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
Mr. Cheese,
Suppose I told you that I have foreknowledge that you will be having tea 1 week from now. Would you be able to change the outcome of that moment?
But, you are not God Mr. Cleese. But I suppose, in charity, that is what you meant to say, i.e. suppose God, not Mr. Cleese, let me know beforehand that I would do such and such. And in response to that I would say no, I could not change it. ,,, That reminds me of this Near Death Experience (NDE) video,,,
In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video https://vimeo.com/92172680
,, Where Mickey, at the 7:28 minute mark of the video, relates that God showed him future 'scenes' of his life. Scenes of him doing 'rotten, sinful, stupid things' and how he was unable to stop himself from doing those sinful action. I know the feeling of helplessness against sin well. That is why I 'freely' asked Christ into my life.
John 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
And indeed many people think they are freely sinning and have no clue that they are slaves to their sin. i.e. no free will! but regardless of all that, The downfall for Calvinists is that foreknowledge and coercion/determinism are not identical things. Thus free will, in a strict sense, cannot logically be ruled out by foreknowledge. It's that simple.bornagain77
July 31, 2014
July
07
Jul
31
31
2014
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Ba77, Thanks for your response. I am a layman when it comes to these issues. I am asking these questions to better understand the subject matter and to be able to defend my views. Allow me to refine my story posted above. Suppose I told you that I have foreknowledge that you will be having tea 1 week from now. Would you be able to change the outcome of that moment?Mr. Cheese
July 31, 2014
July
07
Jul
31
31
2014
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Mr. Cheese, I have never been impressed with the Calvinist argument. Knowing what someone will do is not the same thing as forcing someone to do something. God, being omniscient, besides knowing what someone will freely choose to do, also knows that they, and everyone else, had the freedom to do otherwise. Calvinists, if I read you right, are confusing omniscience with coercion/determinism. That are certainly not the same thing! you then ask: Is it reasonable to use the results of the experiment as evidence that foreknowledge can be independent of free will? I certainly think so. Indeed, I have used those experiments from quantum mechanics, experiments in which our present choices effect past material states, as proof that Dr. Dembski's old earth Theodicy is plausible. An old earth theodicy in which our present choices and actions can act retroactively: Old Earth Creationism and the Fall, William Dembski - Christian Research Journal, volume 34, number 4(2011). Excerpt: My solution (to Theodicy) in my book “The End of Christianity is to argue that, just as the effects of salvation at the cross reach both forward in time (saving present day Christians) and backward in time (saving Old Testament saints), so the effects of the fall reach forward in time as well as backward.,,, http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAF4344.pdfbornagain77
July 31, 2014
July
07
Jul
31
31
2014
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Gentlemen, thank you for replying to my question. Jguy: For myself, I’m not strong on any position, but I’m curious where foreknowledge is used as an argument against free will in the first place. Calvinism. If I have foreknowledge that at 8:30am one week from today you will be sitting at your kitchen table drinking tea, you will have no choice but to do this. Not only have I eliminated your choice for that moment but I have severely limited the choices you can make up to that point. You can't choose any action that will prevent you from getting to that moment. For example, you cannot choose to take a 3 week vacation in China. I have also limited the free will choices of others who would choose to interact with you during this week. For example, the coworker who is planning your demise, will be unable to do so this week. Natural forces/consequences are also inhibited. For example, the heart attack you would have had, due to a week heart and clogged arteries, can't happen. You are immortal for the week. The moment arrives. You wife asks you, coffee or tea.... Most Christians believe that God has perfect foreknowledge, therefore it follows that free will is an illusion. I do not subscribe to this position, but the conclusion is inescapable. I instinctively agree that foreknowledge can be independent of free will, but I have no argument or evidence for it and just saying it doesn't make it so. Ba77, thank you for your response. I agree that it would be insane to argue against free will based on your posts. However the Calvinist may argue that this is all good and well as long as the future is unknown. But once foreknowledge comes into play that future free will moment becomes fixed and available free will choices leading to that moment become curtailed. This is why I found the delayed choice experiment so fascinating. It provides evidence that the past is not necessarily fixed until a present choice is made. Of course this is assuming that my interpretation of the experiment is correct. Which brings me back to my original question. Is it reasonable to use the results of the experiment as evidence that foreknowledge can be independent of free will? Thanks for the kind welcome. Mr. CheeseMr. Cheese
July 31, 2014
July
07
Jul
31
31
2014
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
Moreover, it is important to point out that although free will is often thought of as allowing someone to choose between a veritable infinity of options, in a theistic view of reality that veritable infinity of options all boils down to just two options. Eternal life, (infinity if you will), with God, or Eternal life, (infinity again if you will), without God.
