NASA to Release Significant Mars Findings , so, get ready to read all types of theological speculations. Just keep in mind that it is not HOW things are but THAT things are, which is the mystical.

This is not to suggest that we do not gather some analogical knowledge of the Creator when learning about creation and immanent being but only to remind ourselves that we gain no knowledge of God's essential nature, wholly transcendent as It Is (or is that I AM)?

NASA to Release Significant Mars Findings , so, get ready to read all types of theological speculations. Just keep in mind that it is not HOW things are but THAT things are, which is the mystical.

I do understand that concept, but I have to admit that I'm as thrilled by HOW things are as much, if not more so, than THAT things are. Unlike some Buddhist monks, I can stare in wonder at a mountain for only so long. The THATness is truly amazing but hard to hold for long. But the inner works of THATness is quite intriguing. How can one not look at the intricate complexity of the superbly choreographed mechanisms for cell division and not be awed? How can a Godless or Divine universe order itself in such a way? The HOW is still truly mystical to me.

It seemed to me that report of abundant water on Mars was very anticlimactic. It seems to have been for a long time more of a question of "how much" rather than "if". It's interesting to see it assumed that a long period of standing water means that life may very well have existed on Mars even though we still have no idea how life got started on Earth. The assumption is that life is like a Betty Crocker cake mix: just add water. But do we see life being created (from scratch) today on Earth? If not, why not?

I am unsure of what uncaused means. I been reading this and I am getting a crash course in philosophy. I am curious though if this helpful in explaining the existence of the divine or if this takes away the eastern emphasize on Mystery. Some things cannot be explained and I am of the mind to say that somethings should not be explained and that Mystery is a good thing.

That drawing of the cosmic egg reminds me of something I have seen before. I think St. John drew something similar. If you know what I am talking about please respond.

This is only an annex to your discussion and obviously you'll respond via your autonomous decisions yet has any group of scientists ever non biasly considered the flood discussed in Genesis' literalism.Have they ever re perceived their studies with the potential truth that the entire earth literally took a bath to its highest point for the period described biblically.I've never read any such attempt yet their minds being abundantly fertile one would think much could be learned if they honestly without predisposition pondered thusly.Potentially it could even spawn theories that erode some of the seemingly endless creation origin convergences that yet amount to exercises not resolute understandings.It certainly is vast yet are you destined and or providenced for only displays of intellect or actual end of conjecture understanding of our origin.My suggestion is a serious study of the earth's retro potential actual entire immersion and that could reap creation's understanding or dare I say it Biblical belief based proof.Take care and God bless the blessed!Absolutely no twisted parallels!
Absolutely straight forward!Gary V. Giardina!This sent before 4:30 P.M. January 27th. 2010.

Hi Gary,

What you are suggesting has been done. Creationist scientists argue for this exact model. They even reconcile dinosaurs within this paradigm. It has been my experience though that non-creationist scientists simply regard creationist evidence as flawed and faulty. Creationists even argue that carbon dating is not as accurate as science would like us to believe.

Unfortunately I'm not a scientist. I've come to believe that evolution and creation can complement each other without contradiction. I do have some unanswered questions (e.g. when did death enter creation?) but I simly hope that scientists in the evolution debate are honestly seeking to reveal truth and are not doing the same as the scientists in the global warming debate (though even global warming is something i'm gonna have to trust the experts on). What can we do? If the world is trying to deceive us then we can do very little to stop it. The majority of people on this planet do not have the means to uncover the "real" truth of anything.

The world is a melting pot of opinion!

Jacques
I haven't visited the site for a long while and just noticed a response that has your name attatched to it.A lot of the creationism and actually the evolutionists seem to endlessly boggle themselves with rhetoric that wavers between certain hypothesism and yet never nearness to anything resembling fact.Could you give me the name of any scientist whose work you've read who dispenses with the flood scenario?I've never read any serious conjecture and I think that's because the earth immersed would seriously juxtapose science's theories though the only important ones are those that are actually sincere.Do you realize that fossils alone could be re thunk being that during and after the flood displacement involving 100's of miles to thousands of miles even mixes of indigenous species and flood imported ones could be seriously theorized.That alone would change the majority of theories and wouldn't it make sense since God infinitely would know that science would go through a period that inherently challenged belief based theories and somewhat wisely though not necessarily ultimitely truth concerned.Thank God humanity is past that and science and believers are not distanced philosophically anymore and even work together that they present their discussions amongst one another ideologically.I would very much want reading any scientists' thoughts and dissertations that immediately dispense with the flood's suggestion.Not for the purpose of undermining God and word yet for the purpose of revealing everyone's sincerity which includes pride and intellectual pursuit blessed or not.That lack of concern for truth that I mentioned is a reference involving some scientists whose rhetoric coincidentally or not amazingly can be deciphered as jungle talk servitudinalism and that goes for some of the fellow spritualists to.Really whose zooming who Jacques and it seems your belief for prospectively settling the earth's knowledge of itself has some ultimite pessimism for thinking there are those who would possess the truth and not share it.That seems like a pyramid of hierarchal intellectualism for the sake of itself and do you actually think God would allow such perpetuated self absorbed decadence and empty tributes to rhetorical blither especially if the "truth" of origin was known?Would it not seem that one of the things being accomplished is litmusing which pontificators are the least bit sincere and not predisposed ideologically to the extent of atheistic sadism for the sake of itself?Remember if you see any internet or other published discussions concerning scientist's thoughts involving creation via Genesis' literalism let the forum know and that mentioned whether their thoughts supportive or not of God's creation's actuality.The resolute identifying of human thought must be done.Take care and God bless the blessed!Absolutely no twisted parallels!!!!!!!
Absolutely straight forward!Gary V. Giardina!This sent 8:01 P.M. August 24th. 2010.