Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God lurks among us...at EVC
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 61 of 67 (310572)
05-09-2006 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Modulous
04-19-2006 9:04 AM


"He works in mysterious ways"
OP
quote:
I vote Brad McFall...He works in mysterious ways
quote:
Brad was cursed by the Furies a long time ago,
When was that now? Oh, I know, it was pre-WWII biology and my grandfather passed it down to me before I ever heard the likes of a Gould or a Dawkins or a Provine for that matter.
see also for the similiarity to Brad's furiously moving finger fudges:
This from 62,-,2 years before I was born and well before I had any thought of studying biology is the mature Stan.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-09-2006 05:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Modulous, posted 04-19-2006 9:04 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 62 of 67 (310584)
05-09-2006 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by U can call me Cookie
04-19-2006 4:11 AM


I think it's me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by U can call me Cookie, posted 04-19-2006 4:11 AM U can call me Cookie has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 63 of 67 (310804)
05-10-2006 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by iano
05-08-2006 9:20 AM


Re: Its that pesky predestination gig again...
We agree we have choices. All I'm saying is it that all the choices we will make are known already. God knew what they would be doesn't make them any less ours. God didn't pre-destine our thought in the sense that he made them be what they are. He simply knew what free-willed individuals would choose.
Point being, is that God know who will be saved and who not.
Yes, we agree on that. Where we start to differ is you saying only God can call us. If God didn't predestine our thought, then we can choose to look for Him. Doesn't matter the mechanics of how it all goes down.
If you mean only God can call us because He created everything, then that is different, and doesn't really portray a clear picture.
I will be judged on the basis of all what I do (just not unto damnation). But a persons salvation cannot rest on me.
I am not saying you will be damned, or the person you are supposed to talk to.
A persons salvation cannot rest on you, but the lack there-of can be credited back to you. It's all about our obedience to God. Sure He will forgive us, but like you said, we still have to be accountable to some degree while we are here on earth. But what about the person you hurt, or drove away from God.
Since our thoughts are not pre-destined, then if we choose to hurt someone, surely a just God would take that into account.
I am not saying He couldn't divinely intervine, but why call some and not others. That doesn't seem fair or just to me.
Sometimes I feel like God said ok, here is the earth, here are the rules, and then He tossed us the keys. We have to be responsibile for our actions, the earth, and the human race. This thought process goes against liberals, and conservatives. I don't think Jesus would have been either. That's why I don't consider myself either.
Just observe everyone here in this forum who doesn't believe in God. Look at the spirit of their words, and why they don't believe. There is obviously hurt in some of those words, I can feel it. There is obviously deception in others. Is it completely their fault that they do not understand?
I am not trying to give everyone a free ticket here, just pointing out how it could be for some. Sure there are those who blatenly deny it, even after having felt it.
When God blesses you with a little bit of His presence, there is no way you can deny it, and in an instant you start to understand, and are filled with revelation. For people who haven't felt this, how could they know? I didn't. I only had my heart to go by.
I am sure no-one here would want to go to hell. I think everyone in this forum is a canditate for heaven. Once they die, and then see that there is a God, I am sure there would be immediate repentance for them. But then it's too late?
. This is not to say this is what God has done. We don't have any rights - we are only created. God could create us for any reason he likes and thats good enough for him. He doesn't have to refer to or explain himself to anybody. It illustrates well the problem of sinful man. He shakes his puny fist at God - not realising who it is who shakes it and who it is he shakes it at.
There are stories in the OT where man has got angry with God, and more or less plea bargin with Him.
I agree on the puny fist thing, but our anger comes from lack of knowing Him.
Maybe. In Christ is the criteria. Agreed?
But what does that mean exactly?
Christ came and said a lot of different things.
What exactly is it to believe?
Since we are judged with what is in our hearts, it may be different than what comes from our mouths.
This is a covenant, a promise, a contract. It is limited to the house of Israel (which can shown to be Christian). It is not a universal convenant
Thatis debatable, since jew and gentile are equal now, we are decendants of Isreal.
It is not yours to decide fair chance. It is his.
I can judge myself.
I may be ignorant, but then that is the way He made me.
If nothing happens except by the will of the father then where's our free will. It just evaporates in this case.
One could argue that our only free will is whether to choose if it's all from God or not.
If God is omnipotent, and knows everything that will happen, and nothing happens except by His will, then it all falls on Him. Like you said, it's His creation, He can do what He wants with it.
'Real'? Been tempted recently rR. That is not a sin. Its what we do with it that is the sin. Satan has power alright. He opposes the call that God puts on a man. This is fair when you think. If there was no opposition then a man couldn't help but be drawn to God. Thus no free will in being made a Son.
I think we tempt ourselves more than Satan.
But I am full aware of the attacks of the enemy, as I am a leader in the church, under attack all the time.
But remember, God created Satan too. All Satan can do to us, is tempt us, and lie to us.
If you had died before the point of being put into Christ then you wouldn't have been saved.
But I didn't
Even still, I really don't think I would have went to hell. Not according to how I delt with life, in my heart. How I answered my conscience.
but at the same time ignore the call of God which lets his heart (not his intellect) know that God had nothing to do with it, then that is their issue.
How could one possibely hear the call through all that mess?
God can counteract any influence so as to ensure that the end decision is a persons own.
I can't qualify that, or judge that.
These posts are still way too long rR. Let this be the last line-for-line reponse from both of us if you would. Would you like to pick something of interest to you and we can focus on?
Oops, sorry. I enjoyed it.
Maybe a topic that describes just what exactly it is to "be in Christ".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by iano, posted 05-08-2006 9:20 AM iano has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 64 of 67 (327626)
06-29-2006 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Brad McFall
05-08-2006 12:21 PM


