Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).
“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit." (Rev. 9:1)
In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,
"Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ."
John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.
Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him.
Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,
“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).
According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:
“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)
Falling Stars and Damnable Heresy
Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay' shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.
Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:
"It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and New," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)
In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.
As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.
Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:
“It is a battering-ram of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)
The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,
“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)
The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.
With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)
This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,
“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)
As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)
In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.
Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.
Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.
Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:
“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)
None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:
“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)
Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,
“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)
Pouring more contempt on them he asked,
“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)
Concerning Matthew 19:5:
“If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)
And concerning Cor. 15:21-22:
“If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)
After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,
“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.” Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)
The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.
From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,
“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15
The byte count of the source code of a computer program is not the bit count of what actually executed.
:-)
spirited responding: "It really isn’t possible for us to understand the reason ‘why’ unless we’re thinking spiritually, and with regard to BroJoeK’s ‘burning need’ to destroy the good name of others..."
to spirited, Ms Boop's accusation here is simply a false generalization, and to treat it seriously discredits both yourself and Ms. Boop.
Instead, you should ask Ms Boop to cite specifics which can be addressed on their own merits, or demerits as the case may be.
spirited irish: "The point I’m driving at is this:
It is BroJoek’s unfettered sin nature-—his burgeoning pride, covetousness and envy (enmity)-—together with his need to escape suffering caused by anything that thwarts his will or threatens to expose him as a sinful person that are the driving forces fueling his ‘burning need’ to destroy the good name of other people, to in fact, scapegoat them with his own weaknesses, failures, etc. by the attempted manipulation of the perception of other participants or readers of this thread."
Surely, such cockamamie nonsense will justly earn you years of suffering in purgatory for the blatant sins of bearing false witness against innocent FReepers.
In fact, the only "burning needs" here are mine to tell the truth, and it seems: yours to spew falsehoods.
spirited irish: "Almost from the first he has been trying to undermine and destroy the verity of the author of the essay under discussion by way of the same tactics."
The evidence suggests: your author has no "verity", and neither do your efforts to defend him.
spirited irish referring to BJK: "If the manipulation succeeds, meaning in this instance that betty accepts the manufactured guilt, then the scape-goater feels empowered to crucify the scapegoat for the very evils he refuses to accept personal accountability for."
For such lies, the punishment of years should probably be extended to centuries, at a lower level, FRiend.
spirited irish: "Evil always wears a mask.
Anyone who dares rip off the mask to reveal the horror beneath is immediately accused of hate and 'personal attacks' which amounts to, 'you only did or said that because you hate me.' "
The only serious "evil" on display here are the utterly false accusations spewing from spirited irish.
She seems utterly unable to control either them or herself.
Might I suggest professional help?
But the only "con man" here is yourself, FRiend.
You have not "exposed" anyone or anything except your own false accusations -- all doubtless projections of your own inner struggles.
That's why I have advised you before to focus, focus your mind on truth-telling, but you refuse to do so.
Instead, your accusations become increasingly false, wild and wide of any conceivable mark.
Even though you don't know who you're responding to, you claim to be "ripping off the mask" of someone "evil", but in reality all you're doing is throwing mud in the face of someone who doesn't deserve it.
You need to get a firm grip on yourself, my FRiend.
Again, I would suggest professional help.
Sure, for example in post #997 you make the standard anti-evolutionists' case against "macro-evolution", saying that science "has never observed one species turning into another species."
Do I need to cite other examples for you?
betty boop: "Don't just impute "standard Creationist arguments" to me, and start quarreling with me as if they were my own arguments."
But when you make standard Creationists' anti-evolution arguments, I will call them as I see them, FRiend.
betty boop: "Do you mean Young Earth Creationist, or some other species of Creationist?
Or is one a Creationist just because one believes in God?"
We are talking about standard anti-evolution arguments offered up by Creationists and others of like mind, many of them on this thread, some of them even by you, Ms. Boop.
My point here is that those are not simply anti-evolution, they are also anti-science, and belie any claims people make about "loving science".
betty boop: "WHY are they irrelevant to science?
How can a supposedly scientific theory be tested, if it is prohibited to ask a pertinent question on grounds that particular question has been pre-determined to be "irrelevant?"
Talk about having an "epistemically prior commitment!"
Standard Creationists' anti-evolution arguments are irrelevant to science because they represent and "epistemically prior commitment" to Biblical literalism.
As such, they violate the first rule of natural-science: natural explanations for natural processes.
betty boop: "But science cannot have epistemically prior commitments and retain its character as science!!!"
But, by definition, natural-science is precisely the "epistemically prior commitment" to: natural explanations for natural processes.
So, if you wish to see super-natural explanations for super-natural processes, you are by definition outside the realm of science.
Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?
betty boop: "what if not all causes in Nature are "natural causes?"
If they aren't, then the "utility" of science would be limited to the scope of the (false) presupposition that all causes in nature are "natural causes."
For any other type of cause is ruled out in principle from the get-go."
That is self-evidently true.
It means simply that science is not the "be all & end all" of reality, but just one tool box to help in our understandings of the Universe.
Beyond science are other super-natural realities, which we can begin to learn about in the Bible.
Haven't we already agreed that is the distinction first pointed out by St. Thomas Aquinas?
betty boop: "But if the world does really ultimately consist from an extra-natural cause, science, under the burden of its current methods, would fail to detect it, every single time."
Again, self evidently and obviously true, imho.
betty boop: "Science cannot look for what it presupposes does not exist in the first place.
In effect, its viewpoint is reduced to the "size" of its tools...."
Precisely, and dare I say it? In this case "size" does matter. ;-)
betty boop on Nietzsche: "He was a prophet of what was to come in Europe in the Twentieth Century, not an agitator or advocate of World War.
He saw the chaos descending on Europe....
And I imagine he was astute enough to understand this chaos as the inevitable result of the so-called "Death of God." "
I'm no expert on Nietzsche, and can't comprehend your fascination with him.
I do know he announced (prematurely, as it happened) the "death of God", himself descended into insanity and also served as something of an inspiration for ideologies the depths of whose insanity Nietzsche could not even have imagined.
So all of my comments on Nietzsche have merely been brief responses to your more detailed discussion of him.
betty boop: "Evidently, there are many people nowadays who believe that Truth is a sui-generis, natural product of nature itself.
Both truth (small t) and Truth (capital T) are beyond the scope and realm of science.
Both words imply higher levels of ontological certitude and understanding than science itself is capable of.
Yes, of course, science does deal in facts which are defined as "confirmed observations".
It also deals in laws defined as mathematical descriptions of natural processes.
But beyond those, science itself can only offer us hypotheses and theories which are natural explanations for natural processes.
And that's it -- if you want the truth, or even Truth, then you must go elsewhere than science.
Might I suggest a near-by church, FRiend?
betty boop: "It simply emerges from the evolutionary process; in other words, that on which we base our own cognitive functions is more or less an accidental development of material nature over the course of time.
Further, this development has no purpose or goal."
It appears you are trying here to summarize something about evolution theory.
If you would simply grasp the concept that words like "purpose" and "goal" in nature are outside the realm of science, I think it would free your mind of unnecessary angst.
betty boop: "I'd turn that around and say that Nature is the consequence, not the source, of Truth.
I challenge the understanding of Truth as emergent from Nature..."
Science itself makes no -- zero, zip, nada -- claims to "truth", let alone "Truth".
Those are well beyond the scientific, ahem, "pay grade".
betty boop: "Indeed, dear BroJoeK, I couldn't agree with you more on that score."
Don't worry, FRiend, your secret is safe with me...
I won't let spirited irish or YHAOS know about our areas of agreements.
They would be very displeased! ;-)
Truer words were never spoken, of you YHAOS.
A more blatant example of psychological "projection" I've never seen.
So what compels you to such falseness, FRiend?
YHAOS: "In letters to his sister Darwin reveals what appears to be a growing agnosticism resulting from his observations and theories, and an awareness of the consequent atheistic or even openly anti-Christian hostility they aroused in others.
Whatever the eventual state of Darwin’s mind on the subject, his 'theory' has aroused one of the more virulent atheistic cults to thrive on the earth."
If so, then Darwin's ideas & understandings of God were simply too small & limited to grasp the power, majesty & genius of the Creator of the Universe.
It would not be the first time (or last) that weak, restricted human minds failed in facing God.
We might even suppose that his loss of faith was a prerequisite for the growth of higher understanding & Faith.
As for "virulent atheistic cults" -- human wickedness knows no bounds and will grasp any tool it can to wield power: especially if that "tool" (i.e., evolution theory) has been abandoned by good people of sincere Faith, FRiend.
Sadly, what you call "perceptive analysis" is little more than insane ranting, for which I strongly suggest spirited irish get professional help.
You should advise her the same, Ms. Boop.
Who is this "we" kemo sabe?
I have not misunderstood or misused the term "emergence".
Indeed, when I first used it (post #1038), in response to your complaint in post #994, I clearly spelled out that it is something different from traditional evolution I first learned as a boy.
betty boop: "I would argue that these terms are not synonymous.
Emergence carries ontological weight in a way that evolution does not; you might say that it deals with the revelation of being, or as the OED definition puts it, of "something coming to light that was formerly concealed."
Hmmmmmmm.... OK so far...
betty boop: "Darwinian evolution isn't interested in ontological questions, the biggest ones being, "What is life?"
And "where did Life come from?"
It just assumes life forms already exist, and tries to show how they change — speciate — over time."
Precisely so...
betty boop: "...please explain to me according to what "production rules" is chemistry able to do this?
It seems to me that the chemistry must be "informed" in some way, to produce such an outcome."
Just to note: again a standard anti-evolutionist argument.
To which the response is simple, direct and already repeated here many times: the term "abiogenesis" refers to a scientific hypothesis which is interesting and for which there is some evidence, but which is as yet unconfirmed.
Abiogenesis is just one of several competing hypotheses, any or all which may eventually be falsified.
Indeed, you might even say that abiogenesis is an "emerging" theory. ;-)
betty boop: "And yet the great theoretical biologist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod insists that what we see is simply the culmination of "pure, blind chance." "
Sure, but as I have repeatedly advised you on this thread, I don't believe that anything in the Universe is a matter of "pure blind chance", if in no other way, then in the same sense that casino slot machines are all rigged to produce a profit for the House.
In that sense (if in no other) "blind chance" in nature is rigged to produce a "profit" for God!
Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
betty boop: "...if consciousness (or different grades of awareness, up to and through human self-consciousness) is seen as a spontaneous development once a certain brain size and configuration has been achieved, how does science explain the observed sensitive behavior of amoebae and bacteria?"
Obviously, we are talking about entirely different levels of "consciousness" and IQ.
Clearly all higher animals have some form of awareness, responsiveness and ability to learn from natural experience.
But human consciousness is an entirely different matter requiring not only specific self-awareness, but also truly amazing intellectual dexterity with images and symbols, specifically: language.
Precisely where & how this consciousness "emerged" is a mystery to science, one that is just as well described in the opening verses of Genesis, imho.
betty boop: "As far as the "Life is spontaneously 'emergent' from chemical activity" supposition is concerned, it flies in the face of Francis Crick's Central Dogma of biology."
So odd that it's referred to as "Dogma" a seriously un-scientific term.
Yet again, all we can say for certain is that abiogenesis is an interesting hypothesis, one of several, all with some supporting evidence, but none of which have been confirmed.
For whatever my humble opinion might be worth: I prefer abiogenesis in some deep-sea vent to any other idea so far.
But these are not matters we can possibly resolve on this thread...
betty boop: "...the genetic, algorithmic, and symbolic information content of living organisms is much greater than the information content of the physical laws."
Precisely the conditions addressed by the term "emergence".
Again, all this is speculation so far.
betty boop: "Now Ashby’s Law (Ashby, 1962) states that 'The variety of outputs of any deterministic physical system cannot be greater than the variety of inputs; the information of output cannot exceed the information already present in the input.' "
I'd call that super-ignorant rubbish.
What in the world was Ashby smoking in 1962?
betty boop: "Just tell me, how did nature become, not only purposive, but informed such that it can be purposive?
What is the information source, if (as Ashby, Kahre, and Cameron seem to suggest) it cannot be explained on the basis of an evolution strictly according to the physicochemical laws?"
Sorry, but those assumptions are bogus to the max.
Those are simply stupid people making "laws", "doctrines" and even "dogmas" (!) on subjects they literally know nothing about.
None of those are real scientific "laws" or "dogmas", just stupid people's speculations.
So best to ignore them.
As for the fundamental question of how can complex outputs result from simple inputs, one needs only consider the case of the simple carbon atom, from which the number of possible chemical compounds is said to be infinite.
So, a simple input can eventually produce infinite possibilities, including, it seems, us. ;-)
I'm aware of those tactics, and note that they rely heavily on ridicule as an attack strategy.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear YHAOS, and for pinging me back to this thread!
Sorry FRiend, but you've "pegged" nothing but your own inner self.
So tell us why you continue to accuse me of being you?
Really?! Yet it is you and your echo chamber who seem to feel obliged to tell us what you know we already know and then pretend it is your own ideas, or to mock our dead-on observations about your own characters
(sort of an “adult” version of “yeah . . . oh, yeah . . . well . . . well . . . so’s your old man’s mustache!”
LOL! Pathetic.
Sometimes you'll see that expressed as accusations of "projection".
“...anyone aware of Alinsky tactics...”
Spirited: Like his devilish Gnostic pagan mentors (i.e., Marx) Alinsky lauded the devil whose infernal tactics he slavishly systematized into the Rules for Radicals whose ultimate aim was posited by Marx’s anarchist comrade Bakunin. In our revolution said Bakunin, we’ll unleash the devil in mankind. The end result is the natural man of Scripture for whom Alinsky tactics are the norm.
Alinsky was not the devil, but like the natural man, his mind was in accord with the devil’s. He did the devil’s work.
So did Darwin, whose theory not only unpatterns and un-designs the pattern and design built into God’s creation but inverts it as well. This is the classic definition of satanic inversion.
I like you.
It was destined to be a pissing contest the when it was posted in News and Activism. Did it meet your expectation?
Describing your own false accusations, of course.
When it comes to mud-slinging, FRiend, if that's all you have to offer up, then you can expect to receive it flung right back -- in the same measure you dish it out.
Really, it's so childish, it's effectively your total abject admission that you've lost all pretense of rational thought, and now have only trash-talk to throw out.
So why do it?
Thanks so much!
;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.