Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From the article:

"For the human body, though, the whole is much more than the sum of its parts. . . as if the body was designed specifically to enable the mind: thought, language, love, nobility, self-sacrifice, art, creativity, industry, and my favorite enigma (for Darwinists): music. The human body enables these things, but does not determine them. As near as we can tell, no combination of the body’s substrate — information, machinery, or operations — alone can achieve these things. . . "

The whole is the unity that is the person - you and I, everyone we meet - one perceiving, feeling, thinking being who acts as a participant in all creation, ultimately in relation to God.

“I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition . . . . we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world.” —Sir John C. Eccles (1903–1997)
 
Aloysium said:
From the article:

"For the human body, though, the whole is much more than the sum of its parts. . . as if the body was designed specifically to enable the mind: thought, language, love, nobility, self-sacrifice, art, creativity, industry, and my favorite enigma (for Darwinists): music. The human body enables these things, but does not determine them. As near as we can tell, no combination of the body’s substrate — information, machinery, or operations — alone can achieve these things. . . "

The whole is the unity that is the person - you and I, everyone we meet - one perceiving, feeling, thinking being who acts as a participant in all creation, ultimately in relation to God.

“I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition . . . . we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world.” —Sir John C. Eccles (1903–1997)
Click to expand...
Thanks for those excerpts. A more appropriate term for materialism would be “substition” because it uses the lowest aspect of reality to explain the highest.🙂
 
Aloysium said:
From the article:

"For the human body, though, the whole is much more than the sum of its parts. . . as if the body was designed specifically to enable the mind: thought, language, love, nobility, self-sacrifice, art, creativity, industry, and my favorite enigma (for Darwinists): music. The human body enables these things, but does not determine them. As near as we can tell, no combination of the body’s substrate — information, machinery, or operations — alone can achieve these things. . . "

The whole is the unity that is the person - you and I, everyone we meet - one perceiving, feeling, thinking being who acts as a participant in all creation, ultimately in relation to God.

“I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition . . . . we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world.” —Sir John C. Eccles (1903–1997)
Click to expand...
I forgot to add that the breathtaking beauty of nature in *What a Wonderful World *is a powerful reason for believing in Design. Its significance far exceeds the ugly aspects of life which are often used as an objection to Creation by a loving God. To expect to have such a great gift without any disadvantages is unreasonable. The burden of proof is on the sceptic to explain how they could be prevented.
 
Aloysium said:
From the article:

"For the human body, though, the whole is much more than the sum of its parts. . . as if the body was designed specifically to enable the mind: thought, language, love, nobility, self-sacrifice, art, creativity, industry, and my favorite enigma (for Darwinists): music. The human body enables these things, but does not determine them. As near as we can tell, no combination of the body’s substrate — information, machinery, or operations — alone can achieve these things. . . "

The whole is the unity that is the person - you and I, everyone we meet - one perceiving, feeling, thinking being who acts as a participant in all creation, ultimately in relation to God.

“I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition . . . . we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world.” —Sir John C. Eccles (1903–1997)
Click to expand...
I forgot to add that the breathtaking beauty of nature in *What a Wonderful World *is a powerful reason for believing in Design. Its significance far exceeds the ugly aspects of life which are often used as an objection to Creation by a loving God. To expect to have such a great gift without any disadvantages is unreasonable. The burden of proof is on the sceptic to explain how they could be prevented.
 
I’m afraid Bradski likely has the right of it.

Their methodology involves starting with the conclusion first, then finding “evidence” to support it. This is bad-business if you’re trying to maintain a rational view.

I fully believe God provided me with my house;
I also fully believe that is was built by a contractor and their sub-contractors. I don’t think it “popped” into existence.
 
The Discovery Institute is funded largely by evangelicals, and is successfully producing schisms in established American churches, dividing those taken in by its fairy-tale theology from those it calls skeptics.
 
The article is interesting and seems spot on, as are the sections in the “Designed Body”.
The movie What a Wonderful World narrated by Richard Attenborough is inspiring as noted by the OP.
 
Aloysium said:
The movie What a Wonderful World narrated by Richard Attenborough is inspiring as noted by the OP.
Click to expand...
It’s actually David Attenborough, the well-known atheist, who they dishonestly try to pretend is an ID fan, and it’s an advert for a tv channel.