Re: it would be the GOD of:
Very well written paper. No wonder you got A+. Congratulations!!!!
The entire thesis of MArtin Luther is based upon Salvation is acquired only by the Grace of God and not own own works. We do have a choice. We can chose to believe in God and we can chose also to reject Him. No matter what we do, we will have consequences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Brad McFall, posted 05-08-2006 12:21 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Brad McFall, posted 08-17-2006 12:17 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 65 of 67 (340807)
08-17-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dan Carroll
04-19-2006 9:46 AM


Re: Collective
Geometric duplication is not the same as replication for interactors biologically.
God is among us as in a next Einstein but the vehicle of Dawkins must go first- I would say this 'god' is in the Cantor that Mittag Leffler said would "appear" 100 yrs later (written in the mid 1880s).This God would play itself out in a "Cantor physics" as collected by biological databases.
I am not that but am nearing publication nevertheless:
There has been considerable opposition to the reality of transfinite set theory beyond results in pure math. It appears that a failure in the application of transfinite numbers to point sets is responsible for the negative evaluation such as that granted by Frege. Dauben has characterized this difference of opinion as pertaining first and foremost to the ostensive view of Frege’s where in Frege thought “that the principles upon which arithemetic must be founded were essentially logical in character.”(p220)
Dauben said of Frege, “But there was more to Frege’s critique than his objection to the process of abstraction. Even if one were to admit the use of abstraction in determining numbers, whether cardinal or ordinal, abstraction was still of no utility. Frege imagined, for example, a large sand pile. Here again the sharpness of his criticism, the sarcasm of his tone was exuberant:
“Well, take a sand pile then! Ah, someone is about to touch one grain after another. “You don’t want to count them do you? That is completely forbidden! You must obtain the bumber through a signe act of abstraction.”15”(p222)
Dauben however, had sown contextually the fruit of a resolution nonetheless. He expressed somewhat oddly that Cantor “later denoted even their order types as being, for example, adherent, coherent, or perfect.”(p188)(bold added, BSM). For Dauben expressed clearly enough, “Next he began to develop the implications of the transfinite numbers for the study of point sets generally, adding specifically:
“The conceptual formation (which is so important for the study of the nature of a point set P) of derived sets of various orders through the derivates just mentioned, certainly does not come to an end with a finite ordinal number v. In general it is quite necessary to take into account sets derived from P whose orders are characterized by definite transfinite numbers of the second, third, etc., number classes.51”(p111)
An application of the sand problem as refined by Gould between Paley and Agassiz merges with the properties of point sets as ORDERED biologically where there can be no perfect design by natural selection and that much of the “biologic of design” discussed in the secular literature rotates around adherent design rather than coherent designs at the pace that Frege challenged arithmetically Cantor.
Mathematical physics - organon logic - common ancestry of coherent “organinc” design” into common descent results in a horizon that pratically establishes through a given architecthonic an organon for instruction in possible affects of artifical selections at the COHERENT LIMIT of natural selection implicated change.
Cantor set out the order types as to enable the numbering of anything that can be numbered. Genes can be numbered evolutionary since Fisher, Wright and Haldane etc thus the point where Cantor sought direct application actually first falls with biology not physics even as it reaches BEYOND the “organic” explanation attained noumenically by Kant.
Perfectness as arithmetically seperable occurs where an Gibbs/Gladyshev minimization is tolerated within the adaptive hardening of a shifting balance during biological form-making and translation in space. This appears to have been the reason that evolutionists have in post-modern times challengend creationists to accept organic designs that ARE malformations inherently.
This instantiation of Cantors notion of continuous motion in a discontinous space explains how Dauben failed to relate the determinative reality of Cantor’s contribution and only presented a reflective one that was classically off target as a judgment.
Tait continued this artery of reversing the anti-Cantor perspective on-line
"It is evident that, for Hallett, perhaps because he was misled by Cantor’s use
of the term ”metaphysics’, transient reality refers, not to the instantiation of
the concept in nature, but to an ”independent (Platonic) realm of existents’.
But that is not the point of Cantor’s reference to Plato: rather he seems to
be assuming that Plato also advocated the free development of mathematics
and believed that what it created freely would as a matter of fact turn out
to be exemplified in the natural world. This reading of Plato, though better
than what we usually get, is incorrect; but it is the basis of Cantor’s note. "
Tait
Tait
It seems to me that Cantor is referring to Kant here where Kant wrote of Plato's refusal to let anyone into his study without a knowledge and dedication to geometry(context of Tait's whole/part-element discussion(line vs geometric magnitude of line)). "Metaphysics" as used in this content thus becomes Kant's extended by Cantor.
For in addition to or in place of the mechanical explanatiuon of nature . p293
Thus he failed to demonstrate the content that Biblical Creationism may gain say the relevance that Cantor felt philosophically was reflective in the Catholic tradition. Instead Dabuben related the “positivism” of Newton, Kant and Comte without showing how Comte can be mistaken as the Newton of the design of blade of grass post Einstein coming after Gibbs and the modern revolution of quantum mechanics.
(“that the greates achievement of genious (like Newton) despite the subjective religioisity of it sauther, .
This is how Dauben could misplace the quote of Cantor’s definition of “order type” where there was to have been a kinematic beyond “purely mathematical physics”. The layer actually is “beyond” physics as to being a part of biology that can be numbered populationally not that it HAD to enter the determinatively the physcio-teleological or physico-theolgoical view as contained by Kant transcendentally.(dauben page 293 end of page)
“The key to the new organic approach was to be found, cantyor believed in this transfinite numbers “the elements of a set M in question . units are neverhtless joined into an organism. Compositie Matter and form order form.
Bole’s x vs x2 vs x3etc and Russell’s claim about Cantor’s proof of limits of rationals subtrancted from reals is responsible for Dauben having substituted philosophy of math where the different relation of applied and pure math in biology rather had already resided after Mendel. For Tait this resounds in the difference of immanet and transient “reality.”
Double niche constructions constructed dynamics provides the strech largest enough to require this theoretical addition to biology.
Double niche constructed constructions require this addition to the structure of evolutionary theory. “(p19) However, in reality, the argument that niche construction can be disregarded” (p371 The standard view is that niche construction should not be regarded as a distinct process in evolution because the manner in which organisms modify their environment does not redirect the pressures of natural selection in any significant way but is merely a component of the expression of contemporary organisms of past natural selection.”) because it is partly a product of natural selection makes no more sense than would the counter proposal that natural selection can be disregarded because it is partly a product of niche construction. One can not assume that the ultimate cause of niche construction is the environments that selected for niche-constructing traits, if prior niche construction had partly caused the state of the selective environments ( as formalized by eq. 1.4). Ultimately, such recursions would regress back to the beginning of life, and as niche construction is one of the defining features of life (see chapters 2 and 4), there is no stage at which we could say natural selection preceded niche construction or that selective environments preceded niche-constructing organisms. From the beginning oflife, all organisms have, in part, modified their selective environments, and their ability to do so was, in part, a consequence of their naturally selected genes.
Shapes of norms of rxn are not necessarily Lebesque collectable
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
S
GENEOTYPE
But requires as with Cantor on Fourier Series higher “P” orders (derived sets) in function except as constrained by the “perfectness” of hierarchical thermodynamics as manifested with a given thermostat of Macrothermodynamics.
This shows that niche constructABLE dynamics are not sufficiently retained as defined formalities to be perturbed back to shapes as in Feldman etc, in otherwords it is not true that “these polymorphic equilibria are netural in the sense that perturbations away from such an equilibrium followed by subsequent evolution will result in convergence to another point on the curve.”(p143)
This requires a new symbolic structure named of Algebraized function part.
The continuum of Macrothermodynamics prohibits the range of EMGAs into the domain of generalized indirect semantic effects (def p 127 epistatic interaction Indirect effects cen be viewed as introduced by Laland et al)), regardless of the nature of the individualized reproductive continuum of any gradeable clade. Perfectness thus inhibits the temporal nature of dependence among ecosystem enginerring control webs, ecologically mediated niche construction and different evolutionary dynamics kinematically sustained by the energetics of “niche” construction decompositions (relocational vs perturbational).
This is a positive notion of “constraint” in Gould’s sense but meoves to a new explanation rather than a thought of source of adaptation only in the oppositional praxis of drift and selection thus giving algebraically constrained power in form-making to geometric duplications varied without necessarily the linguistic supplements of Gould toward the discontinuously nor suffenientzing a supposed clear cut difference of Formalism and Functionalism because particularly Wolfram’s new kind of science clamors for causal determination where this reflection presently resides in thought.
The existence of a THERMOSTAT in Gladyshev’s sense will discount hierarchical biology into a unified hierarchy and depending on the instantiation may indeed end the reign of Williams gene selectionism and dawkins’ vehicle. The only scientific dispute is if one MUST follow Russell that non-euclidean geometry spelled the end of Kant’s use of Euclidean geometry. The notion of order-types however if relevant to group selection towards an approximation to some physical figure if empirical in Tait’s sense for Cantor no matter the relation to Boyle IS evidence against the current secular order of academic dominance in this relatively frequent mistaken attribution to theology which is only a reflection.
This claim purposes to deprecate the intended dominat relative frequency of PE in part due to this case of containing a law of nature wherein (level of organization dominant over any CONCEPT from a level of selection) the lingo of Snee, Laland and Feldman “ecosystem engineers are necessarily part of the flows or cycles they control” (“not” removed from the phrase). This does not mean that the history of biology is being abandoned but onlyt that the future of natural history reflect the mutltiple solutions from a single principle and many others of Kant (Critique of Judment example of circle)
P226In Snee Leeland and Feldmans’ example they instruct from the summary judgment of trophic relations conforming to principle of mass flow and conservation of energy - but Gibbs-Gladyshev minimization determines relation of higher level sorting and selection to al lower level incursions.
Thus the next step is to predict which thermostats label what grades as premediations to those “trace engineers” to be named most likely to have the biggest affexts on the ecosystem control webs of niche construction. These do not depend on exaptations but only on produc-educt(sensu Kant) differences.
Selection, drift and patter are all within the sam idea but ecological moments may be patters as much as the postiveness remains and possibly further. Gould did not stress enough the constructability of shape as he did the shape of constructablility.
In the end this expanded architectontic horizon spells out and advances a “thinking that organismic or interdemic selection” should characteristeically oppose species selection” contrary to the whole project of Gould’s renaming within a hierarchicalization of older evolutionary theory of biologic change while determing a specific dynamic within which species selection may occur . Gould’s “in principle” arguments to foil arguments against PE fail as such.
Edited by Brad McFall, : link fiXed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-19-2006 9:46 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 66 of 67 (340811)
08-17-2006 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by inkorrekt
06-29-2006 10:13 PM


Re: it would be the GOD of
thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by inkorrekt, posted 06-29-2006 10:13 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 67 of 67 (355481)
10-09-2006 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by arachnophilia
04-19-2006 5:14 PM


the gist of the thing
I am not going to turn this very serious thread into one tongue in cheek but here are some letters that went to Christian organizations before I was posting to EVC.
The 1998 letter only went to ICR but by 2000, I had corresponded to ICR, AIG, Focus on the Family and Truths that Transform, using cut and paste without a computer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 04-19-2006 5:14 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024