with infinite power. I think it would be more accurate to say God must make us sinless or we would make heaven into what we have now on earth.

Those born again, not those who's works merit salvation. That is pointed out time after time in the bible. Ex....... the man who was saved even though he did not have one good work to his name, the promise that Jesus would never leave nor forsake us, that works will never save a man so that he may boast in heaven, or the other thousand scriptures that point out obedience flows from salvation but does not have any role in it. Paul said that he was the chief of sinners, your statement would mean he is in Hell because he was constantly doing what he did not want to do (in his words).

Not sure what you mean by this. No Christian who ever lived (beyond Christ) lived a life without sin. The bible says that if any man claim to be without sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him. .

The only way this statement and the second statement up from this one can both be true is if there is some magical percentage of sin which is not enough to condemn a Christian but any more would be. I hope to God that is not what your saying because that is the only way those two statements are both true is if you think you must maintain by obedience what you received by grace.

Where is this Godly man? Who decided he was Godly? How do you know who you think is Godly actually is according to God. It we are 'Godly" at all we were made so when we were born again. When our filthy rags of righteousness were exchanged for Christ's record of perfection.

Is the rest of this a defense of predestinations? Sounds like preaching a sermon but leaving out the conclusion.

In a few short sentences explain what all this sermonizing is attempting to prove or what statement I made your countering please. Juts one or two emphatic doctrinal agreements or disagreements. We can argue for or against them once I have a clue what they are.

You gotta be a politician or something.

 

[KBC1963]

It comes in degrees. The greater the evidence, the more likely that it qualifies as a theory.

And there have been degrees occur that allowed people to define something as a theory only to later be overturned.

If all life evolved from the same population of single-celled organisms, then there should be a particular chronological order of fossils. The oldest fossils should be single-celled prokaryotes (or something even simpler), followed by single-celled eukaryotes, followed by colonial and simple body-planned multicellular organisms, followed by more complex invertebrates with brains, followed by invertebrates with notochords, followed by true vertebrates. So far, there are no verified fossils which call this order into question. They fit the predicted pattern.

Do they? From what I see there were 2 definable explosions of life Avalon (575-542 mya) and Cambrian (542-520 mya) which don't have any relationship to each other and don't appear to have any ancestral indications. So, the fossil record does not back the Darwinian model rather, it better backs the concept that varieties of life were introduced into the environment already functional more than once. This type of evidence would easily back the terraforming concept of previous intelligent agents.
Further, the evolutionary model predicts a cone of life radiating from simple to complex and this is definitely not shown by the early fossil record. Of course you already know that since the evidences have been around for long enough. Since the Avalon explosion showed the types of life prior to the Cambrian explosion then there is no reason why ancestors of the Cambrian would not show up unless of course there were none. So, yes the fossil record denies the predicted progression expected by the evolutionary hypothesis.

....the oldest complex, multicellular organisms that had lived in oceans from 575 to 542 million years ago; that is, before the Cambrian Explosion of animals. "These Ediacara organisms do not have an ancestor-descendant relationship with the Cambrian animals, and most of them went extinct before the Cambrian Explosion,"....
...."In other words, major types of Ediacara organisms appeared at the dawn of their history, during the Avalon Explosion," Dong said. "Subsequently, Ediacara organisms diversified in White Sea time and then declined in Nama time. But, despite this notable waxing and waning in the number of species, the morphological range of the Avalon organisms were never exceeded through the subsequent history of Ediacara."... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103144451.htm

Also, junk DNA does exist. That is, there are segments of DNA that have the genes required for coding proteins but are too mutated to produce them (such as L-gulonolactone oxidase in the great apes and humans). That's not to say that all forms of DNA described as junk DNA actually are without function. It's just that they no longer code for proteins.

Do you have positive experimental evidence that the dna in question serves no purpose at all? To be junk implies functionless.

Random mutation isn't necessary, but mutation of some kind is. Directed mutation and natural selection would still cause change over time, just as a model of random mutation and natural selection would.

Random mutation is the posited mechanism of the current version of evolution taught in schools. Remember what you feel is possible for how evolutions mechanisms can possibly evolve isn't part of our discussion since it is not part of the curriculum being taught. At the rate that revisions are being proposed for the concept of evolution, because of the evidences being revealed they would need to change the textbooks every year and to me that has all the hallmarks of a hypothesis and not a theory.

How can one know that all the variants we feel aren't beneficial now did not have a place in time where they were beneficial?

This may be true for some mutations (since it is often dependent on the environment whether a mutation is beneficial or not), but lethal mutations certainly could not be beneficial.

The question left here is whether there has always been lethal mutations. Making an assumption that such is true is obviously untestable. It can be quite possible there has been a degeneration of the living system over time.

Given that evolution works out ways for the fit to survive, saving genes from ancestors that were beneficial is right in line with the kind of thing you'd expect it to do. ...

Making a huge assumption here aren't you? It's pretty easy to make an assumption when it is impossible to empirically test such a notion. It is just as easy for me to say that all the survival mechanisms came with the first specie and has been preserved in the offspring ever since. Another equally untestable assertion

.... If an organism can inherit genes from its parents, then why not from other ancestors as well? (I suspect that RNA is the culprit here myself). One could argue that any aspect of an organism that helps it survive is a sign of intelligent design, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Nor does evolution's ability to explain something necessarily discount it.

The problem that plagues the evolutionary explanation is that there is no testing by scientific method that can show the generation of absolutely new unique structure / functionality within any organism known. All asserted adaptations have been a loss of something within the organism or subsequently been revealed to be a result of functionality that has already existed.

