Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

BA77’s Off Topic Thread, Volume 5 — Aerobatic Ballet, what ID has done for me, Cyd Charisse, Tango jealousy, Butterfly

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This is a thread for UD commenters to speak their mind. Please keep it civil.

Off topic #1
If I could be a ballet dancer, I’d be this man:

[youtube VQKfvwoKc6w]

Off topic #2
It’s no secret I’m rather chummy with agnostics, atheists, free-thinkers and academics, and even some of the less reputable elements of society (professional gamblers). My love of the arts and drama often touches on realms the church sometimes frowns on. The irony is I’m a right wing conservative young earth creationist. Why is this so?

First I wasn’t always a YEC. I was raised in a Roman Catholic home, my lifestyle was worldly and I found church often boring and suffocating, and this persisted to some extent even after I became a Protestant.

I found more solace in music, the performing arts, drama and science than I did from the majority of sermons (often more like nagging and bullying sessions). There are very few pastors I can say that I look forward to listening to on Sunday morning…

Many of my mentors were Darwinists (the physicists, engineers, mathematicians, chemists) in academia and to this day I look at their intellectual accomplishments with awe.

For a season in my life, the home TV would be tuned into a mix of NFL Football, figure skating and classical music concerts. More recently, I’ve watched the history channel and all the retelling of great battles of the past.

I used to enjoy the thrill of flying airplanes. Flying upside down and going weightless and then getting squashed into my seat in a high G maneuver. I loved hang gliding until I broke my arm in a crash in Carolina and was hauled off in an ambulance. But even then, to me, that was living life….and I often confess these things were often more enjoyable than much of the church service experience.

Added to that, I’ve often been utterly disappointed in behavior of the clergy and laity. I’ve endured seeing pastor after pastor fall from grace — adulterous affairs, theft and abuse of donations, lies, family abuse, outright charlatanry, etc.

Some years ago Bill Gothard used to be widely praised in evangelical circles. I always suspected he was a rat. Now it turns out, he used to send his young staff to his brother Steve at an expensive resort built on charitable donations. The resort had an airport and was used for a Leer jet paid by for by charitable donations as well. Steve Gothard basically made sex slaves of the girls that his brother Bill sent his way. Bill didn’t stop the abuse of women despite knowing about it, and by all measures looked like a willing accomplice. Bill was noted for promoting the notion of obedience to leaders. He and brother Steve obviously used their teachings for their own ends. See what has been swept under the carpet by the Evangelical Community:
Gotherd 1980’s Scandal

I’ve hung around atheist circles because vicariously they express my frustrations with my own church family — the bad behavior, lack of critical thinking, often blind uninformed obedience…

What has kept me believing, and why have I stayed in the church? 2 reasons. Number 1: atheism and agnosticism offers no genuine hope of eternal life or an eternally better world. My favorite Agnostic/Atheist Bertrand Russell ironically gave me reason to search for answers outside of agnosticism and atheism:

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins — all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.

No matter how much science and technology there is, it will be destroyed as the universe dies out….

Sometimes in the midst of anxiety over the world’s troubles, I find it natural to call out for God’s help in prayer, and when there are moments that I feel I’ve caught a break in life I didn’t deserve, I can’t help but offer thanks. I think I have indeed seen miracles.

Number 2, the circumstantial evidence points to the historical claims of the Bible as more authentic than it is given credit for — the major points: creation of life, Noah’s flood, resurrection of Jesus. And if these things are historically true, it is reasonable they are also theologically true.

For sure, there are formal uncertainties in the proof of beliefs we hold dear. Could there be no God and is the multiverse the answer to problem of OOL? My reply — is it rational to wager one’s soul on the idea of multiverse? In light of what little evidences we have in hand for certain beliefs but in view of the potential payoffs, Pascal was most certainly right in his wager.

Despite my frustration with the church and despite my obviously being enamored with the compelling beauty and drama in a world that is passing away, it seems obvious there is design in the universe by some Intelligence far beyond human comprehension, and Intelligence capable of observing and knowing details of every molecule in the universe….

I’ve embraced Christianity reluctantly after nearly leaving it many years ago. Darwinists have actually strengthened my convictions after many years of debating them. In a strange sort of way, I thank God for them because they have helped me critically examine the case for ID and creation, and as a result, I’m more convinced now of God’s design and miraculous work than ever.