When not making adverts, Attenborough argues against the fairy-tale theology of ID: *"when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that’s going to make him blind. And , ‘Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy" - skeptical-science.com/atheism/atheism-coping-grief-sir-david-attenborough-case-study/

btw that article was cited by this thread’s starter, who seems to have forgotten that on another thread he talked of “a secular society dominated by neoDarwinist propaganda on the media spearheaded by David Attenborough”.*
 
inocente said:
It’s actually David Attenborough, the well-known atheist, who they dishonestly try to pretend is an ID fan, and it’s an advert for a tv channel.

When not making adverts, Attenborough argues against the fairy-tale theology of ID: "when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that’s going to make him blind. And , ‘Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy" - skeptical-science.com/atheism/atheism-coping-grief-sir-david-attenborough-case-study/

btw that article was cited by this thread’s starter, who seems to have forgotten that on another thread he talked of “a secular society dominated by neoDarwinist propaganda on the media spearheaded by David Attenborough”.
Ad hominem… So far no one has refuted my argument:
I forgot to add that the breathtaking beauty of nature
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
inocente said:
The Discovery Institute is funded largely by evangelicals, and is successfully producing schisms in established American churches, dividing those taken in by its fairy-tale theology from those it calls skeptics.
Click to expand...
Ad hominem…
 
Vonsalza said:
I’m afraid Bradski likely has the right of it.

Their methodology involves starting with the conclusion first, then finding “evidence” to support it. This is bad-business if you’re trying to maintain a rational view.

I fully believe God provided me with my house;
I also fully believe that is was built by a contractor and their sub-contractors. I don’t think it “popped” into existence.
Click to expand...
The starting point is the breathtaking beauty of nature…
 
Design is the only rational answer. Recently, scientists found a second code “hiding” in DNA, raising the possibility of self-organization beyond the realm of possibility. Second, “junk DNA” was declared junk because it was non-coding [for proteins]. Someone, then a lot more someones, began investigating and found significant amounts of function. One example:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160202090544.htm

Junk DNA was first considered leftovers from our long history - useful at one time but useless as time passed. Copied because it was there, even though it did nothing, or so the story began.

Ed
 
Vonsalza said:
. . . . I don’t think it “popped” into existence.
Click to expand...
I’m wondering about people who think things can simply pop into existence.

View attachment 23828

They’re such babies. No idea of object permanence.

Seems to me that one’s eternal being does pop into existence as a person in time.

What do I know?
inocente said:
It’s actually David Attenborough, the well-known atheist, . . .
Click to expand...
Checked the source; and how right you are. It was the handsome brother after all.

I suppose I should never have watched the wonderful film clip because the narrator is an atheist.
It reminds me of some people, who sort of do something like that but in regards to Christians, and end up having no idea what they are missing.
 
The fatal flaw in scientific materialism is its reduction of truth, beauty, goodness, freedom, justice and love to human ideas. Its atomistic interpretation of reality inevitably leads to nihilism because it rejects the purpose of life. Everything is regarded as ultimately valueless and pointless yet if nothing is true, good or beautiful all our thoughts, values and decisions are subjective and worthless. There is no logical halt on the descent from insight to ignorance nor is there any rational foundation for science. In Hume’s words “Thought is a little agitation of the brain” - and therefore of little significance in the darkness of eternity…
 
edwest2 said:
Design is the only rational answer. Recently, scientists found a second code “hiding” in DNA, raising the possibility of self-organization beyond the realm of possibility. Second, “junk DNA” was declared junk because it was non-coding [for proteins]. Someone, then a lot more someones, began investigating and found significant amounts of function. One example:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160202090544.htm

Junk DNA was first considered leftovers from our long history - useful at one time but useless as time passed. Copied because it was there, even though it did nothing, or so the story began.

Ed
Click to expand...
👍 The so-called junk is not insignificant after all…
 
Aloysium said:
I’m wondering about people who think things can simply pop into existence.

View attachment 23828

They’re such babies. No idea of object permanence.

Seems to me that one’s eternal being does pop into existence as a person in time.

What do I know?

Checked the source; and how right you are. It was the handsome brother after all.

I suppose I should never have watched the wonderful film clip because the narrator is an atheist.
It reminds me of some people, who sort of do something like that but in regards to Christians, and end up having no idea what they are missing.
Click to expand...
Indeed. A common mistake is to equate the significance of evidence with the opinion of the witness…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top