Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Specified complexity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    But if man is in the image of God, then we could look for design analogous to human design.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    From the looks of it, they (TheLurch and shunyadragon) are using straw-men to argue with.

    TheLurch's arguments are only valid if you are trying to claim who the designer is. That's why you would need to know the capabilities of the designer.

    shunyadragon is using the word "natural" to mean "non-supernatural", when in reality, it means (the definition applicable to the topic), not made by humans.
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/natural

    1 Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

    Of course, ID says nothing about determining who the designer is, nor whether the intelligence is supernatural or not.

    It simply says "we can infer if something is the result of intelligence" (as opposed to non-intelligent natural processes).

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by DaveB View Post
      From the looks of it, they (TheLurch and shunyadragon) are using straw-men to argue with.

      TheLurch's arguments are only valid if you are trying to claim who the designer is. That's why you would need to know the capabilities of the designer.

      shunyadragon is using the word "natural" to mean "non-supernatural", when in reality, it means (the definition applicable to the topic), not made by humans.
      https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/natural

      1 Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

      Of course, ID says nothing about determining who the designer is, nor whether the intelligence is supernatural or not.

      It simply says "we can infer if something is the result of intelligence" (as opposed to non-intelligent natural processes).
      Apologetic argues for Intelligent Design as design based on a designer outside our physical existence, God. SETI seeks no such thing. It looks for intelligence in radio waves that are comparable to human intelligence of beings with a natural origin.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-17-2019, 01:11 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        But if man is in the image of God, then we could look for design analogous to human design.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        No, because God would not use the methods used by humans, who use human intelligence to design and make things. There is no parallel of what humans design and what would be the natural nature of our physical existence.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Apologetic argues for Intelligent Design as design based on a designer outside our physical existence, God. SETI seeks no such thing.
          That isn't true.
          https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

          The Definition of Intelligent Design

          Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

          See the New World Encyclopedia entry on intelligent design.

          Is Intelligent Design Creationism?

          No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

          ID does not argue for God or for the supernatural. The implications of ID are another matter.

          ID is only looking for signs of intelligence. It doesn't matter if the intelligence is human, alien or otherwise.

          You're right about one thing, though. SETI doesn't seek a supernatural origin of an "intelligent" signal. Such an origin has been ruled out from the start.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by DaveB View Post
            That isn't true.
            https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

            The Definition of Intelligent Design

            Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

            See the New World Encyclopedia entry on intelligent design.

            SETI looks for intelligent sources that are from intelligent sources within the natural paradigm, ie aliens in other worlds.

            Is Intelligent Design Creationism?

            No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

            ID does not argue for God or for the supernatural. The implications of ID are another matter.

            ID is only looking for signs of intelligence. It doesn't matter if the intelligence is human, alien or otherwise.

            You're right about one thing, though. SETI doesn't seek a supernatural origin of an "intelligent" signal. Such an origin has been ruled out from the start.
            Not true your sources betray you. The only staff at the Discovery Institute and AIG are Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians. 'Product of Intelligent Design' directly refers to Design that is outside nature that CANNOT be accounted for by NATURAL causes. More references to follow.

            By the way they have not been able to falsify any theory nor hypothesis that would support their belief in Intelligent Design.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-17-2019, 01:20 PM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Not true your sources betray you. The only staff at the Discovery Institute and AIG are Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians.
              I doubt that is true about the DI, but what does this have to do with anything? Smells like ad hominem to me.

              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              'Product of Intelligent Design' directly refers to Design that is outside nature that CANNOT be accounted for by NATURAL causes.
              Not accounted for by natural causes, yes, but that doesn't mean the only answer is the supernatural. Things designed by humans (or aliens) fall within ID but are not supernatural.

              And again, ID stops with the inference of intelligence.