I still have attachment to the material world and all its passing beauty and drama and the illusion that all is well and will evolve to a better state. I’ve always been tempted to leave the church and just try to live it up, but I know utopia cannot be found in this life, and the longing to return to the Garden of Eden through human means cannot be met…

The evil in the world is sobering, but ID has been a source of hope that the can be ultimate meaning after all.

What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Apostle Paul

=========
Off Topic #3

Cyd Charisse is a miracle. She was crippled by polio when young, but you can see for yourself how she turned out. As far as I can tell, relative to Hollywood culture, she lived a clean life and was a life-long practicing Methodist (she probably couldn’t have been a Baptist given the prohibitions against dancing). She is a work of art!

[youtube wDHwJrbrp0Y]

=======
Off topic #4

I normally don’t like Tango music, but here is the best Tango, “Tango Tzigane” aka “Tango Jealousy”. It is an incredible mix of Argentine Tango form composed by Danish violinist Jacob Gade during the roaring 1920’s for virtuoso classical violin. The composition conveys so well the mood of the roaring 20’s almost utopian view of the world. He became rich on that one composition and retired.

[youtube KXObdWBr7os]
========
Off Topic #5 rated PG-13, maybe R.

The winner of supposedly family friendly “Ukraine’s got talent” was pole dancer Anastasia Sokolova. 😯 You can google here “Ukraine’s got talent” performance. I found Sokolova’s performance while googling “acrobatic dance”.

Pole dancing is generally lewd, Jenyne Butterfly (who performed on the Ellen DeGeneres show) and Anastasia Sokolova (performed on “Ukraine’s got talent”) added some class to this dance form (still a tad lewd, but wow,the athletic ability of Sokolova and Butterfly is incredible). Most of the screaming cheers for Jenyne Buttefly were coming from women! Jenyne almost defies gravity!

I won’t link to their performances (it’s probably PG-13 or R rated), but I will link to this acrobatic dance routine from “Ukraine’s got Talent”:
[youtube l9ihPrEbI8Y]

Off Topic #6
And not to be out done, the 5 most shocking from Britain’s Got Talent:
[youtube iNGS9lF1a54]