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell." - C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce
And exactly as would be expected on a Theistic view of reality, we find two very different eternities associated with General Relativity and Special Relativity:
Special Relativity, General Relativity, Heaven and Hell https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit
Special Relativity and General Relativity reveal two very different ‘qualities of eternity’ (as predicted in Christian Theism). In particular, Black Holes are found to be ‘timeless’ singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order, such as the extreme (1 in 10^10^123) order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang. Of particular note:
“Einstein’s equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist.” Kip S. Thorne – “Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy” pg. 476
Needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternity of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of the ‘spiritually minded’ persuasion! In light of this dilemma that these two very different eternities present to us spiritually minded people, and the fact that Gravity is, in so far as we can tell, completely incompatible with Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity (i.e. Quantum Electro-Dynamics),,,
A Capella Science – Bohemian Gravity! – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rjbtsX7twc
,,in light of this dilemma, it is interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:
A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847
Moreover, as would be expected if General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity (QED) were truly unified in the resurrection of Christ from death, the image on the shroud is found to be formed by a quantum process. The image was not formed by a ‘classical’ process:
The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271 “It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.” Kevin Moran – optical engineer Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html
Personally, considering the extreme difficulty that many brilliant minds have had in trying to reconcile Quantum Mechanics/Special relativity(QED), with Gravity, I consider the preceding ‘quantum’ nuance on the Shroud of Turin to be a subtle, but powerful, evidence substantiating Christ’s primary claim as to being our Savior from sin, death, and hell: Verse and Music:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Evanescence – The Other Side (Lyric Video) http://www.vevo.com/watch/evanescence/the-other-side-lyric-video/USWV41200024?source=instantsearch
bornagain77
July 31, 2014
July
07
Jul
31
31
2014
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
Mr. Cheese, I agree with JGuy that God's foreknowledge of our choices does not negate our free will. ,,, and I don't know of any articles that deal specifically with those delayed choice experiments and predestination. BUT, Anton Zeilinger, who probably had/has a confused view of predestination, once made a rather curious statement, (which I disagreed with), in a lecture I watched: In the following video, at the 37:00 minute mark, Anton Zeilinger, a leading researcher in quantum teleportation with many breakthroughs under his belt, humorously reflects on just how deeply determinism has been undermined by quantum mechanics by saying such a deep lack of determinism may provide some of us a loop hole when they meet God on judgment day.
Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw
here are some background notes to give us an idea of how Zeilinger was thinking:
In the beginning was the bit - New Scientist Excerpt: Zeilinger's principle leads to the intrinsic randomness found in the quantum world. Consider the spin of an electron. Say it is measured along a vertical axis (call it the z axis) and found to be pointing up. Because one bit of information has been used to make that statement, no more information can be carried by the electron's spin. Consequently, no information is available to predict the amounts of spin in the two horizontal directions (x and y axes), so they are of necessity entirely random. If you then measure the spin in one of these directions, there is an equal chance of its pointing right or left, forward or back. This fundamental randomness is what we call Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-02/NS-Tmoq-1302101.php People Keep Making Einstein’s (Real) Greatest Blunder - July 2011 Excerpt: It was in these debates (with Bohr) that Einstein declared his real greatest blunder: “God does not play dice with the Universe.” As much as we all admire Einstein,, ,, don’t keep making his (real) greatest blunder. I’ll leave the last word to Bohr, who allegedly said, “Don’t tell God what to do with his dice.” ,,, To clarify, it isn’t simply that there’s randomness; that at some level, “God plays dice.” Even local, real interpretations of quantum mechanics with hidden variables can do that. It’s that we know something about the type of dice that the Universe plays. And the dice cannot be both local and real; people claiming otherwise have experimental data to answer to. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/07/01/people-keep-making-einsteins-g/