              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              More references to follow.
              That would be great.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by DaveB View Post
                That isn't true.
                Sadly yes, it is true. ID is a religiously motivated political movement, not a scientific one. Its written goals are to end "materialism" and get Christian creation views reintroduced to public school science classes. That ID is just rebranded Creationism was made quite clear in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial over 13 years ago. ID proponents had every opportunity on a national stage to make a scientific case and face planted big time. Since then the only thing keeping ID on life support is the religious think tank Discovery Institute. Every major ID supporter these days is on the DI payroll - Meyer, Behe, Axe, Gauger, Wells, etc. They do no science, just produce propaganda books and films aimed at the scientifically unschooled lay public. Every one of those ID supporters has also come out publicly and said the "Designer" is their Christian God.

                The ploy to sneak Creation past the Constitution's Establishment Clause by removing references to God failed miserably. No one in the scientific community or courts was fooled.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  No, because God would not use the methods used by humans, who use human intelligence to design and make things.
                  But how do you know this about God?

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                    That ID is just rebranded Creationism was made quite clear in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial over 13 years ago. ID proponents had every opportunity on a national stage to make a scientific case and face planted big time.
                    Actually, the judge in that case misrepresented Behe's testimony:

                    Source: Kitzmiller v. Dover

                    Q. Is that your position today that these articles aren’t good enough, you need to see a step-by-step description?
                    A. These articles are excellent articles I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it’s not that they aren’t good enough. It’s simply that they are addressed to a different subject.

                    © Copyright Original Source


                    Yet the judge concluded that Behe said they weren't good enough.

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    Last edited by lee_merrill; 01-17-2019, 04:46 PM.
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                      Sadly yes, it is true. ID is a religiously motivated political movement, not a scientific one. Its written goals are to end "materialism" and get Christian creation views reintroduced to public school science classes. That ID is just rebranded Creationism was made quite clear in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial over 13 years ago. ID proponents had every opportunity on a national stage to make a scientific case and face planted big time. Since then the only thing keeping ID on life support is the religious think tank Discovery Institute. Every major ID supporter these days is on the DI payroll - Meyer, Behe, Axe, Gauger, Wells, etc. They do no science, just produce propaganda books and films aimed at the scientifically unschooled lay public. Every one of those ID supporters has also come out publicly and said the "Designer" is their Christian God.

                      The ploy to sneak Creation past the Constitution's Establishment Clause by removing references to God failed miserably. No one in the scientific community or courts was fooled.
                      As Leonard Krishtalka, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Director of the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas, once quipped: "Intelligent design is nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo." This view is strongly supported when one reads what the leaders of the movement tend to say to friendly audiences. For instance:

                      Philip E. Johnson (the father of the Intelligent Design movement):
                      "This [the intelligent design movement] isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy."

                      "The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message."

                      "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

                      "We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.”


                      William Dembski:
                      "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

                      "Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God."

                      "Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.”

                      The Wedge Document:[1]
                      Governing Goals ... To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

                      Then there is the book "Of Pandas and People," which was designed to be a school textbook that promoted Intelligent Design. It was originally written as a strictly creationist tract with the original title being "Creation Biology" and was only slightly altered to get around the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard which declared it unconstitutional to teach creationism in classrooms. For instance, the passage
                      "Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.”

                      was changed to read
                      "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."

                      Essentially the words "creation" and "creator" were merely replaced with "intelligent design" and "intelligent agency" respectively leaving the definition essentially unchanged. Nearly 150 similar systematic substitutions are readily found throughout "Pandas."

                      In fact, one instance is so obvious thanks to the editor accidentally leaving a linguistic "transitional" form or "missing link" when they sloppily failed to replace all of the word "creationists" when they pasted in “design proponent,” resulting in the infamous hybrid “cdesign proponentists”:
                      “The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

                      As a final note about the book, one of its co-authors, Percival Davis, later acknowledged in a November 1994 interview with the Wall Street Journal, that religious concerns underlay the writing of it, saying: "Of course my motives were religious. There's no question about it."

                      There are the statements of other leading advocates of ID worth considering here such as those by the Discovery Institute's spokesperson Casey Luskin who spends a lot of time running about insisting that Intelligent Design is not Creationism or religion but pure science. Yet upon occasion the mask slips such as when he attacks the anti-ID book "What’s Your Dangerous Idea?" as being "an anti-religious polemic" written by atheists. That's a funny criticism for defending a scientific proposal.

                      Luskin has said and written many other things that serve to undercut his claims. For example, from the first line of the conclusion of a paper that Luskin co-authored called "Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover:
                      "The opinion in Kitzmiller is a misguided attempt on the part of a federal judge to settle controversies over science and religion that properly belong to practicing scientists and religious groups respectively.

                      So according to Luskin, the Kitzmiller case was all about "controversies over science and religion." And here I thought he said ID wasn't religiously based.

                      Luskin is also the sole author of "Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools" published in Journal of Church & State in 2005 (exactly where one would expect someone to argue the case that ID is science). His abstract is as follows (bolding added):
                      Reviews several laws to assess the ability to present creation science, intelligent design theory or scientific criticisms of evolution in public school districts in the U.S. which have various teaching viewpoints. Restrictions faced by the teaching of creation science; Background on the Lemon test, a judicial vehicle used by the U.S. courts to determine the constitutionality of teaching creation science; Nature of intelligent design theory.

                      Um... This does not exactly help his case that Intelligent Design is not a form of creationism.

                      Finally, on Luskin's biography provided by the Discovery Institute it says that he "is co-founder of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, a non-profit helping students to investigate evolution by starting "IDEA Clubs" on college and high school campuses across the country." Yet according to the IDEA Center website "IDEA Center Leadership" (which would naturally include their co-founder, who is still listed on their Board of Directors and acts as the organizations Secretary) "believes that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible" although they try to hide behind a disclaimer clause saying that it is "because of religious reasons unrelated to intelligent design theory."

                      Similarly, a comment from Discovery Institute Vice President John West also seems to acknowledge the religious nature of ID when he declared that allowing schools to criticize ID is "tantamount to state endorsement of an anti-religious view."

                      Another prominent ID spokesperson, Stephen Meyer, the director at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, is on record saying that the "designer" is God and that sub-optimal designs along with deadly diseases are not examples of an unintelligent design, but rather were the result of the Fall in the Garden of Eden.



                      Now to be fair, it is possible that not all of the advocates of Intelligent Design are creationists or "cdesign proponentsists" (David Berlinski claims he is an agnostic but often uses religious terminology in his arguments). What's more some of the largest creationist groups and their spokespersons have given ID a lukewarm reception at best.

                      Henry Morris, one of the founders of modern YEC movement expresses his dissatisfaction when he writes in "Design is not Enough”:
                      "Any discussion of a young earth, 6-day creation, a world-wide flood and other biblical records of history will turn off scientists and other professionals, they say, so we should simply use the evidence of ‘intelligent design’ as a ‘wedge’ to pry them loose from their naturalistic premises. Then, later, we can follow up this opening by presenting the gospel they hope ... It is obvious that neither, ‘intelligent design’ nor ‘irreducible complexity’ nor any other such euphemism for creation will suffice to separate a thorough-going Darwinian naturalist from his atheistic religion, in favor of God and special creation."

                      Still it appears that Morris sees ID and irreducible complexity are mere euphemisms for creation and watered down versions of creationism.

                      John Morris, Henry's son, who inherited the role of leader of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) after the latter's passing, takes a more hard-line approach:
                      “ICR very much appreciates the work of Johnson, Behe, and Berlinski, but we recognize that without biblical creationism they fall short of a God-pleasing mark. Any form of old-earth thinking, theistic evolution, or progressive creation is so similar to secular evolution that their defense is ultimately a waste of time."

                      More recently John Whitcomb, who co-wrote the Bible of the YEC movement with Henry Morris ("The Genesis Flood"), characterized ID as "vastly insufficient" and Carl Wieland, Managing Director of Creation Ministries International (CMI), declared that it lacks a "coherent philosophical framework" and ignores the "story of the past.” Wieland was also upset with ID’s "refusal to identify the Designer with the biblical God," which he worries might result in ID’s leading "to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions." Still Wieland has refered to some supporters of ID as "Genesis-believing fellow travelers."

                      Lastly, David Klinghoffer, a Senior Fellow at the Discover Institute, has stated that “whatever else may be said for or against ID, it's clearly at odds with a literal reading of the Bible.”











                      1. Put out by the Discovery Institute, the primary organization backing ID. Although initially dismissed by the Discovery Institute as merely an "urban legend" pushed by "Darwinist Paranoia," one of its co-founders, Stephen C. Meyer, eventually admitted that they were indeed the source of the document.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by DaveB View Post
                        I doubt that is true about the DI, but what does this have to do with anything? Smells like ad hominem to me.
                        Smells like Christian fundamentalism to me. In fact ALL the following in the Science section are fundamentalist Christians with exception of a Jew that believes in literal Genesis. . .

                        Source: https://www.discovery.org/about/fellows/



                        Discovery Institute
                        Senior Fellows

                        Center for Science and Culture
                        Program Director
                        Stephen C Meyer

                        Senior Fellows

                        Günter Bechly
                        Michael J Behe
                        David Berlinski
                        Paul Chien
                        Michael Denton
                        David DeWolf
                        Ann Gauger
                        Guillermo Gonzalez
                        Bruce L Gordon
                        Michael Newton Keas
                        David Klinghoffer
                        Paul Nelson
                        Jay W Richards
                        Richard Sternberg
                        Richard Weikart
                        Jonathan Wells
                        John G West
                        Benjamin Wiker
                        Jonathan Witt
                        Associate Director
                        John G West
                        Fellows
                        John Bloom
                        Raymond Bohlin
                        Walter Bradley
                        J. Budziszewski
                        Robert Lowry Clinton
                        Jack Collins
                        William Lane Craig
                        Michael Flannery
                        Brian Frederick
                        Mark Hartwig
                        Cornelius G Hunter
                        Robert Kaita
                        Dean Kenyon
                        Forrest M Mims
                        Scott Minnich
                        J.P. Moreland
                        Nancy Pearcey
                        Pattle Pak-Toe Pun
                        John Mark N Reynolds
                        Henry F Schaefer III
                        Geoffrey Simmons
                        Wolfgang Smith
                        Charles Thaxton

                        © Copyright Original Source




                        Accounted for by natural causes, yes, but that doesn't mean the only answer is the supernatural.

                        Things designed by humans (or aliens) fall within ID but are not supernatural.

                        And again, ID stops with the inference of intelligence.
                        Other than designed by humans which is obvious as far as science is concerned what other Intelligent Design sources could there be other than the supernatural, ie God?



                        That would be great.
                        More to follow . . .
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-17-2019, 04:51 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          Actually, the judge in that case misrepresented Behe's testimony:

                          Source: Kitzmiller v. Dover

                          Q. Is that your position today that these articles aren’t good enough, you need to see a step-by-step description?
                          A. These articles are excellent articles I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it’s not that they aren’t good enough. It’s simply that they are addressed to a different subject.

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          Yet the judge concluded that Behe said they weren't good enough.

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          You mean Behe whined after the fact he had been misrepresented. Doesn't explain why all the other IDiots also failed miserably to make their case. Also doesn't explain why ID "research" has produced nothing new in the 13+ years since then.

                          ID is religious apologetics in a cheap lab coat. It doesn't fool anyone except scientifically illiterate goobers who want to be fooled.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            But how do you know this about God?

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            IF the above is the case you could not differentiate what is Created by God or humans. The ID proposal is that there is something that cannot be explained by Natural processes. Humanity and human intelligence can be explained by natural processes.

                            God is not an engineer
                            God is a Creator.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                              Sadly yes, it is true.
                              Not quite - Berlinski is Jewish.
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                IF the above is the case you could not differentiate what is Created by God or humans.
                                Surely you can, humans did not create life, for instance, yet life is present and is exquisitely designed.

                                The ID proposal is that there is something that cannot be explained by Natural processes. Humanity and human intelligence can be explained by natural processes.
                                And the point then is that as man is in the image of God, then human designing and divine designing will be somewhat analogous.

                                God is not an engineer
                                God is a Creator.
                                A creator of all things, which have the fingerprints of design all through them.

                                Blessings,
                                Lee
                                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X