God is transcendent. We know from Isaiah 55:9, or we might think that we do!
This must be read in the light of Gen 1:2, 27, Gen 2:15-17 and Gen 3:8-11.
There is an intimacy here: communication, fellowship (reinforced in God's creating in our time setting), love. God is of course above as as per Isaiah, but he is also with us. The creation tells us that he is with us with an intensity and closeness that goes beyond mere pagan transcendence.
23 April 2018
Fish
In an episode of Rick Stein in Asia, he commented on his love of fish that we came from fish...obviously one doesn't go to a cook for information on origins, and I note that he's gone even deeper into mythological past to get to fish, rather than stop at the shared precusor to modern apes and humanity!
Yes, man came after fish, and indeed, man was made from dust...but that's only half the truth.
Satan's deception is always subtle. As his 'temptations' of Yeshua, he distorts rather than outrageously fabricate.
Thus we go from Adam made from dust and enlived by God (Gen 1:27, with the method God used explained in Gen 2:7) in the Bible, to moderns disregarding God's word, indeed, the method he used to create man, saying that sure, we are made of the dust of the ground, but not with any intention, purpose, design or intelligent objective, rather it was the meandering of chemical accidents that led to us. Presumably the same random accidents led to ideas...which can be no more reliable on that basis than any other random accident.
Yes, man came after fish, and indeed, man was made from dust...but that's only half the truth.
Satan's deception is always subtle. As his 'temptations' of Yeshua, he distorts rather than outrageously fabricate.
Thus we go from Adam made from dust and enlived by God (Gen 1:27, with the method God used explained in Gen 2:7) in the Bible, to moderns disregarding God's word, indeed, the method he used to create man, saying that sure, we are made of the dust of the ground, but not with any intention, purpose, design or intelligent objective, rather it was the meandering of chemical accidents that led to us. Presumably the same random accidents led to ideas...which can be no more reliable on that basis than any other random accident.
21 April 2018
20 April 2018
How many species are there?
In
How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean? Camilo Mora, Derek P. Tittensor, Sina Adl, Alastair G. B. Simpson, Boris Worm
Published: August 23, 2011
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127
From the abstract:
How many pre-historic species are there? Wikipedia has a few pages of them. Nothing, compared to the current estimate, so it would appear that we know nothing about them as well!
How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean? Camilo Mora, Derek P. Tittensor, Sina Adl, Alastair G. B. Simpson, Boris Worm
Published: August 23, 2011
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127
From the abstract:
[The] approach was validated against well-known taxa, and when applied to all domains of life, it predicts ∼8.7 million (±1.3 million SE) eukaryotic species globally, of which ∼2.2 million (±0.18 million SE) are marine. In spite of 250 years of taxonomic classification and over 1.2 million species already catalogued in a central database, our results suggest that some 86% of existing species on Earth and 91% of species in the ocean still await description.Thus, between 7.4 and 10 million species! We've catalogued 1.2m. So, we know next to nothing about species!
How many pre-historic species are there? Wikipedia has a few pages of them. Nothing, compared to the current estimate, so it would appear that we know nothing about them as well!
Natural Selection = a spin of the wheel.
You've heard Natural Selection described as 'the survival of the fittest'? Of course! But it ain't so.
The fittest! The fittest, the very bestest fit of all the fits there could be? How do you measure that? It is completely unparameterised and given the variability of ecological communities and their change over time, is unparameterisable. The fitest is the most fit possible in all relevant circumstances. Not even the second most fit which is one 'fitette' less fit than the most fit gets a guernsey.
Rubbish.
The roulette wheel of natural selection means at worst survival of the luckiest (but even that contains an implicit teleology and is a hindsight evaluation), and at best, the survival of the least unfit at the time and place in the conditions that prevail on the day.
In the end, all one can say is that what survives is that which has survived. It is a meaningless 'go nowhere' concept.
It only means that the characteristics that only and expressely benefit bare survival are important...so fruit could be slightly less delicious to an animal, and it would probably have insufficient selectability to be selected out; this might or might not relate to survival fitness, but we find that fruit is just so delicious! And so on. For everything. What about human thought, art, technology? Not essentail for bare survival, so comparatively not selected for: all are the mere result of the least best fit surviving. Its like public works: the least costly gets the job with the lowest tender.