Personally, I feel that such a deep undermining of determinism by quantum mechanics, far from providing a 'loop hole' on judgment day as Dr. Zeilinger stated, actually restores free will to its rightful place in the grand scheme of things, thus making God's final judgments on men's souls all the more fully binding since man truly is a 'free moral agent' as Theism has always maintained. To solidify this theistic claim for the importance of free will and how reality is actually constructed, the following study came along a few months after I had seen Dr. Zeilinger’s 'loop hole' video:
Can quantum theory be improved? - July 23, 2012 Excerpt: Being correct 50% of the time when calling heads or tails on a coin toss won’t impress anyone. So when quantum theory predicts that an entangled particle will reach one of two detectors with just a 50% probability, many physicists have naturally sought better predictions. The predictive power of quantum theory is, in this case, equal to a random guess. Building on nearly a century of investigative work on this topic, a team of physicists has recently performed an experiment whose results show that, despite its imperfections, quantum theory still seems to be the optimal way to predict measurement outcomes., However, in the new paper, the physicists have experimentally demonstrated that there cannot exist any alternative theory that increases the predictive probability of quantum theory by more than 0.165, with the only assumption being that measurement (*conscious observation) parameters can be chosen independently (free choice/free will assumption) of the other parameters of the theory.,,, ,, the experimental results provide the tightest constraints yet on alternatives to quantum theory. The findings imply that quantum theory is close to optimal in terms of its predictive power, even when the predictions are completely random. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-quantum-theory.html *What does the term "measurement" mean in quantum mechanics? "Measurement" or "observation" in a quantum mechanics context are really just other ways of saying that the observer is interacting with the quantum system and measuring the result in toto. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=597846
So just as I had suspected after watching Dr. Zeilinger’s video, it is found that a required (axiomatic) assumption of ‘free will’ in quantum mechanics is what necessarily drives the completely random (non-deterministic) aspect of quantum mechanics. Moreover, it was shown in the paper that one cannot ever improve the predictive power of quantum mechanics by ever removing free will as a starting assumption in Quantum Mechanics! Here is another recent experiment that highlights free will's axiomatic role in quantum mechanics:
Steering by peeking: Physicists control quantum particles by looking at them - Feb 17, 2014 Excerpt: By varying the strength of the coupling between the nucleus and the electron, the scientists could carefully tune the measurement strength. A weaker measurement reveals less information, but also has less back-action. An analysis of the nuclear spin after such a weak measurement showed that the nuclear spin remained in a (slightly altered) superposition of two states. In this way, the scientists verified that the change of the state (induced by the back-action) precisely matched the amount of information that was gained by the measurement. Steering by peeking The scientists realised that it is possible to steer the nuclear spin by applying sequential measurements with varying measurement strength. Since the outcome of a measurement is not known in advance, the researchers implemented a feedback loop in the experiment. They chose the strength of the second measurement depending on the outcome of the first measurement. In this way the scientists could steer the nucleus towards a desired superposition state,,,, http://phys.org/news/2014-02-peeking-physicists-quantum-particles.html
In other words, if you don't like that the cat might be dead (nucleus pointing down), you back off the strength of your measurement until you get a reading telling you that the cat might be more alive than dead (nucleus pointing up) and then once you get that reading you increase the strength of the measurement, as long as the measurement continues to give you the desired more alive than dead state, until you finally have complete knowledge that the cat is fully alive (nucleus pointing up). The preceding experiment is obviously another strong confirmation of free will's axiomatic position within quantum mechanics. That 'infinite non-local randomness' is (by necessity) associated with quantum mechanics prior to measurement does not negate the fact that free will can override that 'infinite randomness', if you will, and choose the most desirable of only two options.bornagain77
July 31, 2014
July
07
Jul
31
31
2014
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
Mr. Cheese, Just as a long time reader of UD myself... Welcome to UD. :) I'd like to comment or inquire on your sentence reading: " But it seems that the Armenian position, that foreknowledge does not necessarily eliminate free will, is strengthened by results of this experiment." For myself, I'm not strong on any position, but I'm curious where foreknowledge is used as an argument against free will in the first place. It doesn't seem like a good basis for an argument that b/c God would have foreknowledge of what will happen that this somehow neccessarily eliminates free-will. Why can't it be as simple as the eternal God knows the free-will choice one will make before he/she makes it? That seems to obvious to me... thus my question on where this argument is ever made... and how it is actually formed/made. I'm not even sure if saying God knows the chocie we will make BEFORE it is made makes sense other than from our temporal perspective. Anyway. Again..welcome to UD! ...JGuy