Comments
UB, Glad to see your comments here! Thank you for the encouraging words. I also read your, SA's and BA77's comments in other threads. Now, keep in mind I'm studying (autodidact) the information processing mechanisms present in biological systems, but have focused in on the detailed informational processes associated with cell fate determination, specially during development. The articles I posted are part of the material I'm reviewing. Still more studying ahead. P.S. SA provided very helpful suggestions I will consider seriously.Dionisio
August 12, 2014
August
08
Aug
12
12
2014
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Dio... Your list has been ann interest to me, and I am sure to many others as well.Upright BiPed
August 12, 2014
August
08
Aug
12
12
2014
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
BA77 I see your point. Thank you for the comments. You made me laugh out loud :)Dionisio
August 12, 2014
August
08
Aug
12
12
2014
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
podcast: "David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 1" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-11T17_19_09-07_00 How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design - July 2014 Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems: *"Negative feedback for stable operation." *"Frequency filtering" for extracting a signal from a noisy system. *Control and signaling to induce a response. *"Information storage" where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes: "This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. " *"Timing and synchronization," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order. *"Addressing," where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target. *"Hierarchies of function," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order. *"Redundancy," as organisms contain backup systems or "fail-safes" if primary essential systems fail. *"Adaptation," where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, "These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way," and "Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.",,, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that "just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little 'junk.'" He explains, "Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible," and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/when_biologists087871.htmlbornagain77
August 12, 2014
August
08
Aug
12
12
2014
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, Thank you so much for the suggestions. I'll definitely consider them very seriously.Dionisio
August 12, 2014
August
08
Aug
12
12
2014
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Dionisio, if any naturalist decides to give up Neo-Darwinism and ever tries to defend the third way instead, I have your thread ready for use. :) Its not that there is no interest in the topic (I'm interested for one), its that materialists, at least the ones here on UD, have not even reached the point of realizing that Neo-Darwinism is falsified yet. Thus they are not even to the point of trying to defend the 'third way' yet as a naturalistic alternative to Neo-Darwinism. i.e. You are ahead of the curve. :)bornagain77
August 12, 2014
August
08
Aug
12
12
2014
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
Dionisio, Thanks for asking. I actually felt a little bad about that neglect of all your postings - I did notice it. My guess? I think nobody read your many links so they didn't discuss them. To get a discussion going, I think you should start with your very best research example, then offer your own summary commment. Why is that research important? Is it a devastating argument against Darwinism? If so, why? Does it give powerful evidence for Intelligent Design? Also, why? The danger of posting all of your good material at once is that the thread will get old and lose attention over time. Then you'll have to repeat the posts later. Then people get bored. So, in my opinion, it's best to hold your very best research for the right time -- when it answers a challenge. Another very good discussion promoter is to make a statement first, without the research. Then provide research if someone wants detail. Most scientific papers are not that interesting to read.Silver Asiatic
August 12, 2014
August
08
Aug
12
12
2014
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
BA77 and Silver Asiatic I would like to know your opinion on this. By now there are over 200 links to research examples posted as comments in the below link. But apparently the subject is boring. How else can we explain the lack of discussions in that thread? Any comments, suggestions, ideas? Thank you. Here's the referred link: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-510305Dionisio
August 12, 2014
August
08
Aug
12
12
2014
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
EGFR Modulates DNA Synthesis and Repair through Tyr Phosphorylation of Histone H4
Posttranslational modifications of histones play fundamental roles in many biological functions. Specifically, histone H4-K20 methylation is critical for DNA synthesis and repair. However, little is known about how these functions are regulated by the upstream stimuli. Recent findings uncover a mechanism by which EGFR transduces signal to chromatin to regulate DNA synthesis and repair. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2014.06.008
Dionisio
August 12, 2014
August
08
Aug
12
12
2014
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, Thank you for the comments. Rev. 22:21Dionisio
August 12, 2014
August
08
Aug
12
12
2014
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
Dionisio, The early Christian community were very careful about preserving the relics of martyrs. There are Christian graves that honor the dead - naming each Christian that died (as in the catacombs). This also follows the Jewish practice that Jesus mentioned (Luke 11:47): "...you build tombs for the prophets..." So the Jewish practice was to build memorials to the prophets - obviously with the name of the prophet there. The Christians in Rome preserved the grave-site of Peter. It was the practice to offer Christian worship at the gravesites of the martyrs -- so the basilica was built up over time there. The fact that the early Christians honored the saints can be seen in Acts 19:12 "...so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them." People took their handkerchiefs and touched them to Paul's skin and it had healing power. They kept the same reverence for his body after he was killed in Rome. So, at his grave is the basilica of St. Paul also. That's how the earliest Christian community responded. These are the people who saw Jesus, in many cases. As soon as the persecutions ended, they built bigger churches and made them quite ornate. Even during the persecutions they decorated the tombs of the martyrs - as can be seen in the catacombs. Bigger churches were constructed through large geographic region ar about the same time so we know it was common throughout Christianity in the early church. The practice was not condemned (that I know of) - if you have information to the contrary on that I would like to see it. So, I think Peter would be very happy with the basilica which is a memorial to what God did through him.Silver Asiatic
August 12, 2014
August
08
Aug
12
12
2014
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
COT [Complete OT] Venom Gets Good Buzz as Potential Cancer Drug http://www.dddmag.com/news/2014/08/venom-gets-good-buzz-potential-cancer-drug?et_cid=4094153&et_rid=653535995&type=ctaDionisio
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
Thanks Dionisio,,,, I believe ENCODE team, due to the unexpected activity of RNA molecules, went so far as to argue that an RNA transcript, not a gene, should be considered the fundamental unit of inheritance. Landscape of transcription in human cells – Sept. 6, 2012 Excerpt: Here we report evidence that three-quarters of the human genome is capable of being transcribed, as well as observations about the range and levels of expression, localization, processing fates, regulatory regions and modifications of almost all currently annotated and thousands of previously unannotated RNAs. These observations, taken together, prompt a redefinition of the concept of a gene.,,, Isoform expression by a gene does not follow a minimalistic expression strategy, resulting in a tendency for genes to express many isoforms simultaneously, with a plateau at about 10–12 expressed isoforms per gene per cell line. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11233.html Time to Redefine the Concept of a Gene? - Sept. 10, 2012 Excerpt: As detailed in my second post on alternative splicing, there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins! While the fact that a single gene can code for so many proteins is truly astounding, we didn’t really know how prevalent alternative splicing is. Are there only a few genes that participate in it, or do most genes engage in it? The ENCODE data presented in reference 2 indicates that at least 75% of all genes participate in alternative splicing. They also indicate that the number of different proteins each gene makes varies significantly, with most genes producing somewhere between 2 and 25. Based on these results, it seems clear that the RNA transcripts are the real carriers of genetic information. This is why some members of the ENCODE team are arguing that an RNA transcript, not a gene, should be considered the fundamental unit of inheritance. http://networkedblogs.com/BYdo8bornagain77
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
Oops! sorry, I posted something OT in the threadDionisio
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
BA77, Check this out: newly discovered non-coding RNA The newly discovered molecule is known as a long non-coding RNA. RNA's usual role is to carry instructions -- the code -- from the DNA in a cell's nucleus to the machinery in the cell that produces proteins necessary for cell activities. In recent years, scientists have discovered several types of RNA that are not involved in protein coding but act on their own. The role in the heart of long non-coding RNA has been unknown. http://www.dddmag.com/news/2014/08/discovery-may-provide-key-treating-chf?et_cid=4094153&et_rid=653535995&type=ctaDionisio
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic,
The basilica is not for Peter alone but it honors his faith in God and his leadership of the church (its built over his gravesite). I think Peter would appreciate the building itself – as Jesus would …
Isn't the basilica named after Peter? Would he have liked that such a monumental construction is named after him? Is there any biblical (NT) passage that could provide a hint?Dionisio
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic,
Tough question. I think that particular commentary opens up some issues that they didn’t deal with. What did you think about it? Again, it didn’t seem like you agreed with their view.
Apparently they are trying to post accurate information. One can notice it by the option they chose among the 4 they listed, as you well pointed out earlier in our discussion. This was the first time I understood that interpretation: that the Apostles, in that case represented by Peter, were the foundation on which Jesus built His church. They present persuasive argument. I always thought it was Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Christ, the messiah, the anointed one and only, as it had been revealed by God. Now, all this shows is that the given passage is a little controversial and has provoked extensive debate. Hence, it doesn't seem like a strong candidate for the core of a doctrine. The scriptures are clear about the salvation message. No room for doubts. Therefore the Gospel message is a solid doctrine. Thus we have some areas of scriptures that can be referred to as doctrinal, while other parts can't be easily associated with any serious doctrine. Perhaps that's what's happening with the church foundation issue. It's debatable, hence it can't serve as doctrine.Dionisio
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
Dionisio, No, I had not heard of Ligonier Ministries before you posted that.
Do you think they are serious about the accuracy of their commentaries?
Tough question. I think that particular commentary opens up some issues that they didn't deal with. What did you think about it? Again, it didn't seem like you agreed with their view.Silver Asiatic
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic Had you heard of Ligonier Ministries before our discussion here? Do you think they are serious about the accuracy of their commentaries? Thank you.Dionisio
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, Regarding the biblical passage you quoted: [The Destruction of the Temple and Signs of the End Times]
As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” Mark 13:1-2(NIV)
[Jesus Foretells Destruction of the Temple]
And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” Mark 13:1-2(ESV)
what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings. Herod the Great began rebuilding the temple in 19 b.c., using marble and gold as decorative materials. The outer court measured five hundred by three hundred yards. It was bordered by walls of massive white stones, some of which were sixteen feet long and three to four feet high. On top of these were magnificent, covered cloisters or walkways with richly carved wooden ceilings. one stone. Jerusalem was sacked and the temple burned and destroyed in a.d. 70 by Titus, the Roman general (later emperor). The Arch of Titus commemorating his victory still stands in Rome. Reformation Study Bible by Ligonier MinistriesDionisio
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Dionisuo,
Interestingly, that commentary comes from a source associated with a reformed denomination.
Yes, that's why I was so surprised. True, we can't know with 100% certainty but like the ID proposal we find the most reasonable conclusion. The early church fathers are a good source, to see if there was a consensus view. Plus, when you look at the opposing arguments, they don't hold up. For example, the Petros/Petra thing that is dismissed by your source has no support at all (Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek). But it is still used widely as an argument. I think it was quite a bold statement from a reformed view -- although I don't agree that the Catholic Church 'abused' the passage. But there's still an admission that the incorrect (according to your source) interpretation was based on a reaction against that and not on an honest reading of the text.Silver Asiatic
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic,
I would add agreement on the quote you offered that “the foundational rock is Peter as a representative apostle” and that the “apostles as the foundation” of the church. I thought that was a very interesting conclusion from that particular perspective.
Yes, perhaps that's the valid interpretation. However, I really don't know 100% - maybe that's a question that could be discussed further. Interestingly, that commentary comes from a source associated with a reformed denomination. Certain things, like for example, the fact that Peter was married, don't leave room to discussion. But there are some issues where apparently the jury is out.Dionisio
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
Dionisio, Interesting thoughts.
... whether Peter the apostle would have liked to see that majestic construction associated with him?
The basilica is not for Peter alone but it honors his faith in God and his leadership of the church (its built over his gravesite). I think Peter would appreciate the building itself - as Jesus would ...
As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings?
As for interpretation 'a', I think it conflicts with the name change "you are Petros (rock)" but in any case, I wondered why you posted that particular interpretation and what you actually believed about it. Thanks for your explanation. I agree on the central teaching as you explain it but I would add agreement on the quote you offered that "the foundational rock is Peter as a representative apostle" and that the "apostles as the foundation" of the church. I thought that was a very interesting conclusion from that particular perspective.Silver Asiatic
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, I was in Rome last March, visited the basilica, climbed up the stairs all the way to the balcony around the cupola, and thought whether Peter the apostle would have liked to see that majestic construction associated with him? The main Gospel message is centered in Christ alone. Peter himself wrote about that too. Other interpretations seem like deviations from the central doctrine, which remains unchanged, unlike the central dogma of biology, which got weakened by recent evidences coming out of the latest research.Dionisio
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, I think I see your point. I was offering their commentary, which listed 4 possible situations. I can't tell which option is right, but I thought option (a) seems more reasonable. I don't know Greek language, but it would be interesting to see what linguistic experts would say in this case.Dionisio
August 10, 2014
August
08
Aug
10
10
2014
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT
At the end of the day, the best interpretation of any paper is the author’s. My strong desire is to find the very author’s interpretation, but many times that doesn’t come easily.
Yes, but I meant the interpretation of Matt 16:18 and the meaning of 'upon this rock'. In this case, it seemed the author chose interpretation 'c', (Peter, as the representative apostle, is a foundation in the church (Eph. 2:20);). I wondered if you agreed with that and if so why. But it may be that you were just offering it as one view, not your own necessarily. I found it interesting that incorrect (according to the author) interpretations of that passage were motivated by reactions against the traditional view.Silver Asiatic
August 10, 2014
August
08
Aug
10
10
2014
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
I had not encountered that idea before. It would be interesting to trace the history of it. (Teachers doubted the obvious meaning of the text in response to interpretations they didn’t agree with. Who first did this? How did the idea spread? What are the implications today?)
I don't recall seeing that interpretation before either. Agree it would be interesting to trace the history of it.
Just curious … why did you choose that particular interpretation versus many others that conflict with it?
good question, thank you for asking it. Have been using their commentaries along with others, but this time I was in a rush, writing from a tablet, hence I chose the shortest commentaries that cover more possible options. At the end of the day, the best interpretation of any paper is the author's. My strong desire is to find the very author's interpretation, but many times that doesn't come easily. There's always the danger of trying to read less than the paper says or to make it say more than it really does.Dionisio
August 10, 2014
August
08
Aug
10
10
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
If it had not been for the abuse of this passage by the Roman Catholic Church, it is unlikely that any doubt would have arisen that the reference is to Peter.
I had not encountered that idea before. It would be interesting to trace the history of it. (Teachers doubted the obvious meaning of the text in response to interpretations they didn't agree with. Who first did this? How did the idea spread? What are the implications today?)
Reformation Study Bible by Ligonier Ministries
Just curious ... why did you choose that particular interpretation versus many others that conflict with it?Silver Asiatic
August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
William A. Dembski, Discovery Institute Conservation of Information in Evolutionary Search Conservation of Information (CoI) asserts that the amount of information a search outputs can equal but never exceed the amount of information it inputs. Mathematically, CoI sets limits on the information cost incurred when the probability of success of a targeted search gets raised from p to q (p < q), that cost being calculated in terms of the probability p/q. CoI builds on the No Free Lunch (NFL) theorems, which showed that average performance of any search is no better than blind search. CoI shows that when, for a given problem, a search outperforms blind search, it does so by incorporating an amount of information determined by the increase in probability with which the search outperforms blind search. CoI applies to evolutionary search, showing that natural selection cannot create the information that enables evolution to be successful, but at best redistributes already existing information. CoI has implications for teleology in nature, consistent with natural teleological laws mooted in Thomas Nagel's Mind & Cosmos. http://mrsec.uchicago.edu/Comp_in_Sci/Dionisio
August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
OT Brain power and cognitive computing systems http://research.ibm.com/cognitive-computing/neurosynaptic-chips.shtml?lnk=ushpls1#fbid=sH2MFRLd-q3Dionisio
August 9, 2014
August
08
Aug
9
09
2014
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply