Видео

Your utopian description does not seem to match up in any way whatever with the 2020s that I am looking at! People are in fact so desperate for supernatural occurrences that they are about to have a great deception foisted upon them whereby what are actually d*m*ns are going to be presented in one way or another as advanced aliens, or at least the machines made thereby. In this case, "rationality" will be just powerful enough to weaken and disable people into accepting and welcoming something actually irrational and actually supernatural. As somebody with a science PhD, I of course had a long love affair with the rationality you describe; but most people do not go for it in any way, and at the very least they are INFINITELY inclined to conflate issues - something that has assumed plague proportions in our times. On the other hand, one might show sympathy (as Jesus would always expect us to), since the "captured" science we now see has prostituted itself out of the noble search for truth in the universe, for example insisting for long that a certain virus we all know of DID NOT come from the obvious source, even though any rational person could and can see the overwhelming likelihood that it did. I now deploy terms I never believed I would, i.e. "mainstream science" and "mainstream media" because both supposed sources of truth-seeking in our civilised world are so couched in dogma that they do NOT show the necessary open-mindedness, and do not take an interest in anomalies that stare them in the face. They ignore a great deal that goes on... Gobekli Tepe - and Tas Tepeler in general - could have generated two possible reasonable reactions in the monolith of "mainstream science". Either that monolith could have collapsed in the face of overwhelming truth and the need for humility; only to start again from scratch; or it could have adjusted and adapted in a far-reaching way on the basis of a great deal of humble pie being eaten. The reaction we do see is 2 parts gaslighting and 8 parts doing the best it can to take no notice! Typical. The same kind of approach is needed as we (open-minded people) go further and further in appreciating that reductionist science, be it physics or genomic biology, takes us into a kind of ridiculous chaos that does not explain anything. Holistic science might do a bit better, but every scientist worth his or her salt is desperately determined to specialise. But is butter good for us or not? After 70 years of researching it in minute detail, science is so messed up that it is NOT actually in a position to tell us. Can't deal with the big stuff, can't deal with the prosaic stuff either! of course, most science works most of the time in the world we see around us, but - for example - animal behaviour (as developed by a very few rather privileged and often rather cruel white guys on the basis of almost no sample size at all) is being trumped again and again by the simple expedient of what animals do being filmed endlessly and sent on to RUclips. Five minutes with those excerpts - quite often humorous - and we see PLENTY that mainstream animal-behaviour science CANNOT readily explain AT ALL. Science works, but Father, Son and Holy Spirit are beyond it if they so choose. Evil exists too. Yet the rationality and abandonment of fantasies and myths that you talk about is the one that makes MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE celebrate Halloween (as a bit of "substance- and darkness-fuelled fun for all the family that of course does not mean anything") while being a bit too "rational" to go into a church and say thank you on December 25th, during what the Americans now call "holidays" as opposed to Christmas. It's a kind of chaos, but NOT even-handed at all. Irrational when it suits because of some superficial allure of sin (underpinned by lies and chaos), but super-rational when it comes to the side of goodness. Precisely the same could be seen at work at the Eurovision Song Contest, as people bent over backwards (maybe literally) to excuse away open witchcraft in several of the songs. This is the fantasy-abandondinng world you claim we now have? Sure, Jesus can be abandoned by many as a fantasy, the beloved Holy Spirit still more so (despite all the beautiful things He does for us), but "Bambie Thug" singing a song called "Doomsday Blue" whose first words are an ancient spell or curse ... is explained away as ultra-modern and ultra gender-aware for our times. As a scientist I was a bit short on faith before being Born Again in a very tangible way that had measurable effects on me. God was kind enough to give me an abundance of evidence that curtailed my rationality very nicely. Now I post online and speak for Him, and especially for the beloved Holy Spirit - the one who is with us (and in us) in the present era, and is very active in the world, and tangibly so - even though (as we read in 1 John 5:19) this world (not the same as the Earth, of course) does belong to the D*v*l - something that is abundantly clear in the 2020s for anyone with eyes to see. Now I have them, thank God.

Is this some sort of "Light Bearer" invocation? :D The age of Enlightening is teaching us that there is nothing out there but darkness. That we are insignificant, meaningless, fleeting specks of dust. I choose not to believe that! The source (or cause) of our world is not within our world (or realm). Even a rational atheist should recognize and acknowledge that. Until we step out of this world, we cannot understand it. Until then, we can only choose to believe or not believe, and live accordingly.

@@zmijoguz You say: The age of Enlightening is teaching us that there is nothing out there but darkness. That we are insignificant, meaningless, fleeting specks of dust." The answer is YES, you got it. That is exactly how it is. And I am at perfect peace with it. You prefer to have "faith" meaning believing in something without any evidence, whatsoever. Your choice, be happy with it. I rather be rational and use the brains that evolution provided me to expect evidence before making any judgement. Until that evidence manifests itself I a a non believer. Cheers.

maybe its just nonsense

Can you give some advice on how you manifest? Thank you!

What you write, and what David Attenborough and Stephen note, cannot be denied by any who know their biology. But it is also the case that virus nucleic acids introduced into our genome over the span of time are essential for the development of the myelin sheath (longer-distance transmission of nerve impulses) and even for key aspects of placentation. God looked at His creation and saw it was good ... all of it. Even the pathogens had a chance to "redeem themselves" over time.

@@sidpheasant7585 how can something without consciousness "redeem" itself? that whole concept is ridiculous, deism has more sense than that doctrine

@@davemaverick8438 I did put it in quotation marks; but these scientific facts raise several issues - first it could be (and is) argued that these events are so unlikely as to make advanced life on Earth a one-off in the cosmos; and such a chance affair as to dismiss God from creation altogether. The truth is (I believe) quite the opposite; which is why I wrote what I wrote. God actually refuted Stephen Fry-type arguments that He created organisms with "evil" behaviours (obviously as a biologist I do NOT see it quite that way, but Stephen as a non-scientist might); because as we know human beings could not prosper (or even survive) without bacteria; just our processes would not work had our genomes not acquired many, many viruses. This is precise proof that created organisms, though pathogenic, are NOT evil, but actually make their contribution to the development of humankind as the chosen species. Indeed, the idea that only by absorbing viruses that did them harm could our answers evolve into us is so paradoxical and unlikely that it actually speaks for a steering of creative intent.

@@davemaverick8438 I did write that in quotation marks, as you will note. But still the above scientific facts can be (and are) used by opponents to show that our evolved presence here on Earth is so ridculously unlikely that we are a one-off in the cosmos. They use the same argumentation to deny the existence of God. I put it as quite the opposite. The fact that we can only exist and do what we do because the genomes of our ancestors were infiltrated multiple times by viruses originally present as pathogens has a divine twist to us. It is indeed highly unlikely, which is why we might say that God planned it that way, and saw to it. Likewise, we could not survive without bacteria and other microorganisms in the environment and within us - that precisely proves that even the potential pathogens God allowed to appear also "grow", and contribute to the emergence of ourselves as the species made in God's image. It does indeed comply with the idea of God seeing His creation and seeing it as good, which is a precise refutation of Stephen Fry-type attacks on God. If God had created everything immutably - as it would then be forever, then no "growth" or "redemption" would be possible. But it is! It is actually a familiar fact that pathogenic viruses and bacteria later evolve towards a more symbiotic circumstance. Indeed, the very existence of the eukaryotic cell even earlier in evolution is an example of cooperation overriding competition, which again looks rather divine and teleological, if not theological. Paradoxically (and there is sympathy), the one who looks ridiculous is Darwin - for believing that everything was parent-child inherited in tiny steps, ensuring we could trace back a perfect family tree from us to the first life. In fact, we now know 145 human genes are in us thanks to horizontal transfer, from bacteria and viruses, but also from fungi and protists. While we could argue each of those examples were chance happenings (with these being the positive cases among zillions of negative ones that resulted in death and so were not passed on); but in fact this also gives huge scope for a process that was steered... I do not KNOW if that is what happened, but I certainly cannot preclude that, and in fact I do have faith that it happened.

Of course God knows but us trapped in time and space don't but if we hear the gospel story and believe it we enter into a relationship with God through his word so we believe and he imputes that to us as righteousness a free gift when understood inspires us through love and gratitude to be obedient and faithful

God knew this would happen or is not all seeing.

More specifically God has allowed time to show how satan rules.! Second Corinthians 4:4 And as Jesus said in garden of gesthemene, the ruler of This world is coming but he has no hold on me.

Because we want to go our own way. We can look at God creating such insects as an act of evil because God offers nothing else or we can look at God creating such insects to help us understand what life without him really means and to motivate us to follow him because he offers healing and an eternal paradise. Fry's issue is that he looks at the gift horse in the mouth. Life is precious even with the suffering.

@@davidreinker5600 I am perplexed by your answer. Are you suggesting that a child who goes blind from an insect God created to consume his eye's sclera should be thankful that God allows him to better "understand life"?

@@ozymandias6743 Perhaps he would be thankful to have life even if it isn't a bed of roses? Is God evil if he give some people more than he gives others?

The strongest apparent argument of those who attack God is: "why didn't he make people immune to all disease and capable of living forever?" Of course, God's answer to that is; "did that already, through my Son". If we have eternal life, even 100 years here is an infinitely small percentage of that...

Which part did you not understand? The fall created all of creation. That makes sense.