July 31, 2014
July
07
Jul
31
31
2014
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT
Hello bornagain77, I am new to this site and have been going over some of the older threads. I came across the thread titled "Does consciousness not involve quantum principles?", in which you posted about the delayed choice experiment. I was wondering if you know of any articles/discussions/debates that deal with the results of this experiment and predestination. I am not sure if I am reaching too far with this. But it seems that the Armenian position, that foreknowledge does not necessarily eliminate free will, is strengthened by results of this experiment. To go a step further it is possible that God knowing our choice in the past may actually take place after we make a choice in the present! Of course i could be completely misapplying the results of the experiment. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks, Mr. CheeseMr. Cheese
July 30, 2014
July
07
Jul
30
30
2014
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
OT Antioxidant biomaterial promotes healing Dionisio
July 27, 2014
July
07
Jul
27
27
2014
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
OT
Collecting just the right data
Dionisio
July 27, 2014
July
07
Jul
27
27
2014
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Mung @ 19
Are all comments welcome in an OT thread like this?
Absolutely not!
What about this?
Biologist warns of early stages of Earth’s sixth mass extinction event
Dionisio
July 27, 2014
July
07
Jul
27
27
2014
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
Cell budding - animation from Vuk Nikolic https://vimeo.com/64407648 Podcast - "The Universe Next Door with Tom Woodward: Responding to Criticisms of Darwin's Doubt" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-07-25T17_32_00-07_00bornagain77
July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Dionisio, this is an excellent find: Junk DNA not as worthless as once thought - 07/24/2014 Excerpt: As early as 2007,, Hackermüller, together with a number of colleagues, was able to demonstrate,, practically the entire genome (is transcribed into RNA—a template which normally serves the production of proteins), even those areas which are completely neglected when looking at blueprints for proteins. Hackermüller: "This finding gave rise to a lively discussion as to whether this could be caused by chance events or mistakes in the regulation of cellular processes. However, I doubt that nature is so wasteful with resources that it would produce such masses of RNA for no specific reason.” In their latest study,, Hackermüller and his team,, were able to bridge yet another knowledge gap. The transcription of non-coding regions in the genome is precisely regulated by cellular signaling pathways—and on a grand scale: up to 80% of the RNA copies were non-coding. "We did not expect such a magnitude," says Hackermüller. "This is not indicative of a chance product—it is highly likely that the non-coding RNAs perform a similarly important functions to that of protein-coding RNA." http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/07/junk-dna-not-worthless-once-thought?et_cid=4064233&et_rid=653535995&location=topbornagain77
July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
Are all comments welcome in an OT thread like this?
Absolutely not!Mung
July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
OT BTW, does OT stand for 'off topic' or 'on topic'? ;-) Junk DNA not as worthless as once thoughtDionisio
July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
OT Researchers Show How Stress Hormones Promote Building of Negative Memories Dionisio
July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
OT Rosemary and Oregano Contain Diabetes-fighting CompoundsDionisio
July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Are all comments welcome in an OT thread like this? Can a comment be OT in this thread? What would be considered OT in this thread? Just curious. Thanks.Dionisio
July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
I'm glad the Discovery Institute, the ID movement, and Uncommon Descent has participation from a diversity of philosophical and religious persuasions. It is not my intent we have too much discussion at UD about the differences between the Catholics and Protestants and other faiths at UD. I hope this thread is about the extent we air such disagreements at UD, and infrequently at that. For me, one sister is a devout Catholic, the other is an Evangelical Presbyterian, and I'm a PCA Presbyterian, and our parents are catholic. The only time denomination was a big issue was when my older sister married a Baptist, but after that, it's never been an issue in the family and there has never been one quarrel over what church someone attends. My Catholic mother is happy to see two of her protestant kids attend church every Sunday. VJ Torley wrote:
I also greatly enjoyed reading your post.