The fittest! The fittest, the very bestest fit of all the fits there could be? How do you measure that? It is completely unparameterised and given the variability of ecological communities and their change over time, is unparameterisable. The fitest is the most fit possible in all relevant circumstances. Not even the second most fit which is one 'fitette' less fit than the most fit gets a guernsey.
Rubbish.
The roulette wheel of natural selection means at worst survival of the luckiest (but even that contains an implicit teleology and is a hindsight evaluation), and at best, the survival of the least unfit at the time and place in the conditions that prevail on the day.
In the end, all one can say is that what survives is that which has survived. It is a meaningless 'go nowhere' concept.
It only means that the characteristics that only and expressely benefit bare survival are important...so fruit could be slightly less delicious to an animal, and it would probably have insufficient selectability to be selected out; this might or might not relate to survival fitness, but we find that fruit is just so delicious! And so on. For everything. What about human thought, art, technology? Not essentail for bare survival, so comparatively not selected for: all are the mere result of the least best fit surviving. Its like public works: the least costly gets the job with the lowest tender.
17 April 2018
13 April 2018
Genesis vs myth
When you are challenged, usually by an evolution booster (whom you can refer to Mary Midgley's book Evolution as Religion), that the Genesis account is merely another ancient 'creation myth'. Here's fuel for your reply.
It is nothing like myth (read Eliade's Myth of the Eternal Return), rather:
If you want the three big ones, for an easy rebuttal:
It is nothing like myth (read Eliade's Myth of the Eternal Return), rather:
- it is personal and personally involved in the creation sequence
- it is ex nihilio and makes no implict assumption that a cosmos 'just is'.
- it has specific timing and place that is continuous with our real world experience
- it uses concrete defined time units, the ones we live by and dominate our lives
- it uses real-world categories for the results of the creative words
- its creation episodes are ecologially patent
- it communicates in terms that make sense in the real world
- it identifies the critical difference between man and animals: rationality.
If you want the three big ones, for an easy rebuttal:
- it is personal: God has a clear identity, will and purpose
- it is particular: no vague generalities or symbols
- it is real: its set here and then, continuous with our world-experience here and now.
12 April 2018
God and David Attenborough
David Attenborough's work is uniformly wonderful. The photography and locations amazing and the portrayal of the creation sometimes almost brings welling tears of joy and the greatness of God.
But DA himself doesn't see cause to glorify God, in whom I doubt he believes, rather his words are an almost constant paean to Evolution!
I wonder at this when Christians in the typical reflexive fit of ill-considered (usually) opining, regard evolution as God's method of creation. DA certainly doesn't see it this way, indeed his belief in evolution bolsters his denial of God. Evolution never points to God. Always away, always displacing him as creator, which is his chief office in our world.
I was reflecting on these thoughts as I read Isaiah 42:8, today:
But DA himself doesn't see cause to glorify God, in whom I doubt he believes, rather his words are an almost constant paean to Evolution!
I wonder at this when Christians in the typical reflexive fit of ill-considered (usually) opining, regard evolution as God's method of creation. DA certainly doesn't see it this way, indeed his belief in evolution bolsters his denial of God. Evolution never points to God. Always away, always displacing him as creator, which is his chief office in our world.
I was reflecting on these thoughts as I read Isaiah 42:8, today:
I am the Lord, that is my name;And then read vss 5-7 preceeding: God once again lays down his trump card: creator and lover of his creation.
I will not give my glory to another,
Nor my praise to graven images.
Thus says God the Lord,
Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
Who spread out the earth and its offspring,
Who gives breath to the people on it
And spirit to those who walk in it,
6 “I am the Lord, I have called You in righteousness,
I will also hold You by the hand and watch over You,
And I will appoint You as a covenant to the people,
As a light to the nations,
7 To open blind eyes,
To bring out prisoners from the dungeon
And those who dwell in darkness from the prison.
5 April 2018
1 April 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)