Actually the healings I witnessed weren’t the result of prayer; they weren’t even consciously sought. The exception would be when a half dozen or so people prayer for me and I’ve never had a panic attack since.
I don’t see any problem with healing and methodological naturalism; all that methodological naturalism rests on is that God continually sustains the universe according to the rules He has chosen. If He chooses to heal someone via the Eucharist that doesn’t mean we should start expecting miracles all over the place.
Yes, grammar is necessary for a semiotic system to be a language, but semiotic systems with no grammar can convey semantic meaning. We could talk about the semantics of body language or the semantics of reaction gif usage on social media. No grammar is involved, but communication between minds is.
God certainly is not a vending machine that you can plug your prayer quarters into and expect the desired product. And of course he can heal without solicitation too.
I’m sorry for being late. For being sure, this means that computers communicate, using a protocol without using a language.
Can you give a reference for that? I know the reference for ATP-binding, which is Keefe 2001 in Nature. But I could’n’t find the one about betalactamases. And that one is more important for our conversation. Since that 10^-11 for ATP-binding is not surprising. Proteins are sticky molecules. To stick to a molecule and do nothing further is the most simple “function” that I can imagine and adds very little to complexity. In nature, most ATP-binding proteins have complex functions. They have to transport the energy from the ATP-bound to another reaction that requires the energy. That requires lots of complexity. But in this publication, it’s only binding.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
131
Welcome to Atheism!! [/sarcasm]
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
132
I am quite familiar with the process of protein translation, and I am also scratching my head as to what you are trying to get at.
The stems and loops of the molecule are a direct result of hydrogen bonds that form between complementary bases.
The D loop is where the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases bind and attach the cognate amino acid. The RNA sequence of the D loop governs which aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases bind to the tRNA and hence which amino acid is attached to the tRNA.
The anti-codon governs where on the RNA molecule the tRNA will bind based on complementary base pairing (i.e. hydrogen bonds).
In the ribosome, the amino acids of neighboring tRNA’s are attached together to create the elongating protein molecule.
So where in this process are you saying there is “rate-independent control”? What are you referring to? What step are you referring to? From what I can see, this entire process can be explained through physics/chemistry. Do you disagree?
You are trying to make the claim, and this is ONLY because of modern evolutionary theory, that an almighty, all-knowing, omnipotent God, is only smart enough to engage with humanity in His inspired word according to their own times and that the bible cannon is now no longer an accurate representation of Biblical and social history.
One example why i disagree is found in the book of Daniel where God says,
Daniel 12: 4But you, Daniel, shut up these words and seal the book until the time of the end. Many will roam to and fro, and knowledge will increase.”
Then we have the apocalyptic nature of the book of Revelation that are clearly not written for the culture of the time…or 500 years earlier as in the case of the book of Daniel. They are written for far more modern readers and certainly not 100 A.D. God gave John insight into the future in order to help those at the time of the end prepare for His second coming…this was never the case in Johns day around 100 A.D and history has long since proven this point, as does the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary doctrine in Daniel.
And before the naysayers start crowing…check your bible cross referencing for this doctrine and you will note it links with the book of Revelation which was written AFTER 70 A.D
Sorry but the above quoted statement is nothing more than a modern evolutionary driven claim made in order to try to twist scripture to fit secular naturalism and there is no biblical support for it!
Richard Dawkins sums it [the irreconcilable problems here] up well when he says
“the more sophisticated theologians who are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they’re deluded…
i think the evangelicals have got it right in that there really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity”
Stephen Myer states…
“the primary obligation of the scientist, is to be truth seeking. We want to have an open philosophy of science. Theistic evolutionists are content to limit the potential hypothesis under consideration to materialistic ones”
Dawkins conflates philosophical naturalism with the methodological naturalism of good science. [Content removed by moderator.]
And the irreducible complexity that Ann Gauger, the Discovery Institute and all of the ID advocates are only arguing from is only an incredulity fallacy, not science.
It’s not that. It’s that this world appears to be very old. At this point a young earth is as credible as a flat earth.
I saw a Chinese sci fi film recently, and there was a curious line at the end by the ai computer about how humans needed to get past an obsession with past, present, and future.
exactly and that my friend is the very problem. To a non Christian, the appearance drives their theorising about how that might be the case, however since to them there is no evidence for God…
as Dawkins clearly illustrates, “the more sophisticated theologians who are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they’re deluded"
Myer hones in on the problem by saying…“Theistic evolutionists are content to limit the potential hypothesis under consideration to materialistic ones”
I think it is very easy to discredit the views of others via inconsistencies.
In this case, one excellent example is where opposing well known views both conclude that the compromise is “delusional”
for me the problem is established in the following quote from the second video…“theistic evolution undermines a Christians confidence in the authority of scripture…it takes the core of theology (creation) and severs it from history” Dr JP Moreland
Why do you and Meyer treat Dawkins as a credible source on theology? Dawkins is blatantly incompetent and untrustworthy on non-scientific topics such as history, philosophy, and theology. The Bible consistently affirms that God is at work in the “natural” as well as the miraculous. By claiming that theistic evolution is materialistic, Meyer denies that God is at work in natural processes.
Creation is NOT the core of theology. God is the core of theology. Placing anything else at the core is a dangerous false gospel, as Galatians points out.
Creation science destroys a Christian’s confidence in the authority of Scripture, by demanding acceptance of blatantly false claims about God’s creation. Rather than taking Scripture seriously as a whole, it emphasizes a particular interpretation of certain parts. Young-earth creationism takes creation and severs it from real history. “Theistic evolution” may apply to all sorts of positions, including ones that plainly reject the views that Meyer and Moreland attribute to it.
Certainly Scripture looks ahead - I Peter 1:10-12 is a good passage on the topic. But it is written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Just as it would be foolish to take “The apostles were all in one accord” to mean that one must buy 12-passenger Hondas, we need to do all that we can to understand the worldviews and writing styles of the original text if we seriously want to understand what the Bible says, not to impose our own views on it. Calling such a position “evolutionary” is nonsensical.
So you think Origen wrote this only because of modern evolutionary theory?
“So that what we say may be understood quite concretely, let us now bring the argument to bear upon actual passages in Scripture. To what person of intelligence, I ask, will the account seem logically consistent that says there was a “first day” and a “second” and “third”, in which also “evening” and “morning” are named, without a sun, without a moon, and without stars, and even in the case of the first day without a heaven? And who will be found simple enough to believe that like some farmer “God planted trees in the garden of Eden, in the east?” and that He planted “the tree of life” in it, that is a visible tree that could be touched, so that someone could eat of this tree with corporeal teeth and gain life, and, further, could eat of another tree and receive knowledge “of good and evil”? Moreover, we find that God is said to stroll in the garden in the afternoon and Adam to hide under a tree. Surely, I think no one doubts that these statements are made by Scripture in the form of a type by which they point toward certain mysteries. . . But there is no need for us to enlarge the discussion too much beyond what we have in hand, since it is quite easy for everyone who wishes to collect from the holy Scriptures things that are written as though they were really done, but cannot be believed to have happened appropriately and reasonably according to the narrative meaning.”
Can you give a physical/ chemical cause that for instance UGA is a stop codon, UCA is serine and UGC is cysteine in such a logical scheme, as we know it all?
what we have here is a failure to communicate… the irony is simply phenomenal