After reading about this issue some more and deliberating on it, I think the idea of organisms having some ability to control mutations makes sense. It is known that different regions of the genome mutate at different rates, and this itself likely represents a fitness advantage. It would be beneficial to an organism to minimize the number of mutations occurring in sensitive, critical regions of the genome if mutations there were highly likely to be strongly deleterious or lethal. So having strong repair mechanisms in those areas would be selected for. Other regions which are not as crucial could allow for higher rates of mutations by having more sloppy repair mechanisms. This would allow for the generation of greater variety, also a potential advantage (as long as the rate wasn't too high).

Here, you are positing the existence of different level repair mechanisms which I am not aware of from the research, so I can't actually speak for or against such a concept. However, in all of these considerations one must not overlook what it would take to make such a mechanism functional in the first place. Have you considered what would be needed in order to make a repair mechanism? and how could it be reached in a stepwise fashion? (yes, irreducible complexity knocking)

For the rest of your responses keep in mind that you are asserting the buildup of complexity over time and this is the part of the evolutionary concept which has no empirical backing. It is entirely hypothetical with no method to test it. This leaves you in an continuous state of religious belief in the unseen / unseeable as long as you assert it. This is exactly why I counter it with "how do know the function didn't come with the first specie and here is where we can return to what led us here.... If the evolutionary concept can't account for the first specie then it cannot actually account for the origin of any species.
If there was any possible way you could define that a first specie had essentially nothing but the very simplest of functionality then you would have the holy grail of evidence to show how far the evolutionary mechanisms could actually take something.... until then your best argument is conjecture that is exactly equivalent to the conjecture of any other religion in the world.

 

[viole]

Yea they have been trying to fight the entropy point for awhile now but the fact is that all matter is losing energy and eventually would end in heat death and since all matter is losing energy that means that being energized is not its natural state and without energized matter there would be nothing for the supposed natural forces to act on.

Matter losing energy? Energy is matter, so is it matter losing matter? Or energy losing matter? By the way, energy seems to be constant, so I guess you are confusing energy with low-entropy energy. Is that so?

Evolution was an answer to eliminating the need for the christian designer and essentially any other designers from traditional religions but..... it could only do so by positing another type of god, the god of naturalism. Even now the adherents of this god scramble to provide believable rationales for how their god can either make everything or keep it going.

The god on naturalism? Cool, I am a theist after all, lol.

I run a class for people looking to learn about the ID vs. evolution controversy and one of the points that I show them is how atheists / evolutionists act exactly like any historic religious adherents and it has been comical to them to review the online debate sites and see how the interactions unfold. As one student put it blind faith followers following a blind god. lol a play on the blind leading the blind comment.

Yes, and I run a class for people looking to learn the stork vs. embryology controversy concerning children delivery.

I find that this is one of the best ways for them to see how skewed science can be when regulated by an unscientific presumption. It's amazing how these observations bring out the anti-bully side of them and allows them to be more open to the ID position.

If you confuse energy with entropy, then everything goes, I suppose.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Parsimony]

I've decided to take a break from debating for the month. I may come back and pick this up later. Maybe. If you guys want to count this as a victory on your side, be my guest.

 

[KBC1963]

Matter losing energy? Energy is matter, so is it matter losing matter? Or energy losing matter? By the way, energy seems to be constant, so I guess you are confusing energy with low-entropy energy. Is that so?

Heat Death
...what this means for the universe. Any reaction that takes place will either result in the products becoming less ordered, or heat being given off. This means at some time far in the future, when all the possible reactions have taken place, all that will be left is heat (i.e electromagnetic radiation) and fundamental particles. No reactions will be possible, because the universe will have reached its maximum entropy. The only reactions that can take place will result in a decrease of entropy, which is not possible, so in effect the universe will have died. http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae181.cfm

 

[dust1n]

Looks like you should read the thread a bit before arbitrarily attacking the comments being made. Obviously your just trolling around looking to argue anything.

Entropy
Systems that are not isolated may decrease in entropy, provided they increase the entropy of their environment by at least that same amount.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

Yeah, that's what living organisms do...

"The negentropy, also negative entropy, syntropy, extropy, ectropy or entaxy,[1] of a living system is the entropy that it exports to keep its own entropy low; it lies at the intersection of entropy and life."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy

Living systems ARE NOT ISOLATED.

Furthermore...

And the Earth, while for most practical persons can be considered a closed system, because by and by things remain constant, but it is really a closed system:

"Universe can be defined as what exists with regard to matter, M, and heat energy, H. System is defined as that part of the universe under consideration. A system is separated from its “surroundings,” S, by a “boundary.”

For example, in the case of a test tube with a stopper, what is inside the tube is the system, the tube and stopper constitute B, and what is outside the tube is S. One could instead designate what is outside as the system and what is inside as S, but this theoretical possibility would be doubtfully useful.

There are three main types of system in thermodynamics:

·Open - exchange of both H and M with S

·Closed - exchange of H but not M with S

·Isolated - exchange of neither H nor M with S

Which of these describes Earth? The answer depends on context.

We all know that sunlight heats the surface of Earth. For most practical purposes, however, Earth is a closed system. Why is that? The mass of the planet is essentially constant in time. Molecules in our atmosphere are attracted to Earth by gravity and do not migrate off into space. This is not true of the Moon or asteroids.

In broad terms, by contrast, Earth is definitely an open system. How can that be? Meteors strike the planet from time to time, bringing in matter from space. Indeed, it is probable that Earth’s substantial iron core (and therefore its magnetic field, and therefore life as we know it) and the Moon owe their existence to an impact between Earth and a massive asteroid about 4 billion years ago.

The seemingly simple question of whether Earth is an open or closed system, like many other questions in science, cannot be answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ without qualification."

http://faculty.cas.usf.edu/dhaynie/BT/index_files/Page2287.htm