To get to the nub of this sub-topic I need to finish reading James Gleick "The Information".. although a convinced naturalist he does his homework. But I am going through hell.. a painful 'interlude'. I mentioned a court case with CASA.. I am manually transcribing 10 days of court recording to text. It takes a week to do one day and it is personally distressing.. someone lied and got away with it.. I am appealing the adverse finding of forgery! I won the charge of 'reckless'.
I just realised what it means in this context. I am here trying to talk about deep truth's to which I have become privy by virtue of my 'faith' position.. specifically conclusions not based on belief (religious).
Think of the drama movies.. 'Heat', 'The Bourn series' 'Those Inglorious Bastards' etc, the 'good' tough or gifted guy gets hammered by an evil bad bunch but by super cunning, ability and luck blows the opposition away. Its in your face stuff but it feels good. Deep emotion stirring drama' hooks into your natural sense of justice.. (actually justice doesn't come from nature)
Desperate people actually do murder, payback and suicide.. Why, because 'I must do something' if I think there's no one else! In my dark moments I've had thoughts of blowing away that liar. BUT I know I don't have to.. because my FAITH POSITION is REAL. I have peace, joy and hope in my life because I know I am NOT the JUDGE I am not alone. Civilisation fails when people think 'I am the judge', that's playing God! The only choice we have about God is not his existence but who is going to play him?
Its not just definitions of words that's missing.. Its the understanding of knowledge, the times and ourselves. But if we don't answer the question who is God correctly.. we disable our faculty of 'knowing'. That's what Job 28:20-28 means.
I hope your getting this.
Monday, 27 October 2014
Tuesday, 7 October 2014
2.3 The Big Picture
To continue with 'authority' for my argument..
Sir Fred Hoyle famous mathematician and cosmologist, also studied and had a sound working knowledge of biology.. formal study of which he 'gave up' because..
"All that homespun knowledge was wiped clean from my brain by the age of eighteen, because by then I had become convinced that biology was a doubtful subject. The trouble was that in reading widely during my early teens I ran into the Darwinian theory, for a little while with illusions and then with less respect than adults with bated breath were wont to show."
from the Introduction to 'The Mathematics of Evolution' Pub Brig Klyce 1999 from the original paper by Fred Hoyle 1987. but by age 72 Fred had clearly not changed this view since those early teens.. as he goes on..
"I made them angry, just as I do today, by saying that it [natural selection] did nothing at all. You could select potatoes as much as you pleased but you would never make them into a rabbit. Nor by selecting oak trees could you make them into colonies of bats, and those who thought they could in my opinion were bats in the belfry. This made them angry too"
Don't misunderstand me here.. Fred was pretty much an atheist.. in the preface he says..
"Like a boat pushed off into a fast moving river, I was swept away from my former cherished beliefs. Out of my local church in a week. Out of my belief in the Christian religion in not much time. out of any belief in any fundamental religion in little more time than that.."
Fred is credited as the first atheist advocate for Intelligent Design.. (Wikipedia article), he goes on..
"A decade ago I thought new genes were acquired by an organism from the external environment ... Today, however, I would modify this picture somewhat to the view that all genes in present-day organisms were here already in the metazoans that invaded Earth 570 million years ago.."
The math is inescapable.. Darwinian Evolution cannot work! Hoyle's book was written to show the only way evolution could work, by removing the design of genes to the far distant unobservable cosmos in both space and time..?
regards to all
Sir Fred Hoyle famous mathematician and cosmologist, also studied and had a sound working knowledge of biology.. formal study of which he 'gave up' because..
"All that homespun knowledge was wiped clean from my brain by the age of eighteen, because by then I had become convinced that biology was a doubtful subject. The trouble was that in reading widely during my early teens I ran into the Darwinian theory, for a little while with illusions and then with less respect than adults with bated breath were wont to show."
from the Introduction to 'The Mathematics of Evolution' Pub Brig Klyce 1999 from the original paper by Fred Hoyle 1987. but by age 72 Fred had clearly not changed this view since those early teens.. as he goes on..
"I made them angry, just as I do today, by saying that it [natural selection] did nothing at all. You could select potatoes as much as you pleased but you would never make them into a rabbit. Nor by selecting oak trees could you make them into colonies of bats, and those who thought they could in my opinion were bats in the belfry. This made them angry too"
Don't misunderstand me here.. Fred was pretty much an atheist.. in the preface he says..
"Like a boat pushed off into a fast moving river, I was swept away from my former cherished beliefs. Out of my local church in a week. Out of my belief in the Christian religion in not much time. out of any belief in any fundamental religion in little more time than that.."
Fred is credited as the first atheist advocate for Intelligent Design.. (Wikipedia article), he goes on..
"A decade ago I thought new genes were acquired by an organism from the external environment ... Today, however, I would modify this picture somewhat to the view that all genes in present-day organisms were here already in the metazoans that invaded Earth 570 million years ago.."
The math is inescapable.. Darwinian Evolution cannot work! Hoyle's book was written to show the only way evolution could work, by removing the design of genes to the far distant unobservable cosmos in both space and time..?
regards to all
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)