Thank you for the kind words
Incidentally, I have a question about your remarks on the Flood. I haven’t really followed Flood geology during the past few years. What, in your opinion, is the best evidence for a global Flood? (By the way, do you consider the Flood to have been global or merely anthropogenically universal, as the Catholic Encyclopedia does in its article on the Deluge?)
I believe the flood was global. The most important evidence is so many classes of species died suddenly and globally and the forensic evidence suggests a flood was the cause of death. I've asked geologists how well-preserved fossils got fossilized without decaying or getting consumed as food by animals or bacteria. The main answer is rapid burial involving water and minerals. If the burial was rapid, that means it could not take millions of years to bury them as a matter of principle. It was rapid catastrophic flood that had enough turbulence and minerals to cause the special conditions to fossilize soft tissue. If you're really curious you could raise the question with scientists. You might be shocked how uncomfortable they might be telling you the truth about the process of fossilization. Combined with the fact we have lots of marine fossils on TOP of mountains, the inference of a global flood is hard to escape. When I teach creation science to college science students, I encourage them to ask these sorts of questions (politely and discreetly) of their professors or peers. Formally speaking the Universe and Earth could be old, in fact the flood could be old. The mainstream is backed into a corner of maintaining a certain narrative, alternative physical explanations are not permitted even without any mention of Noah. Let me point you to this compelling forensic examination of the death of Wooly Mamouth's by Walter Brown: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FrozenMammoths.html I invite you to read the whole analysis by Dr. Brown. What I found alarming is that basic considerations like Dr. Brown's analysis are glossed over in favor of the mainstream narrative -- and the mainstream narrative that cannot possibly be right as a matter of basic forensic principles (like a detective trying to establish circumstances and time of death). Finally, as Michael Behe has been part of the catholic laity that are advancing ID, there are a small minority of Catholics who are scientists that are questioning other mainstream theories. Those involved in the C-14 controversy over C-14 are part of a Catholic group of creationists. https://uncommondescent.com/news/cocktail-c14-dna-collagen-in-dinosaurs-indicates-geological-timescales-are-false/ Here is a list of catholic creationists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_creationist_organisations Now, a little indirect evidence to consider. If one accepts the account of Jacob before Pharoah as historical:
"I'm 130 years old," Jacob replied. "My years have turned out to be few and unpleasant, but I haven't yet reached the age my ancestors did during their travels on earth."
It tells me that the long lives of patriarchs were believed by Israel and the children of Israel. If supposing the ancestors of Jacob lived long lives, then this means the human race has evolved a lot (for the worse) in the relatively recent past. This goes against the mainstream views of human biology and human evolution. The question of human genetic deterioration (an active topic related to neutral theory) isn't even under much consideration by the mainstream -- but this simple question is loaded theologically. Many biologist know that cells have the capacity to live indefinitely, so why do we age? We have cells from a now deceased woman that will live probably for a thousand years or more! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa Why is long life so hard to believe? If parents can bring a baby into the world with nice new working cells, then it stands to reason, a parent's bodies could in principle self-heal to be youthful, but our bodies don't do this. Why? There is not really a mechanical barrier unless of course death and aging are pre-programmed by the Designer. But if the account of Jacob and pharaoh is historically true and literal, what else about genesis might be true and literal. I'm not the sort that likes to rely solely on textual interpretation. Forensic evidence weighs heavily with me, and I think the forensic evidence points to a catastrophic global flood. The explanation by geologists about how marine fossils are on top of mountains seems pretty forced and not believable.scordova
July 22, 2014
July
07
Jul
22
22
2014
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT
Hi Sal, Thank you very much for the videos - they were fantastic. I also greatly enjoyed reading your post. Regarding veneration of the saints and of statues, I can understand your discomfort, as my own mother was raised by a Presbyterian father (who was a minister for several years) and a Catholic mother. Although my mother was brought up as a Catholic, she imbibed both theological perspectives, and I have vivid memories of our family's Scofield Reference Bible, which I used to love reading as a child. We also had a Jerusalem Bible, a New English Bible, a Living Bible, a Good News New Testament and several Gideon's New Testaments floating about in our house. In addition, we had occasional visits from JWs and Mormons, who provided some very different perspectives, and we received copies of Plain Truth magazine for a few years, as well. I realized early on that there were many ways of interpreting the Bible, and that I would have to learn how to defend mine. So although I was raised Catholic, I grew up knowing my Bible verses. Re statues, I think StephenB's last comment says it all: "A statue, picture, or concrete image can make it easier for us to calm our mind, leave this noisy world world, and enter into our own private chamber." I don't like most statues very much, but I do find that praying before a crucifix helps me to focus on Jesus. I do think, however, that artistic depictions of God the Father as an old man are blasphemous, as God very clearly forbids any attempt to depict Him visually, and I can't stand Andrey Rublev's icon of the Trinity, which I think is tritheistic as well as blasphemous. Incidentally, I have a question about your remarks on the Flood. I haven't really followed Flood geology during the past few years. What, in your opinion, is the best evidence for a global Flood? (By the way, do you consider the Flood to have been global or merely anthropogenically universal, as the Catholic Encyclopedia does in its article on the Deluge?)vjtorley
July 22, 2014
July
07
Jul
22
22
2014
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
I will make just a few very brief comments about Catholicism and the “communion of saints. When I say brief, I really mean brief. First, there is a great deal of Biblical support for it, and I will be happy to provide references for anyone who is interested. Second, the practice did not begin with modern day Catholics: it goes all the way back to the church fathers. Third, it is perfectly consistent with reason: If we can ask our friends, who are living, to pray for us, why cannot we ask our deceased relatives and saints to do the same? If we are all members of the body of Christ, death does not separate us. In keeping with those points, the statues alluded to serve much the same purpose as the statues of past military heroes or other heroic souls who have won our admiration. The fact is that concrete images and pictures make it easier for us to identify with the person they represent. Emotional attachment to saints and the angels (not to the statues and pictures themselves) is a good thing because it puts us in an other-worldly frame of mind. That is the point of prayer--to temporarily get out of this world and into the Kingdom of God. Most Christian talk about prayer, but few actually practice it in a disciplined way. The reason for that is that prayer, if not done superficially or carelessly, is hard. Among other things, it requires a measure mental preparation and spiritual collection. A statue, picture, or concrete image can make it easier for us to calm our mind, leave this noisy world world, and enter into our own private chamber.StephenB
July 22, 2014
July
07
Jul
22
22
2014
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
Hi all. Long time no see. --When my mother prays for me, I ask her to pray only in the name of Jesus, not Mary.-- When you pray the Rosary you are not praying to Mary but with Mary. Same applies in asking the intercession of any saint. This sums it up pretty well: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saintstribune7
July 22, 2014
July
07
Jul
22
22
2014
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
Thanks for your thoughtful explanation. I hope I didn't sound argumentative. I was attempting to show that just because it looks like people are worshiping an inanimate object it doesn't mean that's what they're actually doing. Regarding statues and icons - I've never met a Catholic that worships the thing as itself (a painted piece of wood or carved stone).
But they had many alters with statues and people kneeling and praying to the dead saints associated with the statues. I’m not so sure even the saints would be approving of such veneration
Ok, but you did rightly mention people touching Paul with their aprons and handkerchiefs -- clearly they were showing him a lot of veneration and God rewarded it with healings. Again, just another thought, you've used the phrase "dead saints" with 'dead' being the key word there. I can understand a fear that some have of necromancy, but at the same time there is scriptural evidence (Elijah and Moses appearing at the Transfiguration) that the saints are not really "dead" in one sense. They're in a resurrected state and spiritually alive. "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" Matt 22:30. Some argue that this doesn't happen until the Second Coming but as above, Matt 17:3 shows the prophets visible and talking so the apostles could hear them. If the issue was that "some Catholics give too much veneration to the saints", I can understand that, but again, it's the behavior of some, not all, and not something sanctioned by the church anyway. If, however, it's a fear of idolatry and necromancy, then I think that's a misinterpretation of what Catholics are doing. Whether sacred items that carry God's power, must eventually, lose that power - I'm not sure if that's always the case. For example, I think the ark of the covenant always retained a sacred power, but in any case, the ark itself was venerated as a sacred object which could not even be touched: "And when they came to Chidon’s threshing floor, Uzza put out his hand to hold the ark, for the oxen stumbled. Then the anger of the Lord was aroused against Uzza, and He struck him because he put his hand to the ark; and he died there before God." 1 Chron 13:9:10 Side note - the ark carried the tablets, manna and the rod of Aaron. In the new covenant, Mary carried the divine Lord. Thus Marian veneration follows logically. I enjoyed learning about your background - thanks for sharing that. I was surprised that while you have an interest in drama and art, you moved away from Catholicism to the Presbyterian faith -- so, towards iconoclasm. It might be an inner conflict, where art, sound, dance are thought of as sensual or worldly -- so one is attracted but as a guilty pleasure. Personally, I think aesthetics are an essential part of a spiritual life - understanding that it can be taken too far or be used as a substitute for a real connection with God. I think that's what the Reformers were concerned about -- and some went on to basically wipe out all forms of Christian art in fear of paganism or idolatry. I understand the motive but find the results in barren churches and a neglect of artistic excellence to be very hard to take (a lot of contemporary Catholic churches imitate the Protestant style in that regard also).Silver Asiatic
July 22, 2014
July
07
Jul
22
22
2014
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
All that said, I can’t resist a little irritation …
I was not intending to offend the Catholics here. The reason I sometimes mention my upbringing, is a lot of my detractors think I was somehow raised in an Evangelical or Fundamentalist household, and that the reason I defend ID was that I was brought up in a Fundamentalist home. I'm constantly accused of blind fideism. I was not raised that way. There are plenty of bad things happening in Protestant churches, and I mentioned quite a few above!
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
A far as sacred relics and objects having miraculous power, in the New Testament, we do read that certain sacred "relics" brought healing:
When handkerchiefs or aprons that had merely touched his skin were placed on sick people, they were healed of their diseases, and evil spirits were expelled. Act 19:12
Do I believe then than these handkerchiefs remain powerful for all time? No. It was symbol and sign, not that the object in and of itself is perpetually powerful. Naaman the Assyrian dipped in the river Jordan 7 times at the command of God. Does that mean the river Jordan is somehow perpetually blessed to bring healing? No. Furthermore, the children of Israel burned incense to Nehushtan which had at one time been the object God used to heal people:
And he [King Hezekiah] did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did. He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan). 2 Kings 18
This was the story of the origin of Nehushtan:
And the people spoke against God and against Moses, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food.” 6 Then the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. 7 And the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you. Pray to the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. 8 And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze[c] serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live. Numbers 21
My interpretation is that even a sacred object ordained by God, one that had healing power, does not always have healing power, and that even God himself approved of the destruction of the object and definitely did not want people worshipping it. This was the parish I attended as a boy. I nice memories of my time there: http://www.stanthonyparish.org/ But they had many alters with statues and people kneeling and praying to the dead saints associated with the statues. I'm not so sure even the saints would be approving of such veneration:
Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Revelation 19:10
That was the point I left, not because at the time I had much theological objection, but something in my heart said I won't be necessarily closer to God by following such practices, and had this horrid frightened feeling I would actually be farther from Jesus by doing this. It was a feeling that I had so strongly then, and still do now. The theology came later (which I laid out with the scriptures listed in this comment).scordova
July 22, 2014
July
07
Jul
22
22
2014
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
Missed this one ... http://static.flickr.com/113/296257863_1576a5a7a1_m.jpgSilver Asiatic
July 22, 2014
July
07
Jul
22
22
2014
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
I find that the ID movement has done a lot to foster friendship and collaboration among Catholics and Protestants - as well as with non-Christian believers and even friendly agnostics and atheists. I'm a Catholic but I admire the many Evangelical or Protestant leaders in ID - and have learned a lot from them (even while disagreeing theologically in many cases). All that said, I can't resist a little irritation ...
When I saw people kneeling before statues, I got this feeling that it wasn’t something I wanted to be a part of. That’s the moment I decided to leave.
Altar calls are interesting also: http://www.twoagespilgrims.com/pasigucrc/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/altar_call.jpg Those people are obviously worshiping the pulpit. :-) Evangelicals worshiping some kind of stone idol here, beware ... http://www.twoagespilgrims.com/pasigucrc/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/altar_call.jpg I believe this group is giving homage to a loudspeaker or some other inanimate object. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--hZGSwKGD3k/TfC_CeG8pRI/AAAAAAAACOU/nwsrUp2TiqE/s1600/altar_call.jpg Don't let them tell you otherwise. I can see idolatry with my own two eyes. :-)Silver Asiatic
July 22, 2014
July
07
Jul
22
22
2014
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
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.
I have a similar Catholic upbringing as you, but by the age of 50 after wandering in the wilderness for most of my life, believing only one thing for sure about all my religeious training, namely; that Jesus rose from the dead and is alive in heaven, I made the conscious decision to believe the Bible as the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God. It was only then that I truly started to understand the Bible. One of the first oppositions to this strange axiom I settled on were people I encountered within the churches I had been attending including pastors. It's amazing how many people can read the Bible without even seeing what it says, much less understanding it. The reason they can not see what it says, much less understand it, is because they do not believe it by default. They are waiting for it to be proven true before they will trust it. But the Bible clearly says faith is believing God and is required first. And if the Bible really is the Word of God, then that means believing the Bible before understanding it. Only then can the Holy Spirit act to give understanding, for only the spirit of God can understand the mind of God. It's the whole encode/decode phenomena that we see everywhere, especially within living cells. Only the one who encodes the information can give the key to accurately decode that same information. Over and over in Genesis is says "God said .... and it was so." It only stands to reason that the more we dig into understanding this material world, the more we're going to find God's Word is the most fundamental property that defines matter, energy, space and time. And the four forces that science tells us exist will boil down to just one: The will of God. And then it will be easy to see that brokeness and evil result from the will of the one who opposes God, some of it through fallen angels, but especially through humans who have been deceived into thinking they can rely on their own understanding.awstar
July 21, 2014
July
07
Jul
21
21
2014
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT
I am Catholic myself (if you must know, ardent!) and very interested in your reasons for leaving the Catholic Church.
I estimate half of the authors at Uncommon Descent are Catholics, so my discussion wasn't meant to criticize the Catholic church, only to give my personal history. I'm not hostile to Catholics. My parents are Catholics. When my mother prays for me, I ask her to pray only in the name of Jesus, not Mary. She prays the rosary every day. When I pray with her, she's never objected to me praying only the name of Jesus or The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I still to this day make the sign of the cross on occasion and don't eat meat on Good Friday. The last time I took part in a Catholic mass was at my Father's funeral service. The part of the mass I did not recite was the Hail Mary. I think I accepted Catholic communion at the mass (but that was before I became officially part of my present denomination). My denomination (PCA) recognized my infant baptism in the Catholic Church in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I've refused to get rebaptized because I view my Catholic baptism as sacred and final. When I recite the Nicene Creed in church, we use the word "holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". Many Protestants still view themselves as part of the Catholic church, but not necessarily recognizing the Pope as having the final say. I liked Pope Benedict. But since you ask, my main issue is veneration and prayer to dead saints, prayer to statues and crucifixes. When I saw people kneeling before statues, I got this feeling that it wasn't something I wanted to be a part of. That's the moment I decided to leave. So, that's the best answer I can give. I didn't write what I did to criticize Catholics. I've occasionally defended the Roman Catholic church, and my catechism and hearing the gospels read every Sunday led to me accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in my teens. God bless you. PS A curious fact many don't realize. Bruce Chapman the president of the Discovery Institute is a Catholic. One of the major influences on the Discovery Institute is Howard Ahmanson, a Presbyterian.scordova
July 21, 2014
July
07
Jul
21
21
2014
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
Being opposed to dancing is stupid. That was my heritage. Those days are over i think. I don't agree there is such a thing as beauty. in fact beauty , I think, is just evidence of gods original perfect symmetry in all things slipping though a fallen world. Its so rare humans invented a status called beauty but in fact its just accuracy and the rest is in stages of inaccuracy. The world only gets better as it copy's north american society. This society was created by puritan/evangelical protestant christians as the greatest and enduring influence. so its christs impact on the world that gives a illusion things are getting better. they ain't.Robert Byers
July 21, 2014
July
07
Jul
21
21
2014
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT
ronvanwegen, mmmm, that would be Sal who is very intelligent and a former Catholic. Myself, I'm just a not so intelligent protestant who never was a Catholic in the first place. :)bornagain77
July 21, 2014
July
07
Jul
21
21
2014
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply