Who Believes the Bible Is Literally True?

[scott]

I wonder how many of these inmates were Christians before going to jail. I've heard many convert while in prision because of obvious reasons.

No offense, but this has been addressed and readdressed in this thread. My data of religious affiliation among inmates is from surveys of inmates upon entering prisons as well as while they are in prison. And once more, the religious affiliations are by self-identification.

[NASpurs]

No offense, but this has been addressed and readdressed in this thread. My data of religious affiliation among inmates is from surveys of inmates upon entering prisons as well as while they are in prison. And once more, the religious affiliations are by self-identification.haha sorry about that. This thread is super long and I read up til like page six or something and started over again on the last page.

Maybe I should stop skipping around on the reading in this thread and read everyone's essays.

[scott]

Again... didn't mean any offense. In fact I apologize - I shouldn't have even phrased it that way. I don't blame you for not reading this whole thing (I haven't read every post in this thread either).

[jochhejaam]

The study actually wasn't specifically about religion (or atheism) but actually about why some demographic groups are over(under)represented in prison relative to the general US population (for instance, African Americans are highly overrepresented in prisons). In fact, the title of my paper was "Why Don't Prison Populations Reflect General United States Demographics?" I did a small (but significant to me) amount of research in the Economics of Prisons during my studies.

Christians as a group are actually rather fairly represented in prisons (depending on which study you are looking at, Christians make up 75-85% of the US population - again, based on self-identification - and they make up approx. 83% of the US prison population). One of the many findings was that atheists are highly underrepresented in prisons (they make up approx. 8-14% of the US population, but only 0.2% of the prison population). Muslims are a religious group that is highly overrepresented in prisons (only ~0.5% of US population, but 7.5% of prison population).

The study's main conclusion was that education and income levels are the best predictor of "criminality" (for lack of a better word) and that religious identification has a limited causal relationship inprisonment. The section that dealt with the difference between Atheists and Christians points out that the fact the inmates are Christian is not to imply causality (they aren't criminals because they are Christians). But I will say that I conclude that Atheism isn't a cause of crime (which is an accusation occassionally tossed around, included by a former poster in this forum).
I guess I was wondering if the study was intended to be an exposé on Christianity and you answered that also. We discussed the study several months ago and the impetus for it was one question I neglected to ask. Thanks scott

[MaNuMaNiAc]

p.s. (Avoiding vague, nebulous, obscure, unintelligible, foggy, indistinguishable, and uncertain reasoning in your response would be appreciated) http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif shouldn't that request be extended to those trying to explain how the bible is literally true aswell?

[jochhejaam]

109. Jesus was all-powerful
Matt 28:18/ John 3:35
Jesus was not all-powerful
Mark 6:5

Response to point 109 in TexasBalla's post about contradictions.

Matt. 28:18 is after the resurrection, after all power was given to Him by the Father. John 3:35 says that the Father has given all into His hand.. could be referring to all the believers, as in other verses in John...
Mark 6:5 shows us that Jesus was limited by man's unbelief.

This is a recurring theme in the Bible, that although God is all-powerful, He chooses to limit Himself to man; that is, He chooses to wait for man's co-operation. This explains why the Bible calls His believers His fellow workers. God doesn't need man to work together with Him, yet this is His chosen means of operation. If this is how He chooses to work, this explains how He is all- powerful and yet "could not do many works of power there because of their unbelief." --MAW


For those who might have concerns regarding TexasBalla's post here's a link to a complete list countering /rebutting the alleged contradictions .

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/143contrad.html

[Leetonidas]

Hit and Run by TexasBalla? :lol

List a couple of the alleged contradictions that really bother you Balla and we'll discuss whether they truly are contradictions.

I'm lazy as hell. You think I really wrote that shit?

I found it on a forum I used to be active on. Some guy was ranting. I found it kinda interesting is all.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I never would have guessed jochche was a hardcore overzealous christian.

Never.

[2centsworth]

I never would have guessed jochche was a hardcore overzealous christian.

He's not overzealous. He has been fair and respectful. Maybe you're just close-minded?

[smeagol]

Tell you what smeagol - give me another word to use for those who self-indentify themselves as Christians, and I will be happy to use that word instead.

I can't. The point is people telling you they are Christians does not make them Christ-like, which is the goal of Christianity. But I guess we are running round in circles.


Then there is no conflict - as I've said numerous times in this thread, people should believe whatever they like and that I respect all religions for the common thread among them: social morality. All I want is for it to be kept out of public institutions like schools or courthouses. Some people obviously have a problem with that.

I don't.

[Phenomanul]

[QUOTE]
I think the bravatar you had may have thrown him off.



scott, was the impetus for the study?

:spin my bad scott on the gender confusion...

[Guru of Nothing]

people telling you they are Christians does not make them Christ-like

Concur.

[Phenomanul]

How many women do you know named scott?
Again, my apologies....



Next, I'll ask these questions:

What do you call the people who believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and Savior of mankind, but at times fall victim to temptation and get caught in their transgressions and then incarcerated?

Since you call yourself Christian, I can presume that you have never sinned since you have become a Christian?
Of course I sin, I still fall victim to its deceptive grasp all the time... I am not perfect nor have I claimed perfection... but your question actually reminded me of the following passage written by Paul in his Letter to the Philipians:

Phil 3:12; Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.

Phil 3:13; Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead,

Phil 3:14; I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

Phil 3:15; All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.




The bible outlines many sins that are not illegal but are worse than the sins the some people end up in jail for. You seem awefully cavalier in deciding who is a Christian and who is not, based on (admit it) your definition of what a Christian is. Not all Christians share your definition. Some faiths feel that Christianity is about acts, some feel it is about faith, many believe its about both.

Exactly... I don't know of anyone who's ended up in jail for blasphemy (not that it should be made into law)... The point is people mess up all the time and some end up in jail... some may have been strong Christians -- people that should have known better... but I'm willing to bet that many were fringe Christians -- people that never led godly lives to begin with...

That is the premise you have a hard time understanding... Be it by your definition or their self-prescribed title... your conclusion that 'Christians are more likely to end up in jail' is still based on a tabulation of Christians. Only GOD knows the sincerity of our hearts and only HE can truly discern the status of our soul.

Hence, statistical claims, both negative and positive, regarding the tendencies of Christians need to have stronger basis than a simple definition or a self-proclamation. Otherwise the conclusion is erred. I can't claim for example, that Christians are less likely to end up with a DWI or a DUI for many reasons, even if I was trying to make a valid observation about the responsibility Christians should bear... but the reason I couldn't stake that claim would be that I'm not capable of guaging the sincerity of a person's heart.

I can however, get a feel for a person's life by seeing whether or not they bear the fruit of the Spirit... again, attributes of love, joy, patience, goodness, faith, temperance, benevolence, etc... having personally understood that these are attributes that are very difficult of sustaining over the course of time, and particularly becuase they encompass many areas life, one could make a guess and say... "this person is truly striving to be Christ-like" ... even then, only GOD really knows.



The people who have been jailed identify themselves as Christians, who are you to judge they are not? The people who identify themselves as Christians but you say are something else obviously have a different definition of Christianity than you do. They can say the same as you "I'm a Christian and I'm telling you what that stands for..." and they may have gathered that definition from the very book you have.

So, tell me then - what makes a prisoner calling himself a Christian and then praying for forgiveness any different from a Christian who lusts after his neighbors wife in moments of weakness, but prays for forgiveness?

There is no tangible difference if they are both Christians as determined by GOD. The only difference is that one ended up in jail because he was convicted of a crime deemed punishable by the laws of men. We have afterall, the free-will to do as we wish... and when we do err, we will be held accountable for our actions...

Much like a parent who hurts when their children are disciplined, GOD suffers when watching us endure the consequences of our actions... but He also knows that the painstaking process offers us a route of spiritual growth and maturity... some people are just more stubborn than others and end up bearing more 'stumbling scars' than their brother...

One thing is undeniably certain; that GOD is always there to help us along.



As 2cents said: I'm most likely a liar, thief, blasphermer and adulterer at heart (of course, saying this without knowing anything I do - but that is besides the point) - a sinner just like the rest of "us" (which since it was 2cents saying it, I assumed he meant Christians). And yet you have the audacity to judge the faith of those who are jailed for lesser sins? How does your God feel about your judgements. God or no God - it is not my role on earth to Judge the faith of others. Apparently many of you "Judge not lest ye be Judged" folks don't agree (Back to the original Topic: is the Bible literally true? Is this part exempt from truth? It appears maybe so).
There is much irony in this section considering that the conclusion you are drawing from your study is that "Christians are more likely to end up in jail than an athiest"... It's an observation based on the numbers you were given but not justified due to the criteria given by GOD himself on what defines a follower... the irony is that you have been using 'the observation' as a means to then draw judgement on a particular group of society...

And you are mistaken, I'm not judging anybody... but go ahead... think whatever you want.



One more question... why is it Atheists (presumably the ultimate of all sins) manage to keep themselves out of jail?

I'll answer the question by not answering it at all... or at least not in the way you want me to...

I'll go on a limb here... How have people such as smeagol, jochhejaam, 2centsworth or myself managed to stay out of jail??? Though our particular beliefs may be different each one of us has put his trust in GOD and from what I've read of their posts... confide in HIS guidance and wisdom. There are many routes to obtaining a social "A+" and they obviously don't all require GOD's guidance, especially since the standards that dictate the "A+" grade are still only human...

I'm more concerned about making sure I 'pass' the test that is my life as this one is gauged by GOD's standard... If I succeed at this, I can assure you that I wouldn't end up in jail either...

I don't know if the athiest can claim the same since his standard of living is not predicated on a moral barometer... In fact, there is only one requirement... a lack of belief in a higher power. That's it.... welcome to the athiest club. Again, is it possible to assert whether Stalin was a 'good' or a 'bad' athiest... you're either an athiest or you're not. The good or bad modifiers are irrelevant... the same cannot be said for Christians because obviously there IS a gauge...

[jochhejaam]

I haven't compared those who claim to be Christians with those who believe the Bible to be literally true but based on the following survey it would seem most Christians believe the Bible is literally true. (not surprising)



TESTING THE FAITH
Poll: 63% of Americans
think Bible literally true
Those believing Scripture is Word of God higher among Republicans than Democrats

Posted: April 24, 2005

At a time when the public display and discourse about matters of faith have been under attack, a new poll indicates most Americans – 63 percent – believe the Bible is literally true and the Word of God.

The survey taken Thursday and Friday by Rasmussen Reports found just 24 percent thinking otherwise.

When broken down into different demographics, the poll showed 77 percent of Republicans believe in the literal truth of the Bible as do 59 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of those not affiliated with either major party.

Among Evangelical Christians, 89 percent believe the Bible is literally true and just 4 percent say it is not. Among other Protestants, 70 percent believe the Bible is literally true. That view is shared by 58 percent of Catholics.


Eighty-two percent of black Americans believe the Bible is literally true and the Word of God. Fifty-nine percent of white Americans share that view along with 71 percent of other, primarily Hispanic, Americans.

While older Americans are slightly more likely to believe in the literal truth of the Bible, 58 percent of adults under 30 hold that view.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43957

[DarkReign]

Look, some people are religious. Good for them.
Some arent. Whoopety-doo.

Basically, the religious dont have to prove anything. They have faith and God on their side. ie. If you question them youre automatically wrong.

The people posing the question had better know it before entering. While I admire your effort scott, youre still going to lose. I know this isnt a "win-lose" situation. But I am simplifying so as to not get too wordy.

They neither cite science or logic in anything they opine about. They dont have to.

Sooooooooo, my point is...if they dont have to, why should you? They say "it is, because God says so". Well, you can say, "No it isnt, because God says it isnt."

Its a very childish, I know. But really, where is this thread going?

Fruitless endeavor.

Side note: many moons ago, while arguing with other students on the merits of religion, I had so many passages quoted as counter-arguments, I figured I had to read it just to understand wtf they were trying to say.

I think I read 10 pages before I said "Fuck it." Most boring book ever.

[Phenomanul]

Look, some people are religious. Good for them.
Some arent. Whoopety-doo.

Basically, the religious dont have to prove anything. They have faith and God on their side. ie. If you question them youre automatically wrong.

The people posing the question had better know it before entering. While I admire your effort scott, youre still going to lose. I know this isnt a "win-lose" situation. But I am simplifying so as to not get too wordy.

They neither cite science or logic in anything they opine about. They dont have to.

Sooooooooo, my point is...if they dont have to, why should you? They say "it is, because God says so". Well, you can say, "No it isnt, because God says it isnt."

Its a very childish, I know. But really, where is this thread going?

Fruitless endeavor.

Side note: many moons ago, while arguing with other students on the merits of religion, I had so many passages quoted as counter-arguments, I figured I had to read it just to understand wtf they were trying to say.

I think I read 10 pages before I said "Fuck it." Most boring book ever.

No one here has tried to convince you of anything different... you're entitled to your own fate, and your own beliefs... period.

And BTW I have offered scientific observations that have been brushed off as psuedo-science by people not qualified to refute said arguments.... I don't expect you all to believe what I believe... but it's rather smug for people on your side to say Christianity is a 'primitive' way of thinking.

I don't believe many of the posters here could claim to 'know' more about the natural world we live in than me... and yet, the more I study, the more I'm driven to believe in a GOD created universe. Whether you agree with me or not is your perogative... but still only an opinion.

[clambake]

"you're entitled to your own fate".....I love that.......boa has spoken. Now, my fate is sealed!

[leemajors]

the bible can't be literally true, oral tradition and multiple translations distort what may have once been fact. it doesn't mean there aren't plenty of truths found within, or that there aren't many good lessons to be found within.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

"you're entitled to your own fate".....I love that.......boa has spoken. Now, my fate is sealed!
http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

[DarkReign]

No one here has tried to convince you of anything different... you're entitled to your own fate, and your own beliefs... period.

And BTW I have offered scientific observations that have been brushed off as psuedo-science by people not qualified to refute said arguments.... I don't expect you all to believe what I believe... but it's rather smug for people on your side to say Christianity is a 'primitive' way of thinking.

I don't believe many of the posters here could claim to 'know' more about the natural world we live in than me... and yet, the more I study, the more I'm driven to believe in a GOD created universe. Whether you agree with me or not is your perogative... but still only an opinion.

Now, as is with most egotists, they dont say what they mean by actually saying it...


Whether you agree with me or not is your perogative... but still only an opinion. You're entitled to your own fate.

Dont you mean destiny? Oh, my bad, of course not. I dont think like you, therefore I must be damned and deserve the negative connotation.

Fuck your exclusive club then. Thats why I cant stand religious people, conform or condemned. If those are my choices, then I choose Option C...Religious zealots are the true enemy of the world and I choose not to help or hurt them.

[Extra Stout]

the bible can't be literally true, oral tradition and multiple translations distort what may have once been fact. it doesn't mean there aren't plenty of truths found within, or that there aren't many good lessons to be found within.
The oral tradition argument I can grant you... the OT books as we have them were written down centuries after the purported traditional authors had died.

Some of what is written obviously makes no sense when taken strictly literally, but it remains theologically true. It conveys exactly the message to man that God intends for it to convey.

The "multiple translation" argument does not ring true, though. Many people have this misconception that the Bible was translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to German to King James English to Modern English or something like that. In reality, each new Bible translation is from the earliest available consensus manuscripts in the original languages. If the Bible actually had been translated half a dozen times, it would read like Chinese stereo instructions.

[Phenomanul]

Now, as is with most egotists, they dont say what they mean by actually saying it...



Dont you mean destiny? Oh, my bad, of course not. I dont think like you, therefore I must be damned and deserve the negative connotation.

Fuck your exclusive club then. Thats why I cant stand religious people, conform or condemned. If those are my choices, then I choose Option C...Religious zealots are the true enemy of the world and I choose not to help or hurt them.


Who is taking the primitive stand now??? YOU choose to run the course of your life... not me. I'm not telling you how to think am I???

So maybe destiny was the better word choice... Geez!!! Now you act all offended... give me a break.

Cite one instance when I have cursed you out... just one... Well, let me save you the time... you won't find it...

[Phenomanul]

"you're entitled to your own fate".....I love that.......boa has spoken. Now, my fate is sealed!

So then you are not entitled to your own beliefs??? I see... what, then is your argument about???

I just love how people seem to harp on a one-liner... and then ignore everything else...

[MaNuMaNiAc]

So then you are not entitled to your own beliefs??? I see... what, then is your argument about???

I just love how people seem to harp on a one-liner... and then ignore everything else...
I think the problem was that when you said "fate" it sounded as if you were telling them they are free to choose between salvation or damnation. That's what got them all worked up. It was a missunderstanding. The problem is although it may seem like "fate" and "destiny" are similar words, in this case they have completely different meanings.

[Mr. Peabody]

Thought this was a good quote that I should share --

There seem to two kinds of searchers: those who seek to make their ego something other than it is, i.e. holy, happy, unselfish (as though you could make a fish unfish), and those who understand that all such attempts are just gesticulation and play-acting, that there is only one thing that can be done, which is to disidentify themselves with the ego, by realizing its unreality, and by becoming aware of their eternal identity with pure being. - Fingers Pointing Toward the Moon by Wei Wu Wei

[Phenomanul]

I think the problem was that when you said "fate" it sounded as if you were telling them they are free to choose between salvation or damnation. That's what got them all worked up. It was a missunderstanding. The problem is although it may seem like "fate" and "destiny" are similar words, in this case they have completely different meanings.


Yeah I've already said, I should have used the other word.... in Spanish, at least, they are really the same word...

Oh well.... people often choose to hear what they like... and toss out everything they don't...

[Phenomanul]

Thought this was a good quote that I should share --

There seem to two kinds of searchers: those who seek to make their ego something other than it is, i.e. holy, happy, unselfish (as though you could make a fish unfish), and those who understand that all such attempts are just gesticulation and play-acting, that there is only one thing that can be done, which is to disidentify themselves with the ego, by realizing its unreality, and by becoming aware of their eternal identity with pure being. - Fingers Pointing Toward the Moon by Wei Wu Wei


Join the boutons_ clan... It really pisses him off he can't dismiss me as some ignorant, bible-thumping, dimwit....

Hey, if we were all dumb wouldn't it be really easy for you all to be dismissive on those grounds alone... I don't mind being the one to pose the challenge to that notion... Anyhow, this is a discussion board... and I hadn't made any mention of my background until post 1000 or something like that... my scientific background was being questioned (as is usually the case with newbies who haven't been around to read the whole forum)... no ego stroking here Mr. Peabody... it just is what it is...

[DarkReign]

I think the problem was that when you said "fate" it sounded as if you were telling them they are free to choose between salvation or damnation. That's what got them all worked up. It was a missunderstanding. The problem is although it may seem like "fate" and "destiny" are similar words, in this case they have completely different meanings.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Fate != Destiny

Fate = Negative connotation
Destiny = Postive connotation

"Your fate awaits" = bad thing
"Your destiny awaits" = good thing

[DarkReign]

Thought this was a good quote that I should share --

There seem to two kinds of searchers: those who seek to make their ego something other than it is, i.e. holy, happy, unselfish (as though you could make a fish unfish), and those who understand that all such attempts are just gesticulation and play-acting, that there is only one thing that can be done, which is to disidentify themselves with the ego, by realizing its unreality, and by becoming aware of their eternal identity with pure being. - Fingers Pointing Toward the Moon by Wei Wu Wei

Great quote, but the hell if I understand what "...by becoming aware of their eternal identity with pure being." means.

But oh well, still good. If wellness is an eternal identity of pure being away, Im hip.

[pussyface]

"Educate me pf, since it's obvious that you're a logical and reasonable person who pursues knowledge perhaps you wouldn't mind giving a logical, reasonable, and knowledgeable explanation on why you believe Bible literalists are Taliban-like" jcche or whatever, that hardcore christian guy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
People who literally believe the Bible (in spite of all that science/research/logic tells us) are living in the same Dark Ages that the religious fundamentalists in the East live in. It is not a coincidence that these two groups see each other as the Earthly personification of evil; the irony is that both have so much in common.

In my estimation, both groups are EXTREMELY dangerous because they believe that no matter what happens, they have God on their side, actively participating in their coronation.

they believe those on the other side will go to hell if they don't repent and join their religion because they read this in a book/heard this from a leader.

pat robertson is an American terrorist.

[Spurminator]

I think some of you may be confusing the term "literal" with something else altogether. There's nothing terroristic about believing the universe was created in 7 days.

If you're talking about people who think the Law handed down to the Isrealites by God in the Old Testiment should still hold true today, that's another thing, but apart from being extremely rare in modern Christianity (if not altogether extinct), that's not necessarily a component of a literal belief. I can believe in the Bible literally and still understand the audience and purpose of the Old Testament.

[Mr. Peabody]

Join the boutons_ clan... It really pisses him off he can't dismiss me as some ignorant, bible-thumping, dimwit....

Did you think I was attacking you or something? :wtf



Hey, if we were all dumb wouldn't it be really easy for you all to be dismissive on those grounds alone...

Who are you referring to when you say "you all?" And, why am I in the "you all" category?


I don't mind being the one to pose the challenge to that notion...


no ego stroking here Mr. Peabody... it just is what it is...

Who could possibly characterize your completely self-serving "Listen to me. I know what I am talking about"-post as ego stroking? :rolleyes

[Phenomanul]

Did you think I was attacking you or something? :wtf


Who could possibly characterize your completely self-serving "Listen to me. I know what I am talking about"-post as ego stroking? :rolleyes

You've done it before.... indirectly or not... don't play me for stupid. Your little Wei Wu Wei quote would otherwise be irrelevant if you had nothing to say by using it.

[Phenomanul]

"Educate me pf, since it's obvious that you're a logical and reasonable person who pursues knowledge perhaps you wouldn't mind giving a logical, reasonable, and knowledgeable explanation on why you believe Bible literalists are Taliban-like" jcche or whatever, that hardcore christian guy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
People who literally believe the Bible (in spite of all that science/research/logic tells us) are living in the same Dark Ages that the religious fundamentalists in the East live in. It is not a coincidence that these two groups see each other as the Earthly personification of evil; the irony is that both have so much in common.

In my estimation, both groups are EXTREMELY dangerous because they believe that no matter what happens, they have God on their side, actively participating in their coronation.

they believe those on the other side will go to hell if they don't repent and join their religion because they read this in a book/heard this from a leader.

pat robertson is an American terrorist.

While we may agree on the Pat Robertson issue.... your other view is a little too "Hollywood"... generalizations are dangerous too you know.

[Mr. Peabody]

Great quote, but the hell if I understand what "...by becoming aware of their eternal identity with pure being." means.

But oh well, still good. If wellness is an eternal identity of pure being away, Im hip.

I think it has something to do with extinguishing the "self." It's a Buddhist quote.

Why I introduced a Buddhist quote into the Bible discussion thread, I am not sure.

I just thought it was a good observations about the reasons many people flock to religion. There seems to be this underlying notion of reward.

Would we still adhere to the precepts of religion of there was no reward at the end of it? I doubt there would be many that would, but I could be wrong.

[Phenomanul]

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Fate != Destiny

Fate = Negative connotation
Destiny = Postive connotation

"Your fate awaits" = bad thing
"Your destiny awaits" = good thing


fate:
in Spanish | in French | in Italian
in context | images


Adapted From: WordNet 2.0 Copyright 2003 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

fate
A noun
1 destiny, fate

an event (or a course of events) that will inevitably happen in the future
Category Tree:
event
¨^happening; occurrence; natural event
¨^destiny, fate
¨^doom; doomsday; day of reckoning; end of the world
¨^predestination
¨^kismet; kismat
¨^karma
¨^inevitable
2 Destiny, Fate
the ultimate agency that predetermines the course of events (often personified as a woman); "we are helpless in the face of Destiny"
Category Tree:
entity
¨^causal agent; cause; causal agency
¨^Destiny, Fate
3 fortune, destiny, fate, luck, lot, circumstances, portion

your overall circumstances or condition in life (including everything that happens to you); "whatever my fortune may be"; "deserved a better fate"; "has a happy lot"; "the luck of the Irish"; "a victim of circumstances"; "success that was her portion"
Category Tree:
state
¨^condition
¨^fortune, destiny, fate, luck, lot, circumstances, portion
¨^failure
¨^misfortune; bad luck; tough luck; ill luck
¨^providence
¨^good fortune; good luck
B verb
1 destine, fate, doom, designate

decree or designate beforehand; "She was destined to become a great pianist"
Category Tree:
express; verbalize; verbalise; utter; give tongue to
¨^state; say; tell
¨^declare
¨^decree
¨^ordain
¨^destine, fate, doom, designate

[Mr. Peabody]

You've done it before.... indirectly or not... don't play me for stupid. Your little Wei Wu Wei quote would otherwise be irrelevant if you had nothing to say by using it.

It was somewhat irrelevant (see my previous post). I actually just read it on Google's Buddhist Thought of the Day and thought it was thought-provoking.

However, even if posted the quote to make a point about this discussion, why is that point necessarily an attack on you? Quit being so damn egotistical.

[DarkReign]

fate:
in Spanish | in French | in Italian
in context | images


Adapted From: WordNet 2.0 Copyright 2003 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

fate
A noun
1 destiny, fate

an event (or a course of events) that will inevitably happen in the future
Category Tree:
event
¨^happening; occurrence; natural event
¨^destiny, fate
¨^doom; doomsday; day of reckoning; end of the world
¨^predestination
¨^kismet; kismat
¨^karma
¨^inevitable
2 Destiny, Fate
the ultimate agency that predetermines the course of events (often personified as a woman); "we are helpless in the face of Destiny"
Category Tree:
entity
¨^causal agent; cause; causal agency
¨^Destiny, Fate
3 fortune, destiny, fate, luck, lot, circumstances, portion

your overall circumstances or condition in life (including everything that happens to you); "whatever my fortune may be"; "deserved a better fate"; "has a happy lot"; "the luck of the Irish"; "a victim of circumstances"; "success that was her portion"
Category Tree:
state
¨^condition
¨^fortune, destiny, fate, luck, lot, circumstances, portion
¨^failure
¨^misfortune; bad luck; tough luck; ill luck
¨^providence
¨^good fortune; good luck
B verb
1 destine, fate, doom, designate

decree or designate beforehand; "She was destined to become a great pianist"
Category Tree:
express; verbalize; verbalise; utter; give tongue to
¨^state; say; tell
¨^declare
¨^decree
¨^ordain
¨^destine, fate, doom, designate

WTF is that? That isnt Merriam-Webster.com


Main Entry: 1fate
Pronunciation: 'fAt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin fatum, literally, what has been spoken, from neuter of fatus, past participle of fari to speak -- more at BAN
1 : the principle or determining cause or will by which things in general are believed to come to be as they are or events to happen as they do : DESTINY
2 a : an inevitable and often adverse outcome, condition, or end b : DISASTER; especially : DEATH
3 a : final outcome b : the expected result of normal development <prospective fate of embryonic cells>
4 plural, capitalized : the three goddesses who determine the course of human life in classical mythology
synonyms FATE, DESTINY, LOT, PORTION, DOOM mean a predetermined state or end. FATE implies an inevitable and usually an adverse outcome <the fate of the submarine is unknown>. DESTINY implies something foreordained and often suggests a great or noble course or end <the country's destiny to be a model of liberty to the world>. LOT and PORTION imply a distribution by fate or destiny, LOT suggesting blind chance <it was her lot to die childless>, PORTION implying the apportioning of good and evil <remorse was his daily portion>. DOOM distinctly implies a grim or calamitous fate <if the rebellion fails, his doom is certain>.

While technically fate and destiny are synonyms, in everyday speech, they are used as polar opposites in English speaking countries.

I know, I know...English is fucked up. But it is what it is.

[Mr. Peabody]

fate:
in Spanish | in French | in Italian
in context | images

Merriam-Webster Online

fate
2 entries found for fate.
To select an entry, click on it.
fate[1,noun]fate[2,transitive verb]

Main Entry: 1fate
Pronunciation: 'fAt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin fatum, literally, what has been spoken, from neuter of fatus, past participle of fari to speak -- more at BAN
1 : the principle or determining cause or will by which things in general are believed to come to be as they are or events to happen as they do : DESTINY
2 a : an inevitable and often adverse outcome, condition, or end b : DISASTER; especially : DEATH3 a : final outcome b : the expected result of normal development <prospective fate of embryonic cells>
4 plural, capitalized : the three goddesses who determine the course of human life in classical mythology

synonyms FATE, DESTINY, LOT, PORTION, DOOM mean a predetermined state or end. FATE implies an inevitable and usually an adverse outcome <the fate of the submarine is unknown>. DESTINY implies something foreordained and often suggests a great or noble course or end <the country's destiny to be a model of liberty to the world>. LOT and PORTION imply a distribution by fate or destiny, LOT suggesting blind chance <it was her lot to die childless>, PORTION implying the apportioning of good and evil <remorse was his daily portion>. DOOM distinctly implies a grim or calamitous fate <if the rebellion fails, his doom is certain>.

[Phenomanul]

I think it has something to do with extinguishing the "self." It's a Buddhist quote.

Why I introduced a Buddhist quote into the Bible discussion thread, I am not sure.

I just thought it was a good observations about the reasons many people flock to religion. There seems to be this underlying notion of reward. .

See... now this can generate discussion....



Would we still adhere to the precepts of religion of there was no reward at the end of it? I doubt there would be many that would, but I could be wrong.

Good question... I've have always felt (my opinion of course) that GOD placed an innate desire within each of us to search for the truth... Jesus once said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life... no man cometh to the Father except through me"... When that search reaches an end, and we find Christ at the end of our quest many of our questions can be answered even if they aren't.... meaning the purpose of our lives is made clear in GOD's embrace, and that alone is worth the find....

I certainly don't call myself a Christian all for the allure of Heaven.... there are many days, and sometimes weeks can go by, when that word doesn't even cross my mind... GOD's presence is the reward....

[Phenomanul]

Merriam-Webster Online

fate
2 entries found for fate.
To select an entry, click on it.
fate[1,noun]fate[2,transitive verb]

Main Entry: 1fate
Pronunciation: 'fAt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin fatum, literally, what has been spoken, from neuter of fatus, past participle of fari to speak -- more at BAN
1 : the principle or determining cause or will by which things in general are believed to come to be as they are or events to happen as they do : DESTINY
2 a : an inevitable and often adverse outcome, condition, or end b : DISASTER; especially : DEATH3 a : final outcome b : the expected result of normal development <prospective fate of embryonic cells>
4 plural, capitalized : the three goddesses who determine the course of human life in classical mythology

synonyms FATE, DESTINY, LOT, PORTION, DOOM mean a predetermined state or end. FATE implies an inevitable and usually an adverse outcome <the fate of the submarine is unknown>. DESTINY implies something foreordained and often suggests a great or noble course or end <the country's destiny to be a model of liberty to the world>. LOT and PORTION imply a distribution by fate or destiny, LOT suggesting blind chance <it was her lot to die childless>, PORTION implying the apportioning of good and evil <remorse was his daily portion>. DOOM distinctly implies a grim or calamitous fate <if the rebellion fails, his doom is certain>.

I've googled the word and even in our language the words seem to be quite interchangeable....

Many people, including myself, use either word when probably the other would be more appropriate....

See for yourself in this discussion:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=100195

My amazement was that DarkReign would take immediate offense to the word all while calling me an "egotist", and then telling me to "f*&# my exclusive club".... HE then missed the point I was trying to make; which was... He is free to think however he wishes... I am not here to try and convince him otherwise...

[DarkReign]

While we may agree on the Pat Robertson issue.... your other view is a little to "Hollywood"... generalizations are dangerous too you know.

Whoa whoa whoa....

What makes you think you (as a God-fearing Christian) are so much different than Islamic people?

Regardless of the details of each others bible...

a) You both stand on a high moral ground by which only like-minded indviduals in life join your exclusive club in the after-life.

b) You both need/demand active recruitment from its members.

c) You both despise one another.

d) You both have lead war against one another and others based purely on the religious concept of Holy Land and holy tribute.

e) Both declare themselves to be in the knowledge of God in all actions and decisions.

f) Both religions' history is soaked in the blood of its enemies in its respective attempt to subjugate its territory.

This could seriously go on and on for pages. You arent different...your ancestors just bought "the other" book.

Now, heres the part where you cite your differences (or not).

Its all relative. You two are the reason this world might not see the 3rd millenia (or even 2100 for that matter) whether you are directly responsible or not.

By far, the most sickening aspect of the entire fraud that is religion is the killing in God's name. Hypocritical, holier-than-thou bullshit is all you people are good for.

The only time I tune in to a zealot is to get the news on how the majority of the sheeple in this country are thinking currently. Because God knows once you fervently believe in a faith, you follow its current leaders just as passionately.

My disdain is immeasureable. Not with you Boa, or Smeagol or anyone else particularly. Its your Church and what it stands for.

I dont give a shit if youre Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant or wtf-ever-christian-iteration-spinoff-of-whackos, youre Christian.

One step above cult based solely on popularity.

[Mr. Peabody]

My amazement was that DarkReign would take immediate offense to the word all while calling me an "egotist", and then telling me to "f*&# my exclusive club".... HE then missed the point I was trying to make; which was... He is free to think however he wishes... I am not here to try and convince him otherwise...

Well, your use of the term "fate" in that context implied that he was going to burn in hell or something similar for his beliefs. I can see how he took offense to the term. You probably didn't mean it that way, but there are so many "believers" out there that make those very threats in discussions such as these.

[pussyface]

big ups yourself dark reign.
well said.

i dont know what that guy meant by "hollywood"...i spoke the truth.

there are plenty of reasons to draw comparisons between christian fundamentalists and their muslim counterparts.

[DarkReign]

I've googled the word and even in our language the words seem to be quite interchangeable....

Many people, including myself, use either word when probably the other would be more appropriate....

See for yourself in this discussion:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=100195

My amazement was that DarkReign would take immediate offense to the word all while calling me an "egotist", and then telling me to "f*&# my exclusive club".... HE then missed the point I was trying to make; which was... He is free to think however he wishes... I am not here to try and convince him otherwise...

Look man, ask anyone here, in any thread the difference between fate and destiny.

I dont care what google or some other word-association website said...in everyday speech, they arent interchangeable. Their conotation is different, more precisely theyre polar opposites. Period.

[Phenomanul]

Well, your use of the term "fate" in that context implied that he was going to burn in hell or something similar for his beliefs. I can see how he took offense to the term. You probably didn't mean it that way, but there are so many "believers" out there that make those very threats in discussions such as these.

I didn't mean it that way... or I would have spelled it out that way.

[Phenomanul]

Look man, ask anyone here, in any thread the difference between fate and destiny.

I dont care what google or some other word-association website said...in everyday speech, they arent interchangeable. Their conotation is different, more precisely theyre polar opposites. Period.

Already addressed above Mr. Always Perfect Grammar.... I'll be sure to harp on you whenever you make a similar stumble.... actually scratch that, there's no point to holding a grudge... it was a mistake, born from the fact I don't typically speak using the melodramatic terms of "fate" or "destiny" as daily jargon... and like I mentioned in Spanish they are essentially the same word... I think in both languages all the time you know...

[Phenomanul]

Whoa whoa whoa....

What makes you think you (as a God-fearing Christian) are so much different than Islamic people?

Regardless of the details of each others bible...

a) You both stand on a high moral ground by which only like-minded indviduals in life join your exclusive club in the after-life.

b) You both need/demand active recruitment from its members.

c) You both despise one another.

d) You both have lead war against one another and others based purely on the religious concept of Holy Land and holy tribute.

e) Both declare themselves to be in the knowledge of God in all actions and decisions.

f) Both religions' history is soaked in the blood of its enemies in its respective attempt to subjugate its territory.

This could seriously go on and on for pages. You arent different...your ancestors just bought "the other" book.

Now, heres the part where you cite your differences (or not).

Its all relative. You two are the reason this world might not see the 3rd millenia (or even 2100 for that matter) whether you are directly responsible or not.

By far, the most sickening aspect of the entire fraud that is religion is the killing in God's name. Hypocritical, holier-than-thou bullshit is all you people are good for.

The only time I tune in to a zealot is to get the news on how the majority of the sheeple in this country are thinking currently. Because God knows once you fervently believe in a faith, you follow its current leaders just as passionately.

My disdain is immeasureable. Not with you Boa, or Smeagol or anyone else particularly. Its your Church and what it stands for.

I dont give a shit if youre Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant or wtf-ever-christian-iteration-spinoff-of-whackos, youre Christian.

One step above cult based solely on popularity.

I'm not even going to address this one.... there is way too much hate and misunderstanding in this post to try and simmer anything down....

[Phenomanul]

big ups yourself dark reign.
well said.

i dont know what that guy meant by "hollywood"...i spoke the truth.

there are plenty of reasons to draw comparisons between christian fundamentalists and their muslim counterparts.

:rolleyes :rolleyes whenever you bring some substance to the table... then we can discuss... all you brought were opinionated allegations...

Others such as DarkReign or scott at least try and use logical statements to make their points... take some pointers from them...

[Mr. Peabody]

I certainly don't call myself a Christian all for the allure of Heaven.... there are many days, and sometimes weeks can go by, when that word doesn't even cross my mind... GOD's presence is the reward....

That's interesting and something I have never heard before.

It does raise the question -- What implications does God's presence have?

[pussyface]

I'm not even going to address this one.... there is way too much hate and misunderstanding in this post to try and simmer anything down....

are you disputing that this is true?

[Phenomanul]

That's interesting and something I have never heard before.

It does raise the question -- What implications does God's presence have?


That we don't have to wait for it... as in "I'll stand before GOD's presence when I get to heaven".... We can be treated to HIS presence here on earth... We are endowed with HIS Spirit, the Holy Spirit... when we recieve the message of Truth.

[Phenomanul]

are you disputing that this is true?

We'll start with your quote then....


People who literally believe the Bible (in spite of all that science/research/logic tells us) are living in the same Dark Ages that the religious fundamentalists in the East live in. It is not a coincidence that these two groups see each other as the Earthly personification of evil; the irony is that both have so much in common.
The only personification of evil is that some people choose to strap bombs to themselves to attack innocent people... I don't recall the last time Billy Graham or Max Lucado taught or employed this tactic...

Muslims are free to worship as they wish... My beef is not with them, as I had many muslim friends at college... including a roommate who was to be admired for his devotion to his beliefs...

Evil can be found in the heart of any man irregardless his religious beliefs... I'll again use the Stalin reference, he did not believe in GOD, or a higher power for that matter.... and he alone was the perpetrator behind the genocidal, and authoritarian murder of over 40 million people...

That's why you must abstain from making such broad generalizations...



In my estimation, both groups are EXTREMELY dangerous because they believe that no matter what happens, they have God on their side, actively participating in their coronation.
Our 'coronation' is having accepted GOD's free gift of salvation. There is no battle to wage in GOD's name... we aren't living in the times of the Hebrews when GOD was literally their King... their Commanding Chief. We are biblically instructed to honor the laws of the land unless they lead us to sin against GOD. I don't believe any such law exists under the American system... as no one is currently forced to do something against their will.


they believe those on the other side will go to hell if they don't repent and join their religion because they read this in a book/heard this from a leader.
While we may believe those who reject the gift of GOD through Jesus' sacrifice are in fact damning their soul... our message is not about doom, but about hope... people who don't believe... simply don't believe. Our purpose was simply to expose them to this message... "That all men should hear"....

It goes without saying that the "cram-it-down their throat" approach is counter-productive...

But again, comparing Radical Islam with Christianity is rather inflammatory... about as much as comparing Radical Islam with Islam itself...

[Spurminator]

Whoa whoa whoa....

What makes you think you (as a God-fearing Christian) are so much different than Islamic people?

Regardless of the details of each others bible...

Why would you disregard the texts? If you're comparing religions, you should go to the source, not the bastardized/humanized versions practiced by different denominations of people, many of which deviate completely from the original texts.


a) You both stand on a high moral ground by which only like-minded indviduals in life join your exclusive club in the after-life.

b) You both need/demand active recruitment from its members.

c) You both despise one another.

d) You both have lead war against one another and others based purely on the religious concept of Holy Land and holy tribute.

e) Both declare themselves to be in the knowledge of God in all actions and decisions.

f) Both religions' history is soaked in the blood of its enemies in its respective attempt to subjugate its territory.

Now, heres the part where you cite your differences (or not).

Its all relative. You two are the reason this world might not see the 3rd millenia (or even 2100 for that matter) whether you are directly responsible or not.

By far, the most sickening aspect of the entire fraud that is religion is the killing in God's name. Hypocritical, holier-than-thou bullshit is all you people are good for.

This could seriously go on and on for pages. You arent different...your ancestors just bought "the other" book.

The only time I tune in to a zealot is to get the news on how the majority of the sheeple in this country are thinking currently. Because God knows once you fervently believe in a faith, you follow its current leaders just as passionately.

My disdain is immeasureable. Not with you Boa, or Smeagol or anyone else particularly. Its your Church and what it stands for.

I dont give a shit if youre Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant or wtf-ever-christian-iteration-spinoff-of-whackos, youre Christian.

One step above cult based solely on popularity.


My Church stands for feeding the starving, for building homes for people who can't afford them, for providing medicine and other health care to people around the world who need it, for providing a safe place for kids in rough areas to play after school, and for providing counseling and support groups for people with many different kinds of addictions and vices. My Church has never once told me who to vote for, nor has my Church ever called for a Holy War against Muslims in our community. My Church tells us to love our enemies, which also happens to be what my Bible tells me.

And yes, my Church does work to spread the Christian message. And yes, that message includes discussions of salvation, baptism and other spiritual matters. But my Church does not exclude anyone who does not share those beliefs or chooses not to hear the message.

It is certainly regrettable that wars were fought in the name of Christianity, but I'm not going to apologize for being a Christian because of the sins of Christians 1,500 years ago any more than I will apologize for being white for the sins of white people 200 years ago. My Gospel doesn't tell me to storm the Middle East and massacre the unbelievers.

Likewise, it is regrettable that people use the Christian message as leverage for political or monetary gain. But my faith is not dependent on the rantings of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. My faith is not dependent on any man, it's based on the words of Jesus Christ, and if you can find any of Christ's teachings that you feel could directly lead to nuclear holocaust, I'd be interested to hear that interpretation.

[Phenomanul]

It was somewhat irrelevant (see my previous post). I actually just read it on Google's Buddhist Thought of the Day and thought it was thought-provoking.

However, even if posted the quote to make a point about this discussion, why is that point necessarily an attack on you? Quit being so damn egotistical.

I guess I missed this quip earlier....

DarkReign had just called me egotistical and then you post a quote which coined the topic again....

I don't know, call me crazy... but those were grounds enough to draw the conclusion... Don't try to back-pedal and point your finger all innocently back in my direction...

The quote was irrelevant to the flow of the thread with the only link being the word ego....

Now if you had given the explanation you gave later on... then maybe the quote would have made more sense... I guess in that light all of this is a moot point...

[Phenomanul]

Why would you disregard the texts? If you're comparing religions, you should go to the source, not the bastardized/humanized versions practiced by different denominations of people, many of which deviate completely from the original texts.




My Church stands for feeding the starving, for building homes for people who can't afford them, for providing medicine and other health care to people around the world who need it, for providing a safe place for kids in rough areas to play after school, and for providing counseling and support groups for people with many different kinds of addictions and vices. My Church has never once told me who to vote for, nor has my Church ever called for a Holy War against Muslims in our community. My Church tells us to love our enemies, which also happens to be what my Bible tells me.

And yes, my Church does work to spread the Christian message. And yes, that message includes discussions of salvation, baptism and other spiritual matters. But my Church does not exclude anyone who does not share those beliefs or chooses not to hear the message.

It is certainly regrettable that wars were fought in the name of Christianity, but I'm not going to apologize for being a Christian because of the sins of Christians 1,500 years ago any more than I will apologize for being white for the sins of white people 200 years ago. My Gospel doesn't tell me to storm the Middle East and massacre the unbelievers.

Likewise, it is regrettable that people use the Christian message as leverage for political or monetary gain. But my faith is not dependent on the rantings of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. My faith is not dependent on any man, it's based on the words of Jesus Christ, and if you can find any of Christ's teachings that you feel could directly lead to nuclear holocaust, I'd be interested to hear that interpretation.

They choose to close their eyes to the true work of the Church.... it's not convenient for them to see us in that light.

Sadly, they only wish to associate us with political agendas that differ with their own...

[scott]

That is the premise you have a hard time understanding... Be it by your definition or their self-prescribed title... your conclusion that 'Christians are more likely to end up in jail' is still based on a tabulation of Christians. Only GOD knows the sincerity of our hearts and only HE can truly discern the status of our soul.

hegamboa, I understand perfectly what you are saying - and like I've said give me another word for people who describe themselves as Christians, and I'll use that one instead. I've made a dintinct point in not ascribing to all Christians the characteristics of those who may do wrong. But we are talking about a REAL population of people here - those who claim to be Christian. I don't think it is prudent to discount all studies done on this population (as you've said that only God can determine whether or not someone is a real Christian) just because we don't like the definition.

Yourself and more notable smeagol have chosen to state that the findings of my study are irrelevant because you feel that the group who described themselves as Christians are not representative of your definition of Christians.

However, these are REAL people sitting in REAL jails for (most of the them) committing REAL crimes. You cannot discount reality. Reality is that not everyone who claims to be Christian acts in a socially acceptable (for lack of a better term) manner. Since many people like to perscribe Christianity as the cure for all the world's ills, the study is HIGHLY relevant. If nothing else, it indicates a staggeringly poor success rate at teaching its followers (I'll define for the purposes of this conversation followers as those who say they are Christians) to live in a Christ-like manner, especially compared to Atheists. That is a FACT, and I've provided the data to back it up.

So, my question to is this...

Given that self-identified Christians are more likely to be jailed than self-identified atheists (in addition to be more likely to be divorced link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm)), why is it that "more Christianity" is the obvious answer to more Christians, and why should a non-Christian accept this as a solution or want Christianity brought into their children's public schools? If you could ensure that the teaching of Christianity brought with it some success, then maybe I could buy into it... but as I pointed out, the failure rate (of ensuring social obedience) is high compared to Atheists.

[scott]

And, although I feel I should not have to say this, when I say "I define" something... it isn't to ascribe my own definitions to something - it is to make it clear what it is I am refering to, like academic shorthand.

[scott]

I'm more concerned about making sure I 'pass' the test that is my life as this one is gauged by GOD's standard... If I succeed at this, I can assure you that I wouldn't end up in jail either...

I don't know if the athiest can claim the same since his standard of living is not predicated on a moral barometer... In fact, there is only one requirement... a lack of belief in a higher power. That's it.... welcome to the athiest club. Again, is it possible to assert whether Stalin was a 'good' or a 'bad' athiest... you're either an athiest or you're not. The good or bad modifiers are irrelevant... the same cannot be said for Christians because obviously there IS a gauge...

As I've said, hemagboa - I think it is great that people use religion to guide them. If that is what they need, then I encourage it 100%.

Whether or not you know if Atheists are capable of finding there own way to "pass the test", they are proving capable of doing it, at least if we use a couple of measures (jail, divorce). Atheists don't concern themselves with being "Good Atheists or Bad Atheists" but the proof is in the numbers that they concern themselves with being "Good people."

My desire to be a good person is driven by my own belief that all people should be treated with dignity and respect. Sorry, but I don't see how you being driven to do so by a spiritual force makes you any better. Perhaps one day I will have to face ultimate judgement for this belief, but in my mind all "Good people" are alike.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=pussyface]
In my estimation, both groups are EXTREMELY dangerous because they believe that no matter what happens, they have God on their side, actively participating in their coronation.
We're told that in Christ we have "a friend that sticks closer than a brother" and a Saviour "that will never leave or forsake us". These are promises in found in God-inspired scripture and spoken by Jesus Christ and I hold fast to them, how can that possibility be interpreted by you as being "EXTREMELY dangerous" pf?






they believe those on the other side will go to hell if they don't repent and join their religion because they read this in a book/heard this from a leader.
It's not "my religion" it's the desired plan of our Creator for all of mankind, many choose this "life" that God has promised and even more reject the will of God that allows us to be united with him in heaven. If you're serious about considering me (and the other 190 million Americans that consider themselves Bible literalists) Extremely dangerous you would seem to me to fall somewhere between mello-dramatic and delusional.



Here's a thought pf- Hell/damnation is reserved for those who reject God and more or less give their Creator the finger and tell Him to "go to hell".
For every action there's an opposite and equal reaction...





post script - I was raised in a God-loving home and never had belief in him crammed down my throat nor have I ever tried to do that to anyone else. It's a free choice.

[pussyface]

...i was comparing fundy muslims to fundy christians, not all christians (...just the one's who take the bible literally)

when you say that you belive people who don't get down with Jesus are not going to this great party with you and your friends, the muslim fundys are thinking the same thing. this has laid the groundwork for CENTURIES of conflict and still is at the forefront of us foreign policy considerations.

fundamentalism is the scourge of society, and religion for that matter.

[pussyface]

It's not "my religion" it's the desired plan of our Creator for all of mankind---joche

this is the sort of attitude im talking about that is troubling beyond belief.
like the taliban, you speak with certainty about things that are beyond our comprehension.

anyone who believes that their way is THE ONLY WAY etc. must be viewed with extreme skepticism... this is such a dangerous attitude to have.

of course, this is exactly what is going through the mind of a terrorist when they suicide bomb (they see themselves as instruments of God taking out his divine plan that they "know" is the only true faith)

[pussyface]

also, my name is pussyface not pf. im sorry if this is offensive to your Puritanical sensibilities.

[jochhejaam]

also, my name is pussyface not pf. im sorry if this is offensive to your Puritanical sensibilities.
And the question arises as to whether I should "believe that to be literally true"...<sigh> another can of worms opened by pf. :lol





Actually much ado about nothing.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

also, my name is pussyface not pf. im sorry if this is offensive to your Puritanical sensibilities.
dude, chill, the guy was just paraphrasing. pussyface = pf, everybody gets it. Plus I have to admit, I don't blame him, because having a serious conversation with a dude whose screenname is "pussyface" is somewhat difficult http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

[2centsworth]

also, my name is pussyface not pf. im sorry if this is offensive to your Puritanical sensibilities.
Since you're a Mavs fan there's no doubt you're of the devil.:lol

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=pussyface]It's not "my religion" it's the desired plan of our Creator for all of mankind---joche

this is the sort of attitude im talking about that is troubling beyond belief.
like the taliban, you speak with certainty about things that are beyond our comprehension.
You don't speak for me pf, it may be beyond your comprehension but the fact that I believe it should tell you that it's not beyond mine. Speaking with certainty is exactly what's required by God in order to realize the plan of salvation, eternal life and being united with God and Christ in heaven.
Believing in the big-bang theory...now that is beyond my comprehension







anyone who believes that their way is THE ONLY WAY etc. must be viewed with extreme skepticism... this is such a dangerous attitude to have.
Dangerous to who, you? How so?

Or if you think it's dangerous to me why would that bother you and cause you to label me as extremely dangerous?





of course, this is exactly what is going through the mind of a terrorist when they suicide bomb (they see themselves as instruments of God taking out his divine plan that they "know" is the only true faith)
But being a suicide bomber isn't in my mind and that renders your parallel useless.

[Phenomanul]

hegamboa, I understand perfectly what you are saying - and like I've said give me another word for people who describe themselves as Christians, and I'll use that one instead. I've made a dintinct point in not ascribing to all Christians the characteristics of those who may do wrong. But we are talking about a REAL population of people here - those who claim to be Christian. I don't think it is prudent to discount all studies done on this population (as you've said that only God can determine whether or not someone is a real Christian) just because we don't like the definition.

Yourself and more notable smeagol have chosen to state that the findings of my study are irrelevant because you feel that the group who described themselves as Christians are not representative of your definition of Christians.

However, these are REAL people sitting in REAL jails for (most of the them) committing REAL crimes. You cannot discount reality. Reality is that not everyone who claims to be Christian acts in a socially acceptable (for lack of a better term) manner. Since many people like to perscribe Christianity as the cure for all the world's ills, the study is HIGHLY relevant. If nothing else, it indicates a staggeringly poor success rate at teaching its followers (I'll define for the purposes of this conversation followers as those who say they are Christians) to live in a Christ-like manner, especially compared to Atheists. That is a FACT, and I've provided the data to back it up.

So, my question to is this...

Given that self-identified Christians are more likely to be jailed than self-identified atheists (in addition to be more likely to be divorced link (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm)), why is it that "more Christianity" is the obvious answer to more Christians, and why should a non-Christian accept this as a solution or want Christianity brought into their children's public schools? If you could ensure that the teaching of Christianity brought with it some success, then maybe I could buy into it... but as I pointed out, the failure rate (of ensuring social obedience) is high compared to Atheists.

We'll just have to agree to disagree... you raise your children to believe whatever they want to believe just as I will guide my own to find Christ... In the end it will be their choice... But I will not have any of their teacher's try and take me for some ignorant fool. The system cannot be that one-sided as I too pay school taxes....

And I'll give you a statistic that actually backs up the 'results' from your study... It is believed that more than 2/3rds of sunday morning bench-warmers throughout America have yet to really experience the life transforming process that comes when finding Christ. Yet all of these people will readily identify themselves as a Christian... This is true no matter what branch of Christianity you wish to observe...

And I kind of alluded to this earlier, but I truly believe GOD disciplines his children on earth... if that discipline includes jail time... so be it. I don't honestly believe Athiests as a whole are better than anyone else... everyone is just as bad. We have a sinful nature within us. If not for Christ's redeeming gift of salvation... we would have to end up paying the price of our own sinful works with death itself... instead we have been given a choice, through Jesus, to be atoned from our fate. <--- and yes, I mean it as the negative connotation.

[Phenomanul]

My Church stands for feeding the starving, for building homes for people who can't afford them, for providing medicine and other health care to people around the world who need it, for providing a safe place for kids in rough areas to play after school, and for providing counseling and support groups for people with many different kinds of addictions and vices. My Church has never once told me who to vote for, nor has my Church ever called for a Holy War against Muslims in our community. My Church tells us to love our enemies, which also happens to be what my Bible tells me.

And yes, my Church does work to spread the Christian message. And yes, that message includes discussions of salvation, baptism and other spiritual matters. But my Church does not exclude anyone who does not share those beliefs or chooses not to hear the message.

It is certainly regrettable that wars were fought in the name of Christianity, but I'm not going to apologize for being a Christian because of the sins of Christians 1,500 years ago any more than I will apologize for being white for the sins of white people 200 years ago. My Gospel doesn't tell me to storm the Middle East and massacre the unbelievers.

Likewise, it is regrettable that people use the Christian message as leverage for political or monetary gain. But my faith is not dependent on the rantings of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. My faith is not dependent on any man, it's based on the words of Jesus Christ, and if you can find any of Christ's teachings that you feel could directly lead to nuclear holocaust, I'd be interested to hear that interpretation.

Spurminator, I will again bring this to the forefront... I believe people need to see what the church is really up to... and not what they are led to believe through paranoia...

[Guru of Nothing]

And I'll give you a statistic that actually backs up the 'results' from your study... It is believed that more than 2/3rds of sunday morning bench-warmers throughout America have yet to really experience the life transforming process that comes when finding Christ.

You've already established that you believe your present day beliefs make you a better Christian than your average Catholic. Quit beating a dead horse; and don't you dare get disingenuous on me.


And I kind of alluded to this earlier, but I truly believe GOD disciplines his children on earth... if that discipline includes jail time... so be it. I don't honestly believe Athiests as a whole are better than anyone else... everyone is just as bad. We have a sinful nature within us. If not for Christ's redeeming gift of salvation... we would have to end up paying the price of our own sinful works with death itself... instead we have been given a choice, through Jesus, to be atoned from our fate. <--- and yes, I mean it as the negative connotation.

Pardon me for not paying attention closer, but, do you have children? Your credibility would grow, in my eyes, if you told me your children were inherent little sinners.

Bye

[Phenomanul]

You've already established that you believe your present day beliefs make you a better Christian than your average Catholic. Quit beating a dead horse; and don't you dare get disingenuous on me.

Talk about a drive by shooting... I may have differences with my brothers from the Catholic faith but I never said that their religion keeps them from attaining salvation... I wouldn't dare venture to suggest that 'Mother' Teresa did not make it to the Lord's presence... I truly believe she and other true followers are there... despite their denomination.

Talk to smeagol and Travis2 if you have any questions about their doctrines... they are the Catholic gurus around here... not me.




Pardon me for not paying attention closer, but, do you have children? Your credibility would grow, in my eyes, if you told me your children were inherent little sinners.

Bye

Not yet, I was speaking in a future tense..... but I do sponsor 4 children through different organizations. 2 in Honduras, 1 in Ecuador and 1 in China.

[scott]

We'll just have to agree to disagree... you raise your children to believe whatever they want to believe just as I will guide my own to find Christ... In the end it will be their choice... But I will not have any of their teacher's try and take me for some ignorant fool. The system cannot be that one-sided as I too pay school taxes....

How, prey tell, is the system "one-sided"? Are people coming into schools and saying that Christianity is bunk, God is a myth, and that kids should eat the heads of live chickens? I didn't think so. Public schools not mentioning Christianity, Islam, Judism, atheism, or any other religious topic is not "one-sided." You are still free to teach your child anything you like. So, who is taking you for a fool? It's because they support "wacky" ideas like evolution? I forgot that you have already revealed the covert atheist agenda behind evolution...


And I kind of alluded to this earlier, but I truly believe GOD disciplines his children on earth... if that discipline includes jail time... so be it. I don't honestly believe Athiests as a whole are better than anyone else... everyone is just as bad. We have a sinful nature within us. If not for Christ's redeeming gift of salvation... we would have to end up paying the price of our own sinful works with death itself... instead we have been given a choice, through Jesus, to be atoned from our fate. <--- and yes, I mean it as the negative connotation.

Your beliefs are fine. But you aren't granted the liberty to teach that to my children in their public schools. I know you feel this is some sort of moral travesty, but you are just going to have to live with it. Or maybe you can evade taxes... and go to jail... and it will be God disciplining you.

[scott]

I can't. The point is people telling you they are Christians does not make them Christ-like, which is the goal of Christianity. But I guess we are running round in circles.

Then again, smeagol - only apply the conclusions of the study to the population group it is meant to apply to - which is those people who self-identify themselves as Christian. Since by some people's account the majority of those claiming to be Christian aren't "Christ-like", the results of the study are quite relevant to our society.

[2centsworth]

Then again, smeagol - only apply the conclusions of the study to the population group it is meant to apply to - which is those people who self-identify themselves as Christian. Since by some people's account the majority of those claiming to be Christian aren't "Christ-like", the results of the study are quite relevant to our society.
relevant in the fact that the modern day evangelical message usually avoids the topic of sin, hell, and geniune repentance. There's a reason a lot of these churchs are bursting at the seams, it's because the message people are hearing is do whatever you want because God forgives you if you believe Jesus is Lord. You can sin with impunity.

[2centsworth]

You've already established that you believe your present day beliefs make you a better Christian than your average Catholic.

there's no better than or average. You are either a Christain according to the bible or you're not.

[DarkReign]

It is certainly regrettable that wars were fought in the name of Christianity, but I'm not going to apologize for being a Christian because of the sins of Christians 1,500 years ago any more than I will apologize for being white for the sins of white people 200 years ago. My Gospel doesn't tell me to storm the Middle East and massacre the unbelievers.

Right then, but will you apologize when your religion inevitably does cause world strife? I highly doubt you would even admit it if it does happen.

The time is coming....or maybe it isnt. I personally believe it is. The West will war with the Middle East. It will be more about ideology than oil, desert, etc. Ideology and religion.

It will be a media-spun Holy War. Call a spade a spade.


Likewise, it is regrettable that people use the Christian message as leverage for political or monetary gain. But my faith is not dependent on the rantings of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. My faith is not dependent on any man, it's based on the words of Jesus Christ, and if you can find any of Christ's teachings that you feel could directly lead to nuclear holocaust, I'd be interested to hear that interpretation.

No, I never read the book. Wasnt exactly interesting and put me to sleep (im a voracious reader).

Pat Robertson et all are just blowhards. Theyre entertainment but yet do give glimpses of the secular society.

Who I look to are world leaders. Is it a coincidence that "The West" is comprised of mainly Christians? Is it a coincidence that "The East" is basically everyone else?

No, those arent coincidences. Those are 'lines in the sand' that will soon be crossed for reasons the agnostic probably dont care about. Jerusalem means nothing to me and holds no signifigance what-so-ever.

50% (<-- total guess) of the worlds' population doesnt see it my way. They do hold that piece of shit strip of desert with some sort of reverence because theyre told it is important for spiritual reasons.

Its was quite entertaining until the two sides decided we just might kill each other for ideologies I (and most everyone I know) could care less about.

But I am not a WASP. Therefore, I will never hold office. I forgot, I have to be Protestant. Go figure again why I look to world leaders for the direction of your faith.

[Extra Stout]

Right then, but will you apologize when your religion inevitably does cause world strife? I highly doubt you would even admit it if it does happen.

The time is coming....or maybe it isnt. I personally believe it is. The West will war with the Middle East. It will be more about ideology than oil, desert, etc. Ideology and religion.

It will be a media-spun Holy War. Call a spade a spade.
Do you seriously think the West will be going to war with the Middle East out of religious conviction? Seriously? Outside of the U.S., where exactly is there any religious conviction in the West?


Who I look to are world leaders. Is it a coincidence that "The West" is comprised of mainly Christians? Is it a coincidence that "The East" is basically everyone else?
This is possibly the most strained point ever. Are you imagining that Jacques Chirac and Angela Merkel are going to fight to the death to protect Israel or something? :lmao

[Spurminator]

Right then, but will you apologize when your religion inevitably does cause world strife? I highly doubt you would even admit it if it does happen.

The time is coming....or maybe it isnt. I personally believe it is. The West will war with the Middle East. It will be more about ideology than oil, desert, etc. Ideology and religion.

It will be a media-spun Holy War. Call a spade a spade.

My "religion" doesn't cause any of that.

War is about power. Religion would be used as an excuse or recruitment tool by leaders who have other objectives in mind.

"Holy War" and "Jihad" are propagandist terms. Right now, terrorists in the Middle East are drumming up support by claiming the West is waging a Holy War on the Middle East. But does that make it true? Is America's presence in the Middle East a result of George W. Bush's Christian beliefs? Likewise, is al Qaeda an organization whose purpose is to spread Islam? Is it because they "hate freedom"? Or do they have other objectives in mind?

Don't confuse propaganda with cause/effect.


No, I never read the book. Wasnt exactly interesting and put me to sleep (im a voracious reader).

Pat Robertson et all are just blowhards. Theyre entertainment but yet do give glimpses of the secular society.

Who I look to are world leaders. Is it a coincidence that "The West" is comprised of mainly Christians? Is it a coincidence that "The East" is basically everyone else?

No, those arent coincidences. Those are 'lines in the sand' that will soon be crossed for reasons the agnostic probably dont care about. Jerusalem means nothing to me and holds no signifigance what-so-ever.

50% (<-- total guess) of the worlds' population doesnt see it my way. They do hold that piece of shit strip of desert with some sort of reverence because theyre told it is important for spiritual reasons.

Its was quite entertaining until the two sides decided we just might kill each other for ideologies I (and most everyone I know) could care less about.

But I am not a WASP. Therefore, I will never hold office. I forgot, I have to be Protestant. Go figure again why I look to world leaders for the direction of your faith.

Jerusalem means nothing to me either, nor any Christian I know. Most of us just go to Church to praise God, pray, take communion, give offerings and fellowship with others. We don't get together in groups and agree to vote for political candidates who will wipe out the Palestinians.

I hope you meet more Christians at some point in your life. While you claim Pat Robertson is a blowhard, your entire view of Christians seems to be based solely on people like him.

[DarkReign]

[QUOTE]
You don't speak for me pf, it may be beyond your comprehension but the fact that I believe it should tell you that it's not beyond mine. Speaking with certainty is exactly what's required by God in order to realize the plan of salvation, eternal life and being united with God and Christ in heaven.
Believing in the big-bang theory...now that is beyond my comprehension

See, thats exactly it. No Joch, people dont see it your way and the fact that you wouldnt even entertain the notion that you (gasp!) maybe wrong is what makes people puke all over your shoes.

You know youre right. With absolute certainty. No matter the evidence, no matter the consequence, you will follow the Word.

To you, thats faith.

To me, thats faulty.

[Spurminator]

Speaking with certainty is exactly what's required by God in order to realize the plan of salvation, eternal life and being united with God and Christ in heaven.

See, I disagree. Every Christian struggles with his faith or has doubts at some point in his life. I question the sincerity of anyone who claims he hasn't.

[DarkReign]

See, I disagree. Every Christian struggles with his faith or has doubts at some point in his life. I question the sincerity of anyone who claims he hasn't.

The Pope grapples with his faith everyday. Yet JJ is more pious.

Whatever.

You know, I entered this thread just to *yawn*, but then others started old arguments that have always degraded into Cadicism (sp?) class between all the Bible-thumpers here at Spurstalk.

It hasnt gotten that far (yet), but I will bow out now. No, I cant speak the facts of the Bible which has always been an undoing in these sort of situations. But then again, I was never trying to change anyone's mind.

Just trying to poke them with a stick for kicks.

[Phenomanul]

How, prey tell, is the system "one-sided"? Are people coming into schools and saying that Christianity is bunk, God is a myth, and that kids should eat the heads of live chickens? I didn't think so. Public schools not mentioning Christianity, Islam, Judism, atheism, or any other religious topic is not "one-sided." You are still free to teach your child anything you like. So, who is taking you for a fool? It's because they support "wacky" ideas like evolution? I forgot that you have already revealed the covert atheist agenda behind evolution...

Your beliefs are fine. But you aren't granted the liberty to teach that to my children in their public schools. I know you feel this is some sort of moral travesty, but you are just going to have to live with it. Or maybe you can evade taxes... and go to jail... and it will be God disciplining you.

You skipped the middle paragraph on purpose??? anyway... I don't plan on having 'religious' doctrines taught at school... You again confuse me for someone else, having both the premises behind ID taught at school, and the typical evolutionary theory in no way denies an education to your children... You are just too much of a hard-liner to admit it. The choice of what they wish to believe is still left up to them.... my cousin got an 'F' on one of his research papers where he had two sentences that tangentially referenced ID... and you scoffed at my 'one-sided' comment earlier??? I was outraged, that his teacher could be that 'closed-minded'...

ID does not exclusively imply the Christian GOD is behind creation (though that may be my line of thinking).... it just poses the question that many complex mechanisms, structures and design elements have no known chemical, physical or biological pathways... and then infers that higher order thinking and 'engineering' was involved.

Again, let's just agree to disagree... :tu we are getting no where...

[clambake]

And God created the earth. God said "let there be light".

How many planets exist? How many suns?

Let's just all forget about science.

Think about that as our sister galaxy (andromeda) steams toward us at approx. 350 thousand miles an hour.

[Spurminator]

Pretend you believe in a completely divine, almighty deity. What limits would you place on him? Is there anything he would not be able to do?

[DarkReign]

You skipped the middle paragraph on purpose??? anyway... I don't plan on having 'religious' doctrines taught at school... You again confuse me for someone else, having both the premises behind ID taught at school, and the typical evolutionary theory in no way denies an education to your children... You are just too much of a hard-liner to admit it. The choice of what they wish to believe is still left up to them.... my cousin got an 'F' on one of his research papers where he had two sentences that tangentially referenced ID... and you scoffed at my 'one-sided' comment earlier??? I was outraged, that his teacher could be that 'closed-minded'...

ID does not exclusively imply the Christian GOD is behind creation (though that may be my line of thinking).... it just poses the question that many complex mechanisms, structures and design elements have no known chemical, physical or biological pathways... and then infers that higher order thinking and 'engineering' was involved.

Again, let's just agree to disagree... :tu we are getting no where...

Neutrinos. No, science cant explain them.
Anti-matter. No, science isnt even sure if it exists, but there is evidence by proxy.

Youre smart. Very smart. Science does not accept easy answers or conclusions like ID.

If every time science ran into a problem they couldnt solve and decided "Fuck it. God must have did it this way.", you would still be lighting your lantern for light.

That is why ID and anything like it cannot be taught as anything more than what it is, a theology. Theology is not to be taught in publicly funded schools.

ID is the cheap way out. It is also a thinly-veiled, ill-conceived ploy to teach religion in schools. No matter its merits, it would set a precedent for morality discussion in schools. Then we would have to further divide the school system by religion.

Your ID cheap-science bullshit would create a huge shitstorm because of what it would lead to. That and the fact that it is just plain lazy to excuse man's creation as God's work and look no further than that.

Thats standard operating procedure for religion though. Do what youre told, follow the rules, conform...or condemned. Youre sheep.

Baaaaaa....

[Extra Stout]

Neutrinos. No, science cant explain them.
Anti-matter. No, science isnt even sure if it exists, but there is evidence by proxy.

Youre smart. Very smart. Science does not accept easy answers or conclusions like ID.

If every time science ran into a problem they couldnt solve and decided "Fuck it. God must have did it this way.", you would still be lighting your lantern for light.

That is why ID and anything like it cannot be taught as anything more than what it is, a theology. Theology is not to be taught in publicly funded schools.

ID is the cheap way out. It is also a thinly-veiled, ill-conceived ploy to teach religion in schools. No matter its merits, it would set a precedent for morality discussion in schools. Then we would have to further divide the school system by religion.

Your ID cheap-science bullshit would create a huge shitstorm because of what it would lead to. That and the fact that it is just plain lazy to excuse man's creation as God's work and look no further than that.

Thats standard operating procedure for religion though. Do what youre told, follow the rules, conform...or condemned. Youre sheep.

Baaaaaa....
I don't think ID is theology. Neither is it pure science. It could be seen as scientific philosophy. I don't think it harms children to have them consider the idea that there are some questions science may never be able to answer. That is not the same as the "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy which points to a particular phenomenon, declares that there is no scientific explanation, and decides that God must have brought it about supernaturally.

[pussyface]

haha..."scientific philosophy."

...nothing scientific about it...i'll stick with "theology."

[DarkReign]

That is not the same as the "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy which points to a particular phenomenon, declares that there is no scientific explanation, and decides that God must have brought it about supernaturally.

I believe it is. I think ID is most definately lazy thinking. Its an excuse.

"Well science cant explain everything, therefore God did it all."

Like I said, go light your lantern.

[Extra Stout]

haha..."scientific philosophy."

...nothing scientific about it...i'll stick with "theology."
So then you are absolutely positive that every single phenomenon that can be observed can be explained naturalistically? And you have irrefutable evidence to back that up?

[Phenomanul]

Neutrinos. No, science cant explain them.
Anti-matter. No, science isnt even sure if it exists, but there is evidence by proxy.

Youre smart. Very smart. Science does not accept easy answers or conclusions like ID.

If every time science ran into a problem they couldnt solve and decided "Fuck it. God must have did it this way.", you would still be lighting your lantern for light.

That is why ID and anything like it cannot be taught as anything more than what it is, a theology. Theology is not to be taught in publicly funded schools.

ID is the cheap way out. It is also a thinly-veiled, ill-conceived ploy to teach religion in schools. No matter its merits, it would set a precedent for morality discussion in schools. Then we would have to further divide the school system by religion.

Your ID cheap-science bullshit would create a huge shitstorm because of what it would lead to. That and the fact that it is just plain lazy to excuse man's creation as God's work and look no further than that.

Thats standard operating procedure for religion though. Do what youre told, follow the rules, conform...or condemned. Youre sheep.

Baaaaaa....


And who told you I was banking on ID as a cop out??? Oh you assumed...

Much research is being driven from trying to understand the biological mechanisms that gave way to simple proteins such as insulin and larger molecules such as singular strands of DNA... questions propel research. And then after the data comes in.... you're still left with questions... that's the way research works....

But you would be a fool to think that science is the 'catch all, anwer all' field that many presume it is...

And this is why, I have to discredit the people who try to say I am blinded by my faith... my understanding of several fields allows me to think for myself and not just accept everything dished out by the scientific community as fact.... without said leverage I would have no scientific foundation to refute them... but I do... whether you like it or not. I'm a sheep???? I think not.

[pussyface]

bingo.
in scientific terms, it doesnt hold up on any level.
there is no obvious explanation= this proves God is the answer does not compute from the science perspective.

also, any philosopher worth their salt (the greeks/kant/beaudrillard/etc) would laugh off this implication as well. Logically, and philosophers are into logic, it just doesnt add up ("matter of faith," etc.)

[Spurminator]

I think it's sufficient to say Science has not found the answer to certain things. There just really isn't a place in Science class to teach the theory of a Supreme Being who designed the universe.

Perhaps in Philosophy class... and there's no need to worry about "brainwashing" there because no one pays attention in High School Philosophy... it's the elective you take if you need a nap after lunch.

I believe in a God that created a universe with an infinite number of things we can learn about through scientific study. This study does not need to prove or disprove the existence of God, it is what it is... and you either believe God created it or you don't.

The conflict between Science and Theology was created by Scientists and Theists. Fundamentally, there is no conflict there.

[2centsworth]

Science Confirms the Bible

http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=284

[Phenomanul]

bingo.
in scientific terms, it doesnt hold up on any level.
there is no obvious explanation= this proves God is the answer does not compute from the science perspective.

also, any philosopher worth their salt (the greeks/kant/beaudrillard/etc) would laugh off this implication as well. Logically, and philosophers are into logic, it just doesnt add up ("matter of faith," etc.)

Says pf the scientist... right?

[pussyface]

"Perhaps in Philosophy class... and there's no need to worry about "brainwashing" there because no one pays attention in High School Philosophy... it's the elective you take if you need a nap after lunch."

I thought we were trying to have an intelligent discussion. kill yourself.

[pussyface]

says pf, a guy whose allegiance is to logic and not an old book of Jewish folklore called the Bible

[Phenomanul]

"Perhaps in Philosophy class... and there's no need to worry about "brainwashing" there because no one pays attention in High School Philosophy... it's the elective you take if you need a nap after lunch."

I thought we were trying to have an intelligent discussion. kill yourself.

People's Exhibit A: "Irony"

[Spurminator]

I thought we were trying to have an intelligent discussion. kill yourself.

We are. What are you doing here?

Go back and eat at the kids table.

[pussyface]

how does this rise to the level of irony? i suspect that word might not be apply here. explain.

its an often misused and misinterpreted word.

[Phenomanul]

how does this rise to the level of irony? i suspect that word might not be apply here. explain.

its an often misused and misinterpreted word.


You're first statement was "I thought we were trying to have an intelligent discussion."

You then follow that sentence with "kill yourself."

IRONY.

[pussyface]

in the middle of a serious discussion, you said it wouldnt matter to teach God in tax-funded schools because no one pays attention in high school philosphy anyway and everyone will just take a nap.

it just didnt have any place in the context of adults discussing this issue. your personal experience with philosophy doesn't apply to anyone else really.

[Extra Stout]

I believe it is. I think ID is most definately lazy thinking. Its an excuse.

"Well science cant explain everything, therefore God did it all."

Like I said, go light your lantern.

Some ID thinking I dismiss out of hand, like that baloney about the "irreducible complexity" of the flagellum or whatever. That's a perfect example of the "God of the gaps" fallacy, because then another researcher determined the mechanism for the development of that structure, and the "irreducible complexity" argument imploded, and the God that fellow was arguing for got a little smaller. It's bad science, and bad theology.

Certainly there are ID proponents with a furtively proselytic agenda.

But I don't see why we have to be absolutely positive that scientific naturalism will explain everything. It's a tool. It is not the key to all truth.

[Phenomanul]

And God created the earth. God said "let there be light".

How many planets exist? How many suns?

Let's just all forget about science.

Think about that as our sister galaxy (andromeda) steams toward us at approx. 350 thousand miles an hour.

Why worry about something that you won't be here to sulk about????

[pussyface]

that does not meet the definition of irony. for it to be ironic, it would have had to relate to death or dying or something.

the word is misused in this case.

...more english class........less fundamentalism

[Spurminator]

It was an aside. It wasn't meant to be taken as the primary point of the post. Perhaps you'd care to address the other 3 paragraphs.

[pussyface]

yeah, i second.

[Extra Stout]

in the middle of a serious discussion, you said it wouldnt matter to teach God in tax-funded schools because no one pays attention in high school philosphy anyway and everyone will just take a nap.

it just didnt have any place in the context of adults discussing this issue. your personal experience with philosophy doesn't apply to anyone else really.
When I was in school, in world history class they taught the major tenets of five major world religions. Go write your congressman and have their funding withheld!

[pussyface]

I think it's sufficient to say Science has not found the answer to certain things. There just really isn't a place in Science class to teach the theory of a Supreme Being who designed the universe.

Perhaps in Philosophy class... and there's no need to worry about "brainwashing" there because no one pays attention in High School Philosophy... it's the elective you take if you need a nap after lunch.

I believe in a God that created a universe with an infinite number of things we can learn about through scientific study. This study does not need to prove or disprove the existence of God, it is what it is... and you either believe God created it or you don't.

The conflict between Science and Theology was created by Scientists and Theists. Fundamentally, there is no conflict there.

ya know i actually believe in god too, but to me its a personal thing and is not something i would ever want to bring into a (nonreligious) educational setting ever. i dont think its something i could ever prove or discuss with rationally, and thus isnt fit for the classroom.

it should never be presented in the same breath or put on the same podium with science and things that are tangibly, imperically true...when you get down to it, believing in god requires a lot of wild speculation.

[Extra Stout]

when you get down to it, believing in god requires a lot of wild speculation.
As does not believing in God.

[Phenomanul]

that does not meet the definition of irony. for it to be ironic, it would have had to relate to death or dying or something.

the word is misused in this case.

...more english class........less fundamentalism


:wtf

You're talking about a more exclusive, literary version of the word... found under No. 4

from the American Heritage Dictionary....

i·ro·ny (r-n, r-) KEY

NOUN:
pl. i·ro·nies

1.
a) The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.

b) An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.

c) A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit 1.

2.
a) Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).

b) An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.

3.
Dramatic irony.

4.
Socratic irony.

NEXT.

[pussyface]

EXTRA STOUt- EXACTLY!
THATS WHY NOT BELIEVING IN GOD SHOULDNT BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS EITHER! Lets leave the big fella out of it, eh? happy medium? avoid wild speculation altogether?
total agreement

[pussyface]

which definition of irony are you claiming your "kill yourself was ironic" thing fits under?

[pussyface]

it is not ironic that i said that i wanted to have a serious discussion then suggested in the next breath that a contributor "kill themselves."

i will admit, non the less, that it was grossly hypocritical.
thats the word, yes yes?

[Extra Stout]

EXTRA STOUt- EXACTLY!
THATS WHY NOT BELIEVING IN GOD SHOULDNT BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS EITHER! Lets leave the big fella out of it, eh? happy medium? avoid wild speculation altogether?
total agreement
If schools were totally neutral on the concept, that would be sufficient for me.

[scott]

You skipped the middle paragraph on purpose???

I skipped the middle paragraph because I had nothing to say on it. You want me to say something... fine... the fact that only 1 out of 3 people who claim to be Christians are "Christians" in your book is evidence of one of two things 1) an extremely high failure rate among the Christian church to get their followers to fully adapt to their message or 2) your definition of what it means to be Christian differs from the majority of people who claim to be Christian.


anyway... I don't plan on having 'religious' doctrines taught at school... You again confuse me for someone else, having both the premises behind ID taught at school, and the typical evolutionary theory in no way denies an education to your children...

I don't recall saying anything about ID in this thread. I recall saying that people should believe whatever they want in regards to religion, just so long as it stays out of public schools. Your response was that you wanted your tax money back and went on to imply that not teaching religion in school was the cause of our academic problems link (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=992130&postcount=43) and link (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=996366&postcount=107) . Maybe it is you who is confusing you with someone else. If you want to teach ID, then let's also teach Creation as told by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as it doesn't deny your children the ability to consider ID or evolutionary theory.


You are just too much of a hard-liner to admit it. The choice of what they wish to believe is still left up to them.... my cousin got an 'F' on one of his research papers where he had two sentences that tangentially referenced ID... and you scoffed at my 'one-sided' comment earlier??? I was outraged, that his teacher could be that 'closed-minded'...

Too much of a hard-liner to admit what? I just gave you the premises for which ID can be taught at school... when you allow all psuedo scientific creation theories to be taught.


ID does not exclusively imply the Christian GOD is behind creation(though that may be my line of thinking).... it just poses the question that many complex mechanisms, structures and design elements have no known chemical, physical or biological pathways... and then infers that higher order thinking and 'engineering' was involved.

Inference based on no scientific evidence. Debate over.


Again, let's just agree to disagree... :tu we are getting no where...

Who is the hard-liner?

[scott]

I think it's sufficient to say Science has not found the answer to certain things. There just really isn't a place in Science class to teach the theory of a Supreme Being who designed the universe.

Perhaps in Philosophy class... and there's no need to worry about "brainwashing" there because no one pays attention in High School Philosophy... it's the elective you take if you need a nap after lunch.

I believe in a God that created a universe with an infinite number of things we can learn about through scientific study. This study does not need to prove or disprove the existence of God, it is what it is... and you either believe God created it or you don't.

The conflict between Science and Theology was created by Scientists and Theists. Fundamentally, there is no conflict there.

Bingo.

[clambake]

There are whole bunch of Gods running around up there according to people of faith. Why, there is this one God that says to his people that you and your beliefs are that of the infidel.

So how many kingdoms of God are there? Wouldn't the same differences exist up there as they do here? Whose God is greatest?

[Phenomanul]

Who is the hard-liner?

OK so you want this argument to continue on end... I have other things to do as well you know. The 'agree to disagree' is not an ultimatum scott... it's a realization that you are as entrenched in your beliefs as I am in mine... nothing wrong with that. Some people just want to argue I guess.



I skipped the middle paragraph because I had nothing to say on it. You want me to say something... fine... the fact that only 1 out of 3 people who claim to be Christians are "Christians" in your book is evidence of one of two things 1) an extremely high failure rate among the Christian church to get their followers to fully adapt to their message or 2) your definition of what it means to be Christian differs from the majority of people who claim to be Christian.

1) It's part of human nature to go against the nature of GOD. So I am inclined to agree with you, albeit you blame faith-based religion whereas I blame the natural tendencies of man's heart.

2) The definition, or should I say the characteristics, of a follower are clearly outlined throughout the Bible.... which you do not believe to be true... so as smeagol said, "we are going in circles..."

3) That it is very difficult to live a life where we can learn to completely place our trust, and burdens on GOD.


I don't recall saying anything about ID in this thread. I recall saying that people should believe whatever they want in regards to religion, just so long as it stays out of public schools.

Because you first implied I wanted religious doctrines taught in school... (i.e. topics concerning GOD's grace and forgiveness)... to which I said doctrines, and scientific implications concerning my faith were two different things.


Your response was that you wanted your tax money back and went on to imply that not teaching religion in school was the cause of our academic problems link (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=992130&postcount=43) and link (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=996366&postcount=107) .

Already addressed quote above.


Maybe it is you who is confusing you with someone else. If you want to teach ID, then let's also teach Creation as told by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as it doesn't deny your children the ability to consider ID or evolutionary theory.

No... I know what I wrote, and I know where I stand... that you misinterpret what I write is something else altogether.

With regards to the "Flying Spaghetti Monster theory": clue me in... whenever it addresses the genesis of life, of proteins, of the design of biological systems, of the information contained within DNA itself... post it. I'll be waiting.


Too much of a hard-liner to admit what? I just gave you the premises for which ID can be taught at school... when you allow all psuedo scientific creation theories to be taught.

Psuedo science = that which the scientific community wants to conveniently ignore....



Inference based on no scientific evidence. Debate over.

The same scientific evidence that was provided to show how DNA came into being... scratch that, how amino acids came into being... no, scratch that too... how amino acids were stable enough to stay in solution for only a few seconds... and magically combine with amino acids of the same chirality with a very unstable sugar-phosphate molecule... to form an inmensely unstable molecule, due to its high entropic energy... Damn... what conclusive evidence has science provided on the genesis of DNA???

And that's just it.... the verdict isn't out yet... and still you want your children to accept this huge step in the genesis of life as a given... but do tell me what the flying spaghetti monster theory says on the subject...

[scott]

Maybe it's because I went to a Catholic HS (I'm serious), but I don't recall the genisis of DNA being taught in high school.

I'm against the teaching of all inference absent of any scientific evidence. Does that make you happy?

[scott]

Psuedo science = that which the scientific community wants to conveniently ignore....

When you have some solid scientific evidence, come talk to me or the rest of the scientific community. Are scientists to take up every pet cause someone dreams up. Fact: no have no scientific evidence that an intelligent designer created the earth and life on it. No one is stopping ID proponents from going out and gathering solid scientific evidence, and yet there is none. It is hard to ignore something that doesn't exist.


Because you first implied I wanted religious doctrines taught in school... (i.e. topics concerning GOD's grace and forgiveness)... to which I said doctrines, and scientific implications concerning my faith were two different things.

I said I wanted religion (and for clarification atheism as well) out of school. You then went on to write about the decaying nature of our school system. What inference was I supposed to take from that? In any case, sorry if I misinterpreted your statements.


The problem is neither side can provide it... unless one of us manages to build a time machine to gather evidence... all we will have is speculation.

Well, thank you for admitting so. Speculation that admittedly can never be backed by scientific evidence does not belong in science classes. I've said in many threads and agreed with Spurm in this one that ID is a topic for a philosophy classes which debates the origin of the universe. So long as other theories are represented accordingly and no preference is giving to any of them in a public school setting - I think it would be a great high school course (although one that only the studious are likely to take, and good for them).

[clambake]

Boa puttin' the time in on the retort.

What would other relegions say about your position?

[clambake]

If you believe in your God, then you have to believe in all Gods.

[Phenomanul]

When you have some solid scientific evidence, come talk to me.


The problem is neither side can provide it... unless one of us manages to build a time machine to gather evidence... all we will have is speculation.

[gtownspur]

There are whole bunch of Gods running around up there according to people of faith. Why, there is this one God that says to his people that you and your beliefs are that of the infidel.

So how many kingdoms of God are there? Wouldn't the same differences exist up there as they do here? Whose God is greatest?

^nice long bumpersticker qoute.

Horrible post.

[gtownspur]

If you believe in your God, then you have to believe in all Gods.


that equates to..."if you believe in someone, you must then believe in everyone."


Stupid logic.


Next.

[scott]

With regards to the "Flying Spaghetti Monster theory": clue me in... whenever it addresses the genesis of life, of proteins, of the design of biological systems, of the information contained within DNA itself... post it. I'll be waiting.

I'll refer you to the official website of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster so that I don't misquote.

http://www.venganza.org/


OK so you want this argument to continue on end... I have other things to do as well you know. The 'agree to disagree' is not an ultimatum scott... it's a realization that you are as entrenched in your beliefs as I am in mine... nothing wrong with that. Some people just want to argue I guess.

With all due respect, this discussion is likely to continue whether you participate or not. Don't be afraid to "check out" at any time and not respond to one of my posts. I won't hold it against you.

[clambake]

Not everyone has a fantasy book titled "the bible". Just all gods. So your book is better than the rest? Read the other "bibles" and you have to believe.

[clambake]

YOu have to believe because it is in your makeup, dna, genes. You chose the bible only because it was chosen for you. The side of the earth you were born on.

[gtownspur]

ok i get it.

Because there are so many GOd's that automatically means my GOd is a fake.

SO because there are many beliefs, all beliefs are fake.

And because there are many solutions, all solutions are not solutions.

You need to read a book and stop pirating your ideology from a sixth grade stoner halo party.

[clambake]

No no, if your god is real, then all gods are real. That is the logical explaination. Because of your belief in your god. Because of belief in all gods. The belief is what makes them exist.

[Phenomanul]

When you have some solid scientific evidence, come talk to me or the rest of the scientific community. Are scientists to take up every pet cause someone dreams up. Fact: no have no scientific evidence that an intelligent designer created the earth and life on it. No one is stopping ID proponents from going out and gathering solid scientific evidence, and yet there is none. It is hard to ignore something that doesn't exist.



I said I wanted religion (and for clarification atheism as well) out of school. You then went on to write about the decaying nature of our school system. What inference was I supposed to take from that? In any case, sorry if I misinterpreted your statements.



Well, thank you for admitting so.
Did you build a time machine already??? Damn.

I posted my response at 6:35 and you at 6:33 and yours already included a response to what I would say at 6:35....

Oh... I see the edit nevermind.


Speculation that admittedly can never be backed by scientific evidence does not belong in science classes. I've said in many threads and agreed with Spurm in this one that ID is a topic for a philosophy classes which debates the origin of the universe. So long as other theories are represented accordingly and no preference is giving to any of them in a public school setting - I think it would be a great high school course (although one that only the studious are likely to take, and good for them).

Evolutionary science has no foundation whatsoever unless it can explain the origin of life... and herein lies the conundrum...

I know Darwin, or speciation never attempted to define the origin of life but without it neither of their theories has much foundation...

I've said this on hundreds of occasions: speciation should not be confused for adaptation... the latter is a process describing how one species can use genetic information stored within its genes to manifest a different phenotype that will allow it to survive. The former, suggests a tree-like branching of all the species as derived from a single source.... Adaptation does not touch or address the subject of origins... and we can see it around us; we can experiment with it; there is tangible data....

Since the critical clause mentioned above for speciation cannot be tested, under your own premise, it cannot be taught as science either...

[Phenomanul]

YOu have to believe because it is in your makeup, dna, genes. You chose the bible only because it was chosen for you. The side of the earth you were born on.


Junior Varsity.... sorry I couldn't resist... the above clauses are just too confusing to read.

[clambake]

Boa hammerin' down again. YOu might find your answers if you ask a holyman from some other religion.

[clambake]

Other relegions and other gods are no more real or not real than yours. The god playing field is level.

[gtownspur]

Other relegions and other gods are no more real or not real than yours. The god playing field is level.

WHy are the playing feilds level? :smokin

[Phenomanul]

I'll refer you to the official website of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster so that I don't misquote.

http://www.venganza.org/



With all due respect, this discussion is likely to continue whether you participate or not. Don't be afraid to "check out" at any time and not respond to one of my posts. I won't hold it against you.

Do you know what the word 'venganza' means???

It means 'revenge', and derived from the same root word that gave rise to the word 'vendetta'...

Why oh why would a church stake its website name on those grounds???

The whole thing is an ill-humored parody on what they believe ID is trying to attain.... Sadly, it does not address any of the questions that ID tries to answer and in doing so, loses much of its purported intent...

[clambake]

Boa has his gods back. Taking up for the big man is apparantly a full time gig. Remember, your god is a god amongst other gods.

[scott]

Evolutionary science has no foundation whatsoever unless it can explain the origin of life... and herein lies the conundrum...

I know Darwin, or speciation never attempted to define the origin of life but without it neither of their theories has much foundation...

I've said this on hundreds of occasions: speciation should not be confused for adaptation... the latter is a process describing how one species can use genetic information stored within its genes to manifest a different phenotype that will allow it to survive. The former, suggests a tree-like branching of all the species as derived from a single source.... Adaptation does not touch or address the subject of origins... and we can see it around us; we can experiment with it; there is tangible data....

Since the critical clause mentioned above for speciation cannot be tested, under your own premise, it cannot be taught as science either...

I'm sorry you are apparently unable to wrap your head around the difference between the origin of species and the origin of life. Best of luck to you in that respect.

[scott]

Do you know what the word 'venganza' means???

It means 'revenge', and derived from the same root word that gave rise to the word 'vendetta'...

Why oh why would a church stake its website name on those grounds???

The whole thing is an ill-humored parody on what they believe ID is trying to attain.... Sadly, it does not address any of the questions that ID tries to answer and in doing so, loses much of its purported intent...

You win the golden "No Duh" award.

Anyway, it doesn't have to address any of the questions ID tries to answer... the answer is that the FSM made it so. No other explanation is needed. And it takes the same time machine you mentioned to prove or disprove it.

[Phenomanul]

I'm sorry you are apparently unable to wrap your head around the difference between the origin of species and the origin of life. Best of luck to you in that respect.

I understand the difference fairly well... but our youth and teens don't know the difference... Instead they are driven to accept the speculative nature of the origin of speciation as a scientific fact... or not they get an 'F'... pretty fair huh???

Again... what you call 'science' conveniently ignores this huge step... the fact of the matter is with all of our advancement in technology, we will still fail to find a natural, unguided process that can create life from nothing...

Or a process that can create a consciousness....
Or one that describes how the coded information contained in DNA was engineered to produce the massive array of protiens we see throughout the natural kingdom.
Or one that would describe what would drive an inanimate molecule such as DNA to want to replicate itself to begin with... and without the aid of stabilizing proteins... made by DNA itself... A very big problem.

And you are mistaken if I want the search to end... the more we search for these answers the more the notion of a GOD created universe will look like an equally viable option... and I ought to rephrase that... the more that people will take GOD for his word instead of a fictitious liar... or worse; a parodic 'spaghetti monster'.

[gtownspur]

hegamboa,

Cynicism trumps truth in here.

[scott]

Again... what you call 'science' conveniently ignores this huge step... the fact of the matter is with all of our advancement in technology, we will still fail to find a natural, unguided process that can create life from nothing...

We still also fail to find a supernatural, unguided process that can create life from nothing that is based on anything other than a 2000 year old book. Sorry, but that nugget of evidence doesn't compel me either way. I'm okay with "not knowing" until we know... until then I have no inclination to just assume a supernatural power.

[gtownspur]

We still also fail to find a supernatural, unguided process that can create life from nothing that is based on anything other than a 2000 year old book. Sorry, but that nugget of evidence doesn't compel me either way. I'm okay with "not knowing" until we know... until then I have no inclination to just assume a supernatural power.

In that case you should not have an inclination for the other since there is doubt as well(?)

here you go. :lol

[scott]

In that case you should not have an inclination for the other since there is doubt as well.

Dammit gtownspur... do I have to call you illiterate again? :)

[scott]

I understand the difference fairly well... but our youth and teens don't know the difference... Instead they are driven to accept the speculative nature of the origin of speciation as a scientific fact... or not they get an 'F'... pretty fair huh???

We have a lot of scientific evidence backing the theory of evolution and the origin of species (not the origin of the universe/life). So much in fact that we call it the "theory" of evolution - and you know the scientific implications of that word. We don't have to know where something comes from to know how it works.

I'll concede that science teachers should distinguish between the origin of species and the origin of the universe/life as to avoid any confusion. If they don't, they are doing a disserve. But the fact that some youngsters may confuse the two isn't reason to absolutely discount these theories.

[Phenomanul]

We still also fail to find a supernatural, unguided process that can create life from nothing that is based on anything other than a 2000 year old book. Sorry, but that nugget of evidence doesn't compel me either way. I'm okay with "not knowing" until we know... until then I have no inclination to just assume a supernatural power.

But my faith has led me to experience GOD's presence... (no holier than thou message here)... As explained earlier we have all been extended HIS free gift of salvation.... it's just a matter of accepting it.

If I know GOD exists based on my interaction with HIM, from HIS daily guidance... then I can take HIM for HIS Word on the other... that is, HIS creation of the world... proof is irrelevant in this light....

But again that doesn't preclude me from asking questions, or seeking out their answers... neither does it show a lack a faith on my part. The scientist in me wants to find these answers... and I'm not the only one. Unfortunately the work of these groups is dismissed as pseudo-science... so be it.

[Phenomanul]

We have a lot of scientific evidence backing the theory of evolution and the origin of species (not the origin of the universe/life). So much in fact that we call it the "theory" of evolution - and you know the scientific implications of that word. We don't have to know where something comes from to know how it works.

I'll concede that science teachers should distinguish between the origin of species and the origin of the universe/life as to avoid any confusion. If they don't, they are doing a disservice. But the fact that some youngsters may confuse the two isn't reason to absolutely discount these theories.

I don't discount them... I understand that that is the way others choose to view things. Oh and all the evidence we do have is for adaptation... not speciation.

But think about it.... how can science claim to explain the origin of the species with so many missing gaps between the major animal/plant groups and without addressing how the most primitive of species even came into being...

It would be like our present numbering system lacking a zero or a one.

[jochhejaam]

See, I disagree. Every Christian struggles with his faith or has doubts at some point in his life. I question the sincerity of anyone who claims he hasn't.
My Brother, you're free to question my sincerity but it is what it is. I have doubts as to why things happen the way they do but I'm acutely aware that the doubts are due to my finite mind and my shortcomings and have nothing to do with my complete faith and trust that ultimately God has things under control. This self awareness of my own weakness actually strengthens my faith in God. (less of me, more of God)
If you have doubts about Him being in control and believe He has weaknesses and can convince me of these weaknesses then I would probably have doubts or lack of faith in God, other than that I can't think of any reason why my faith and trust in God should waver.

Doubts in myself? Yes. Doubts in God? No.



James 1:6-7 "But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord;"

[Phenomanul]

My Brother, you're free to question my sincerity but it is what it is. I have doubts as to why things happen the way they do but I'm acutely aware that the doubts are due to my finite mind and my shortcomings and have nothing to do with my complete faith and trust that ultimately God has things under control. This self awareness of my own weakness actually strengthens my faith in God. (less of me, more of God)
If you have doubts about Him being in control and believe He has weaknesses and can convince me of these weaknesses then I would probably have doubts or lack of faith in God, other than that I can't think of any reason why my faith and trust in God should waver.

Doubts in myself? Yes. Doubts in God? No.


Well said... no disrespect intended for Spurminator... this is just a more elaborate perspective on the issue of 'self-doubt'.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=DarkReign]See, thats exactly it. No Joch, people dont see it your way and the fact that you wouldnt even entertain the notion that you (gasp!) maybe wrong is what makes people puke all over your shoes.
That's a rather pompous statement DR. The majority of people I've met in my Church and many of my family members do see it my way. Show me where I've stated that I'm always right. You're probably confusing the fact that I total faith in God and believe that He is always right.
If that makes you want to puke all over my shoes, so what. I'm here to please God and some people appreciate that and some don't. My belief is that it boils down to your disdain for God trickling down to his believers and I'm happy to be in the company of God and his believers.







You know youre right. With absolute certainty. No matter the evidence, no matter the consequence, you will follow the Word.
To you, thats faith.
I know God's right with absolute certainity. How is that faulty and why would that bother you? How does that impact you negatively in any way whatsoever?

[Mr. Peabody]

[QUOTE]

I know God's right with absolute certainity. How is that faulty and why would that bother you? How does that impact you negatively in any way whatsoever?

It may very well be the case that God is right in everything he does or commands.

However, how can we be certain that the message we receive from God is unchanged? Furthermore, even if his message is unchanged, how can we be sure we are interpreting his message correctly?

It really does bother me that people are so resolute that they know what God wants or what actions God would support.

[Spurminator]

My Brother, you're free to question my sincerity but it is what it is. I have doubts as to why things happen the way they do but I'm acutely aware that the doubts are due to my finite mind and my shortcomings and have nothing to do with my complete faith and trust that ultimately God has things under control. This self awareness of my own weakness actually strengthens my faith in God. (less of me, more of God)
If you have doubts about Him being in control and believe He has weaknesses and can convince me of these weaknesses then I would probably have doubts or lack of faith in God, other than that I can't think of any reason why my faith and trust in God should waver.

Doubts in myself? Yes. Doubts in God? No.

Maybe you're reading more into what I said, or maybe I misunderstood you altogether.

I have no doubts as it relates to God's power or what it means to be an all-powerful supreme being. But I'm skeptical of people who claim to have never pondered or struggled with the existence of God, or the divinity of Jesus Christ. And I would imagine most athiests/agnostics are similarly skeptical, since most of them have likely wondered whether they're right in their beliefs.

The Bible is full of examples of Christians who doubted and then were released from that doubt. I think it's important to make it clear that you don't have to be 100% sure of anything to be a Christian. It's part of the path.

[boutons_]

"100% sure of anything to be a Christian. It's part of the path."

All serioius, ancient religions that promote true spiritual growth talk about how side-roads, dead-ends, outright road-blocks, errors, confusion, doubt are encountered by the most devout seekers on the path to spiritual engightenment.

Much of what I see and hear from US Christians is a simplistic, childish, "made for TV" (dumbed down), black/white, politicized we're-right/all-y'all-are-wrong, exclusivist Christ-is-The-Only-Way absolutism.

All of Christianity, and its forerunner Judaism, totally ignores human physiology as the basis for spiritual experience and growth, while Eastern religions incorporate physiology and spritual/mental techniques as fundamental to the spiritual path to Self Realization.

[scott]

But my faith has led me to experience GOD's presence... (no holier than thou message here)... As explained earlier we have all been extended HIS free gift of salvation.... it's just a matter of accepting it.

If I know GOD exists based on my interaction with HIM, from HIS daily guidance... then I can take HIM for HIS Word on the other... that is, HIS creation of the world... proof is irrelevant in this light....

Like I've said from the beginning, you should embrace your faith and your beliefs.


But again that doesn't preclude me from asking questions, or seeking out their answers... neither does it show a lack a faith on my part. The scientist in me wants to find these answers... and I'm not the only one.

You are right, it doesn't preclude you from asking questions or from finding answers to them. To my knowledge, no one is precluding you from doing so. High school biology classrooms, however, are not research labs.


Unfortunately the work of these groups is dismissed as pseudo-science... so be it.

What else would you call it? After all, we are talking about people are trying to pass something off as science as you yourself stated no scientific evidence is possible in the absence of a time machine. Again, I have no problem with this discussion taking place in it's proper place... a philosophy classroom. Why is this so difficult to accept?


I don't discount them... I understand that that is the way others choose to view things. Oh and all the evidence we do have is for adaptation... not speciation.

I'm not talking about discounting people... I'm talking about discounting the ideas. You've already said that (paraphrasing) you feel evolution has no foundation because it fails to address something that is beyond what it tries to address. So do you discount all of evolutionary theory, or not?

And there is plenty of evidence on speciation, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Van der Merwe et al (2000) comes to mind. There are several observances of allopatric, parapatric and sympatric speciation, in addition to artifical speciation by means of animal husbandry.


But think about it.... how can science claim to explain the origin of the species with so many missing gaps between the major animal/plant groups and without addressing how the most primitive of species even came into being...

How can someone build a clock without knowing who invented the first clock?

I maintain that knowing how something works is not requisite upon knowing where something comes from.

[jochhejaam]

Maybe you're reading more into what I said, or maybe I misunderstood you altogether.

I have no doubts as it relates to God's power or what it means to be an all-powerful supreme being. But I'm skeptical of people who claim to have never pondered or struggled with the existence of God, or the divinity of Jesus Christ. And I would imagine most athiests/agnostics are similarly skeptical, since most of them have likely wondered whether they're right in their beliefs.

So I have my very own skeptic... :lol <jk>

I have much respect for your opinions spurminator and if I had said I had always been a Christian or if I said I had obtained the "faith to move mountains" I would more readily understand your skepticism. I honestly have never pondered or struggled with Gods existence. I have pondered the vastness of the God's universe and the complexity of his creations and almost become euphoric at the thought of his power.

I don't know, perhaps my lack of skepticism is due in part to being raised in a home with a very devout, God-fearing, humble father, one who spent/spends much time daily in his study praying (he's an ordained minister) and reading God's Word.

My life is not over yet so I won't say that my faith in God won't or can't be shaken. Like most of us here I have had my share of crisis during my lifetime but up until now they have always served to drive me to God not distance me from him. He's always worked things out for me and at times that merely means making a crisis bearable or manageable, not necessarily dissovling it or providing an feel good remedy.

I dont feel that my declared lack of skepticism makes me a better Christian than anyone else. I'm a sinner saved by Grace, no more, no less.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=boutons_]"100% sure of anything to be a Christian. It's part of the path."

All serioius, ancient religions that promote true spiritual growth talk about how side-roads, dead-ends, outright road-blocks, errors, confusion, doubt are encountered by the most devout seekers on the path to spiritual engightenment.
Shaken faith or doubt in God's supremacy are not prerequisites for getting through these dead-ends, errors, etc., that lead to spiritual growth and enlightenment. Prayer, perseverance, faith, and trusting God have worked out fine for me to this point.



Are you a believer bouts?

[Phenomanul]

Like I've said from the beginning, you should embrace your faith and your beliefs.

You are right, it doesn't preclude you from asking questions or from finding answers to them. To my knowledge, no one is precluding you from doing so. High school biology classrooms, however, are not research labs.


High school biology classrooms are not research labs... true, but the dismissiveness of a higher order having created the universe, IS a notion prevalently taught in high-schools throughout the western world. Don't fool yourself that it isn't.... that's why I have been claiming the ordeal is one-sided... and the more that this is seen as normal, the harder it will be to question the textbooks or the teachers that influence the minds of our highly impressionable teens....

The impartiality is much like not being able to cross-examine a witness in court...

Oh BTW, I waged more of an uphill battle against my high-school teachers than I did with my college professors in discussing these topics. That again is why I pointed out our scholastic deficiencies in the areas of math and science... Not knowing enough about the 'bigger picture' has somehow given high-school teachers the right to suggest that the evolutionary premises hold an infallible status... both problems posing a disservice to our youth. And unfortunately many stop their education at this juncture...



What else would you call it? After all, we are talking about people are trying to pass something off as science as you yourself stated no scientific evidence is possible in the absence of a time machine. Again, I have no problem with this discussion taking place in it's proper place... a philosophy classroom. Why is this so difficult to accept?

As you very well should know, the prefix 'pseudo' being affixed to the word science implies that it is false. It is very dismissive and you know it. Since when did science loose the ability to question itself and its methods? Shoot... emerging technologies have allowed unanswered questions to be sought out by newer methods... not caring how long a standing notion was held in said field.

Since when does science ignore the numbers yielded by probability and side in favor of insurmountable odds that are essentially zero on every known natural scale (biological, physical, sub-atomic, cosmic, and chemical)??? These are the purported studies that are being branded with a psuedo-science label... Calculations from these studies have exposed the statistical implications of long-standing claims and have forced the scientific community to re-evaluate their theories in light of the odds... Just because the statistics are unfavorable shouldn't allow the scientific community and their mass followers to be as dismissive as they have been. This is a recurring theme if you haven't already noticed...

And BTW the things that I've stated IDers have no scientific evidence for are the very same things that the scientific community has only inferred evidence for... And yet they use these inferred conclusions to base their entire evolutionary platform on. Someone earlier called me a sheep... the argument goes both ways.


I'm not talking about discounting people... I'm talking about discounting the ideas. You've already said that (paraphrasing) you feel evolution has no foundation because it fails to address something that is beyond what it tries to address. So do you discount all of evolutionary theory, or not?

And there is plenty of evidence on speciation, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Van der Merwe et al (2000) comes to mind. There are several observances of allopatric, parapatric and sympatric speciation, in addition to artifical speciation by means of animal husbandry.

Much of the evidence we claim as supporting evolution only supports the process of adaptation... I looked up your source, Van der Merwe, but since his/her data isn't readily available, I can't really evaluate his/her methods and therefore his/her conclusions... It all still hinges on our very own definition on what we constitute as a species... This of course is important when assuming that what we observe today is contradicting any of the concepts layed out in the Bible. Even though the comparison does not have to be made in the classroom, it's preclusion assumes the latter is irrelevant.



How can someone build a clock without knowing who invented the first clock?

I maintain that knowing how something works is not requisite upon knowing where something comes from.

I'll use your very analogy to display why IDers question the chaotic, chance-process that the speciation model assumes at its core...

OK... I have your clock in my hand, I can perform all sorts of tests on it... measure in countless ways, the dimensions of the different elements, the weights of the different pieces, evaluate the purpose of the different materials chosen... most importantly conduct experiments that determine how the clock functions... Bear in mind that a complex swiss clock is something that is still rather mundane when compared to even the simplest of proteins... and yet by your own admission "knowing how it works alone is not requisite upon knowing where it came from"...

Ok then, would you then be at peace if you had to infer that that the clock's existence resulted from a chance process??? Surely the finely calculated design elements you observed required some form of higher-order engineering.

Someone then tells you that a similar clock exists, with minor variances, and that your are to infer that the similarity undoubtedly points to a common clock, which we will call 'father-time' for the sake of humor.... from which the other clocks took form...

The observation is valid and well supported by measurements taken from both time pieces. Therefore we must assume that the clocks arose from a common clock. The question of how the first clock came into being was not addressed, but that was not the intent of your study. All you know is that the two clocks you now have at your scientific disposal bear remarkable semblage to 'father-time'... You then proceed to write a paper titled "Origin of the Clocks" based on your scientific studies... the data is there, the conclusions are solid... what's missing?

Oh yeah... somehow the question addressing the rise of the remarkable design elements observed in both clocks was never asked? It was not the intent of the study you claim... but the logic of your paper suggests that if we followed your model, clocks -- in particular 'father-time' would have arisen from simpler devices known as sun-dials, and so forth... eventually you claim that the clocks will give rise to devices known as watches... Nevertheless, how did the design elements arise to begin with.... hmmmm

Seems like we are missing our Clockmaker or our factory... but which ever way you choose to see it... the element of complex design is not addressed without either.

^^^ This parody is somewhat silly, but the point is clear... It gives rise to a concept known as 'coded information.'

The parody poses the same question that cannot be answered by any of the existing scientific theory on origins... particularly with regards to the amazing molecule known as DNA... this molecule is the basis of all life, and yet we are told to accept its arrival into the picture as part of the package. That the vast fountain of information coded by the five bases of DNA/RNA came into being by the random assembly of the first DNA strands...

Much like the letters of the alphabet provide a means of conveying information, we are being told to accept the fact that the coded information of the smallest known self-replicating biological organism... on the order of billions of base pairs... randomly arose from an unguided iterative process...

Not suprisingly, the genetic wealth conveyed by said system would be more complicated than trying to sequencially pull the letters of the alphabet from a bag and ending up with Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet". The letters would not only have to produce coherent words, sentences and paragraphs... they would have to convey a sense of structure and include literary elements such as the 'plot'... meaning the placement of certain sentences would only make sense in a very particular place in the story... like I said the odds are rather insurmountable... its no wonder science chooses to ignore such an inconvenient concept...

[DarkReign]

Some ID thinking I dismiss out of hand, like that baloney about the "irreducible complexity" of the flagellum or whatever. That's a perfect example of the "God of the gaps" fallacy, because then another researcher determined the mechanism for the development of that structure, and the "irreducible complexity" argument imploded, and the God that fellow was arguing for got a little smaller. It's bad science, and bad theology.

Certainly there are ID proponents with a furtively proselytic agenda.

But I don't see why we have to be absolutely positive that scientific naturalism will explain everything. It's a tool. It is not the key to all truth.

I expected nothing less of you, ES. Bravo.

This is exactly the way I feel. I think a few people assumed I am an athiest or some such. Terribly inaccurate.

Science is just a tool. But a more reliable one than faith when trying to explain the natural world around us. Faith does not require reason, logic or even intelligence for that matter (which I guess is the beauty of it all). It just requires belief.

No, I dont pretend to think that science is the "catch-all" explanation of everything this universe has to offer. But judging by track records, I am more inclined to listen to science over theology. Personal preference.

[DarkReign]

It may very well be the case that God is right in everything he does or commands.

However, how can we be certain that the message we receive from God is unchanged? Furthermore, even if his message is unchanged, how can we be sure we are interpreting his message correctly?

It really does bother me that people are so resolute that they know what God wants or what actions God would support.

Exactly.

Joch, to even claim that you have the ability to interpret God and His message with absolute certainty is...well, kinda scary.

You are human, just like everyone else here. You make mistakes, just like everyone else here. You can read the same book, over and over for your whole life, and still miss some of the details, some of the message.

You claim yourself to be almost near divinity, JJ. Thats fucking weird man!

Because here is a newsflash.

You dont know shit about God. You only know what you were told by a book. You know, I dont have to aim this at you, sorry about that.

No one knows shit about God. Being a member of any Church does not make you any sort of authority on God, his teachings or intentions.

To claim otherwise is a fucking sin in my book. If God is truly as powerful (which I believe He is), if He is truly as divine and "above" as everyone thinks He is...then never claim to understand Him. Ever. Because you dont. And if you think this entity would take time out of his busy schedule to come down from on high for some lowly meat-eating, war-mongering pathetic excuse for intelligent life to enlighten them word for word full well knowing these talking monkeys would fuck it up, youre just ignorant. We are not special. The only difference between me and a kangaroo is brain size, well-developed emotions and knowledge of mortality.

Youre just as lost as the rest of us. The only difference is that most people in this world found comfort in some very exclusive books. Something to pacify their fears while they haphazardly stumble around this life to its ultimate end. Youre no better, no more intelligent, no more enlightened than anyone else.

So just fucking stop. No one is trying to make you believe anything but what you already do. What we are saying is, keep that thought to your God-damned selves and out of schools. Outside of publicly funded organizations, whatever, none of our damn business. Inside, we err on the side of provable quantities.

Science can prove millions of things (but not all things). Religion proves....nothing. Hmmmm, which to teach?

Self-righteousness is dangerous business. Try being humble and admitting you dont know shit, but believe you are trying your hardest (which isnt always good enough).

[Phenomanul]

Exactly.

Joch, to even claim that you have the ability to interpret God and His message with absolute certainty is...well, kinda scary.

You are human, just like everyone else here. You make mistakes, just like everyone else here. You can read the same book, over and over for your whole life, and still miss some of the details, some of the message.

You claim yourself to be almost near divinity, JJ. Thats fucking weird man!

Because here is a newsflash.

You dont know shit about God. You only know what you were told by a book. You know, I dont have to aim this at you, sorry about that.

No one knows shit about God. Being a member of any Church does not make you any sort of authority on God, his teachings or intentions.

To claim otherwise is a fucking sin in my book. If God is truly as powerful (which I believe He is), if He is truly as divine and "above" as everyone thinks He is...then never claim to understand Him. Ever. Because you dont. And if you think this entity would take time out of his busy schedule to come down from on high for some lowly meat-eating, war-mongering pathetic excuse for intelligent life to enlighten them word for word full well knowing these talking monkeys would fuck it up, youre just ignorant. We are not special. The only difference between me and a kangaroo is brain size, well-developed emotions and knowledge of mortality.

Youre just as lost as the rest of us. The only difference is that most people in this world found comfort in some very exclusive books. Something to pacify their fears while they haphazardly stumble around this life to its ultimate end. Youre no better, no more intelligent, no more enlightened than anyone else.

So just fucking stop. No one is trying to make you believe anything but what you already do. What we are saying is, keep that thought to your God-damned selves and out of schools. Outside of publicly funded organizations, whatever, none of our damn business. Inside, we err on the side of provable quantities.

Science can prove millions of things (but not all things). Religion proves....nothing. Hmmmm, which to teach?

Self-righteousness is dangerous business. Try being humble and admitting you dont know shit, but believe you are trying your hardest (which isnt always good enough).


Mr. Peabody crassly misunderstood jochhejaam... jj stated his only certainty was that GOD was infallible... not that he knew GOD's innermost workings... Again a classic example of being harped on for the wrong, and convenient reason... Why convenient? Because it gives you an opportunity to discredit his position by trying to pass him off as some radical 'weirdo' -- when in fact the premise you are basing this lashing on was misunderstood from the get-go...

If you actually read his posts jochhejaam... has in fact admitted he, like others, has weaknesses and shortcomings but tries his best to live a life that pleases GOD.

[DarkReign]

I know God's right with absolute certainity.

Again, no you dont. Did He talk to you specifically?


...but I'm acutely aware that the doubts are due to my finite mind and my shortcomings and have nothing to do with my complete faith and trust that ultimately God has things under control.

How would you know? You dont know that. You believe that.

--------------------------

Thats more my point. You, JJ, anyone else, you dont know shit about God. You think you do only because you surround yourselves with like-minded individuals to prop yourselves up.

You know nothing more or less than me. Just because you read a book or worship at some building, does not make you better or more knowledgeable about God, his intentions, or his control.

You follow a popular guess. Congratulations.

[Mr. Peabody]

Mr. Peabody crassly misunderstood jochhejaam... jj stated his only certainty was that GOD was infallible... not that he knew GOD's innermost workings... Again a classic example of being harped on for the wrong, and convenient reason... Why convenient? Because it gives you an opportunity to discredit his position by trying to pass him off as some radical 'weirdo' -- when in fact the premise you are basing this lashing on was misunderstood from the get-go...

If you actually read his posts jochhejaam... has in fact admitted he, like others, has weaknesses and shortcomings but tries his best to live a life that pleases GOD.

I did not "crassly misunderstand" jj, as you say. My point is that being certain that God is infallible means nothing, unless you are also certain that you understand his message or what he want from us.

God's infallibility does nothing for us if he is inaccessible.

[Phenomanul]

I did not "crassly misunderstand" jj, as you say. My point is that being certain that God is infallible means nothing, unless you are also certain that you understand his message or what he want from us.

God's infallibility does nothing for us if he is inaccessible.


Inaccessible??? GOD's Word reveals the essence, the attributes, and the characteristic of GOD Himself... but then 'we are going in circles' unless you believe the Bible to be literally true....

GOD's Word also says we are endowed with HIS Holy Spirit whenever we recieve HIM by Faith.... Our spirit, our consciousness therefore is guided by GOD's precepts and not those of our flesh.

jochhejaam therefore did not say anything that would contradict GOD's Word... you just misunderstood him for claiming to be a profet...

[DarkReign]

Inaccessible??? GOD's Word reveals the essence, the attributes, and the characteristic of GOD Himself... but then 'we are going in circles' unless you believe the Bible to be literally true....

GOD's Word also says we are endowed with HIS Holy Spirit whenever we recieve HIM by Faith.... Our spirit, our consciousness therefore is guided by GOD's precepts and not those of our flesh.

jochhejaam therefore did not say anything that would contradict GOD's Word... you just misunderstood him for claiming to be a profet...

Who told you that is God's word? Who's "word" are you relying on for that truth? What convinced you it is?

[Phenomanul]

Who told you that is God's word? Who's "word" are you relying on for that truth? What convinced you it is?

HIS presence in my own life matches what is written in HIS Word.

[Mr. Peabody]

HIS presence in my own life matches what is written in HIS Word.

That's my point. How do you know that you are interpreting his presence correctly? How do you know that the "word" is unadulterated?

Again, you are claiming, with certainty, that you understand God's message.

[Mr. Peabody]

Inaccessible??? GOD's Word reveals the essence, the attributes, and the characteristic of GOD Himself...

That's interesting. What characteristics does God have? I guess he is anthropomorphic to have these characteristics we assign to him.

[Oh, Gee!!]

That's my point. How do you know that you are interpreting his presence correctly? How do you know that the "word" is unadulterated?

Again, you are claiming, with certainty, that you understand God's message.


dude, it's called faith. duh.

[Phenomanul]

That's my point. How do you know that you are interpreting his presence correctly? How do you know that the "word" is unadulterated?

Again, you are claiming, with certainty, that you understand God's message.

Again you misunderstand.

I can't help you if you can't make it past this 'road block'....

His promises are written in HIS Word..... I see the results of HIS promises...

His attributes are described in HIS Word.... If a message contradicts the very essence of these attributes... then it is not from GOD... <--- and these attributes don't lend themselves to misinterpretation...

These attributes include Holiniess, Majesty, Truth, Omniscience, Omnipresence, All-Powerful Sovereignty, HE is the very manifestation of LOVE...

[Mr. Peabody]

dude, it's called faith. duh.

Damn, a rare appearance from Mr. Oh, Gee!!

[Mr. Peabody]

His attributes are described in HIS Word.... If a message contradicts the very essence of these attributes... then it is not from GOD... <--- and these attributes don't lend themselves to misinterpretation...

These attributes include Holiniess, Majesty, Truth, Omniscience, Omnipresence, All-Powerful Sovereignty, HE is the very manifestation of LOVE...

Right, because it is not possible to misinterpret an attribute such as "Majesty."

Hell, everyone knows "majesty" when they see it.

[xrayzebra]

I think this where I came in. Can we go home now?

[Oh, Gee!!]

500th poster gets a prize

#430

[scott]

High school biology classrooms are not research labs... true, but the dismissiveness of a higher order having created the universe, IS a notion prevalently taught in high-schools throughout the western world. Don't fool yourself that it isn't.... that's why I have been claiming the ordeal is one-sided... and the more that this is seen as normal, the harder it will be to question the textbooks or the teachers that influence the minds of our highly impressionable teens....

The impartiality is much like not being able to cross-examine a witness in court...

I've already stated that I don't think high school science teachers should take a position either way. You, however, seem to think that not mentioned ID in a science class is tantamount to dismissing it, I apologize if I'm misinterpreting you.

I'm sorry if you feel dismissed because your idea isn't presented, but you admit to not having any evidence to back up your idea. You are just going to have to deal with it, plain and simple. Questions about theories in place are fine, and should come with the prsentation of theories. But you are the one fooling yourself if you think that ID is on the same level of Evolution as far as being a scientific theory goes, and you know better than to think that Evolution is just some wacky idea. Or maybe you don't know better... in which case there is nothing more to be said on the topic.


Oh BTW, I waged more of an uphill battle against my high-school teachers than I did with my college professors in discussing these topics. That again is why I pointed out our scholastic deficiencies in the areas of math and science... Not knowing enough about the 'bigger picture' has somehow given high-school teachers the right to suggest that the evolutionary premises hold an infallible status... both problems posing a disservice to our youth. And unfortunately many stop their education at this juncture...

Granted, not all high school teachers are very good at what they do and misconvey information. It's problem inherent in the structure of our school system - not a problem stemming from the lack of teaching ID in high school class rooms. So, of what relevence is it to this discussion?



As you very well should know, the prefix 'pseudo' being affixed to the word science implies that it is false. It is very dismissive and you know it.

Yes, I do know it. By calling ID psuedo-science I mean it is exactly that. It's presented as a science yet you admit there is no possible way to present scientific evidence. That, by definition is FALSE SCIENCE.


Since when did science loose the ability to question itself and its methods? Shoot... emerging technologies have allowed unanswered questions to be sought out by newer methods... not caring how long a standing notion was held in said field.

Science hasn't lost that ability. Maybe high school science teachers have lost that ability, but the concept of evolution is continually redefined and refined as science questions itself and finds evidence leading to a better explanation. And the case for evolution just keeps getting stronger as scientists do this - not weaker.


Since when does science ignore the numbers yielded by probability and side in favor of insurmountable odds that are essentially zero on every known natural scale (biological, physical, sub-atomic, cosmic, and chemical)???

I've seen your calculation of the odds, and they aren't statistically valid. Each step in the evolutionary chain is a random walk, and your calculation vastly overestimates the odds against because it doesn't account for this. Once you've won the lottery once, the odds of winning it a second time are equal to the odds of you winning it the first time. Your calculation seems to assume some instanious process in which we go from a couple specks of dust to a human being.


These are the purported studies that are being branded with a psuedo-science label... Calculations from these studies have exposed the statistical implications of long-standing claims and have forced the scientific community to re-evaluate their theories in light of the odds... Just because the statistics are unfavorable shouldn't allow the scientific community and their mass followers to be as dismissive as they have been. This is a recurring theme if you haven't already noticed...

You are correct, no field should ever be dismissive of studies because they don't like the results. I agree 100%. Do you agree with it 100%? Science should not be dismissive of a study just because it comes from an IDer. However, don't confuse dismissing a study for lack of scientific merit with dismissing a study just because it came from an IDer. Scientists should give proper evaluation of studies that come along, whether it is 10 seconds or 10 years. As it turns out, so far they are mostly towards the 10 second end of the spectrum.


And BTW the things that I've stated IDers have no scientific evidence for are the very same things that the scientific community has only inferred evidence for... And yet they use these inferred conclusions to base their entire evolutionary platform on. Someone earlier called me a sheep... the argument goes both ways.

Are you equating ID, which you admit there is no scientific evidence for sans a time machine, with the scientific evidence for evolution? Does it then surprise you that you find some people dismissive?

For the record, I never have nor will I ever call you a sheep. I'll say it again - you should embrace your faith.




Much of the evidence we claim as supporting evolution only supports the process of adaptation... I looked up your source, Van der Merwe, but since his/her data isn't readily available, I can't really evaluate his/her methods and therefore his/her conclusions... It all still hinges on our very own definition on what we constitute as a species... This of course is important when assuming that what we observe today is contradicting any of the concepts layed out in the Bible. Even though the comparison does not have to be made in the classroom, it's preclusion assumes the latter is irrelevant.

Maybe there is a definitional problem then. My definition of speciation is as follows:

The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=speciation)

There are many observed examples of this occurring. Maybe we are talking about something else though. Please provide a definition so we can be on the same page and talk about what you are referring to.





I'll use your very analogy to display why IDers question the chaotic, chance-process that the speciation model assumes at its core...

OK... I have your clock in my hand, I can perform all sorts of tests on it... measure in countless ways, the dimensions of the different elements, the weights of the different pieces, evaluate the purpose of the different materials chosen... most importantly conduct experiments that determine how the clock functions... Bear in mind that a complex swiss clock is something that is still rather mundane when compared to even the simplest of proteins... and yet by your own admission "knowing how it works alone is not requisite upon knowing where it came from"...

Ok then, would you then be at peace if you had to infer that that the clock's existence resulted from a chance process??? Surely the finely calculated design elements you observed required some form of higher-order engineering.

Someone then tells you that a similar clock exists, with minor variances, and that your are to infer that the similarity undoubtedly points to a common clock, which we will call 'father-time' for the sake of humor.... from which the other clocks took form...

The observation is valid and well supported by measurements taken from both time pieces. Therefore we must assume that the clocks arose from a common clock. The question of how the first clock came into being was not addressed, but that was not the intent of your study. All you know is that the two clocks you now have at your scientific disposal bear remarkable semblage to 'father-time'... You then proceed to write a paper titled "Origin of the Clocks" based on your scientific studies... the data is there, the conclusions are solid... what's missing?

Oh yeah... somehow the question addressing the rise of the remarkable design elements observed in both clocks was never asked? It was not the intent of the study you claim... but the logic of your paper suggests that if we followed your model, clocks -- in particular 'father-time' would have arisen from simpler devices known as sun-dials, and so forth... eventually you claim that the clocks will give rise to devices known as watches... Nevertheless, how did the design elements arise to begin with.... hmmmm

Seems like we are missing our Clockmaker or our factory... but which ever way you choose to see it... the element of complex design is not addressed without either.

^^^ This parody is somewhat silly, but the point is clear... It gives rise to a concept known as 'coded information.'

The parody poses the same question that cannot be answered by any of the existing scientific theory on origins... particularly with regards to the amazing molecule known as DNA... this molecule is the basis of all life, and yet we are told to accept its arrival into the picture as part of the package. That the vast fountain of information coded by the five bases of DNA/RNA came into being by the random assembly of the first DNA strands...

I still know how the clock work. I didn't "have" to infer that the clock arose by chance. This is not a solution set of by chance or by God. I can be comfortable NOT knowing. Because I don't know, that doesn't make me have to infer God or infer a chance process.

It seems the "problem" is your desire to demand answers outside of a study's intent. I say "problem" because it is a good problem. However because a study is unable to answer questions outside of its scope doesn't mean the study is flawed. Continue to search for your answers, the world needs people finding answers. I just ask that you bring forth your answers with a empirical basis.

Even so, the evolution from sundials to clocks to watches is a logical one and where we see evidence of this evolution is it not outside of the rhelm of reason to infer evolution. If the "Universe of Time" is trillions of years old, it is not absurd to believe there could have been tiny adaptations leading to the creation of new species of time keeping devices. That is a theory. It is backed up by logic and empirical evidence in the common design elements. It only gets us from sundial to watch. Never does it infer that the sundial came from a couple of specks of dust. Maybe some grand clockmaker put the first sundial in place which set forth the evolutionary chain... maybe he didn't. I don't have scientific evidence either way, so I need not take a position either way.


Much like the letters of the alphabet provide a means of conveying information, we are being told to accept the fact that the coded information of the smallest known self-replicating biological organism... on the order of billions of base pairs... randomly arose from an unguided iterative process...

Not suprisingly, the genetic wealth conveyed by said system would be more complicated than trying to sequencially pull the letters of the alphabet from a bag and ending up with Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet". The letters would not only have to produce coherent words, sentences and paragraphs... they would have to convey a sense of structure and include literary elements such as the 'plot'... meaning the placement of certain sentences would only make sense in a very particular place in the story... like I said the odds are rather insurmountable... its no wonder science chooses to ignore such an inconvenient concept...

If all the letters in the alphabet (which we assume are living creatures) where to spontaniously jump out of a bag, the odds are very low (the the point of zero) they would end up with Romeo and Juliet. However, if Romeo and Juliet was the optimized sequence of those letters for the survial of those letters, and they were given trillions of years to find that optimized sequence... then the odds begin to increase exponentially as the letters go through the process of adaptation.

As for science ignoring incovenient concepts... the scientists I know tend to focus on matters of science, which by definition come with some sort of scientific evidence. ID, by your admission, is incapable of producing scienctific evidence. What is there for science to ignore?

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=DarkReign]Exactly.

Joch, to even claim that you have the ability to interpret God and His message with absolute certainty is...well, kinda scary.
Where's my quote that would back up a reply of that nature? There isn't anything to be found in my posts that would allude to me claiming to have the ability to interpret God. How about exhibiting some integrity in your comments.




You are human, just like everyone else here. You make mistakes, just like everyone else here. You can read the same book, over and over for your whole life, and still miss some of the details, some of the message.
In this thread I've stated that I have self doubts, that I am acutely aware of my weaknesses and that I am merely a "sinner saved by grace". Any particular reason why you chose to make the above statement regarding me? I honestly don't have a clue.




You claim yourself to be almost near divinity, JJ. Thats fucking weird man!
And you came to that conclusion based on what quote of mine? It's gonna make you look rather "weird" if you can't find something to warrant that baseless charge.






You dont know shit about God. You only know what you were told by a book.
Aren't you the guy that read a whole 10 pages of the Bible and put it down because it was "boring"? Yet you argue with Christians as if you have an intimate understanding of God, Scripture and others knowledge of God. How is that possible?




You know, I dont have to aim this at you, sorry about that.
I don't mind, I'm here for discussion.








No one knows shit about God. Being a member of any Church does not make you any sort of authority on God, his teachings or intentions.
That includes everyone from the Pope to Billy Graham to Mother Theresa...
What little cred you had in this thread (rappers feel free to use that line) has just vanished.
And for what it's worth I'm not a "signed" member of a Church but I am a full fledged member of the Body of Christ.





To claim otherwise is a fucking sin in my book.
You have claimed ignorance of the Bible so for what it's worth your book is based on ignorance.






If God is truly as powerful (which I believe He is), if He is truly as divine and "above" as everyone thinks He is...then never claim to understand Him. Ever. Because you dont. And if you think this entity would take time out of his busy schedule to come down from on high for some lowly meat-eating, war-mongering pathetic excuse for intelligent life to enlighten them word for word full well knowing these talking monkeys would fuck it up, youre just ignorant. We are not special.
God says we (that includes you) are special, so special that he allowed his Son to die on the cross for us while we were yet sinners. Hmmm. Believe what you will but your beliefs are of no consequence to me or anyone else regarding our relationships with God.







Youre just as lost as the rest of us. No one is trying to make you believe anything but what you already do. What we are saying is, keep that thought to your God-damned selves Self-righteousness is dangerous business. Try being humble and admitting you dont know shit, but believe you are trying your hardest (which isnt always good enough).
I sense some serious paranoia regarding Christians throughout this post and this thread and I see that as a sign of an inner struggle. You've submitted quite a few posts since you stated 3 days ago that you were "bowing out of this thread". To me that's a indication of someone seeking out the truth. I suggest an earnest, personal, one on one talk between you and God (he hears you anyway). It may seem silly at first (I'm betting you could fill a notebook full of things that are sillier) but I'll go out on the proverbial limb and say that you'll find what you seeking.

[Phenomanul]

Right, because it is not possible to misinterpret an attribute such as "Majesty."

Hell, everyone knows "majesty" when they see it.


Google it. You're good for that. Or what? Are we just supposed to twiddle our thumbs and assume no one knows anything??? People know if something is majestic (splendid, resplendant, illuminating grandeur).... you get the idea.

[clambake]

On one hand, God let's his holy servants speak for him in church. On the other hand, he lets these same holy servants rape our children when were not looking. Yes Yes Yes your god does work in mysterious ways. I'm suppose to believe in a god that can't even keep his own house clean. That is some powerful stuff.

[smeagol]

On one hand, God let's his holy servants speak for him in church. On the other hand, he lets these same holy servants rape our children when were not looking. Yes Yes Yes your god does work in mysterious ways. I'm suppose to believe in a god that can't even keep his own house clean. That is some powerful stuff.
Men were created to posses free will. Free will makes men chose to be close to God of far away from Him. Even the so called "men of God" can sin. They are human.

Bottom line, saying priests sin does not negate God, as well as war and other calamities don't negate Him either.

Try again.

[Phenomanul]

I've already stated that I don't think high school science teachers should take a position either way. You, however, seem to think that not mentioned ID in a science class is tantamount to dismissing it, I apologize if I'm misinterpreting you.

I'm sorry if you feel dismissed because your idea isn't presented, but you admit to not having any evidence to back up your idea. You are just going to have to deal with it, plain and simple. Questions about theories in place are fine, and should come with the prsentation of theories. But you are the one fooling yourself if you think that ID is on the same level of Evolution as far as being a scientific theory goes, and you know better than to think that Evolution is just some wacky idea. Or maybe you don't know better... in which case there is nothing more to be said on the topic.

And yet you still misinterpret my concern...

ID only addresses the genesis of biological complexity.... it has as much evidence as any other theory out there... none. Can it even be empirically obtained??? The observations need to be addressed nevertheless... and not dismissed.

Replace Evolution with the word adaptation and that is all the evidence we do have... no where does the evidence supporting 'evolution' incorporate a chaotic unguided process.




Granted, not all high school teachers are very good at what they do and misconvey information. It's problem inherent in the structure of our school system - not a problem stemming from the lack of teaching ID in high school class rooms. So, of what relevence is it to this discussion?

You initially claimed high-school teachers being neutral was a solution... I have given you a personal example that they are as predilected to defend an all-evolutionary way of thinking above all else... and this is not relevant?




Yes, I do know it. By calling ID psuedo-science I mean it is exactly that. It's presented as a science yet you admit there is no possible way to present scientific evidence. That, by definition is FALSE SCIENCE.

For all those that clamor for empirical data... where is all this data supporting black matter, anti-matter (both concepts I actually believe in).... no, the element of science comes strictly from observations... emission and absorption of gamma-radiation... the bending of x-rays... odd gravitational pulls etc... but nothing that is subjectable to experimentation, only observation.... should I call it false science???



Science hasn't lost that ability. Maybe high school science teachers have lost that ability, but the concept of evolution is continually redefined and refined as science questions itself and finds evidence leading to a better explanation. And the case for evolution just keeps getting stronger as scientists do this - not weaker.

Again, evidence for adaptive speciation... gets stronger. Adaptive speciation cross-checks the parent genomes of species to determine whether or not phenotypic manifestations are embedded (dormant) in the parent copy... NO where has someone proved a mutation allowed a species to become more fit. Most experiments involving mutations, including the most famous ones for drosophilia flies are actually guided experiments trying to replicate was is supposedly an unguided process... it solves their riddle, but it is also inherently wrong. <--- again another reason, why access to the methods used must be provided before I can agree or disagree with anyones conclusions.



I've seen your calculation of the odds, and they aren't statistically valid. Each step in the evolutionary chain is a random walk, and your calculation vastly overestimates the odds against because it doesn't account for this.

It does whether you choose to see it or not is a different story... and actually, your next point agrees with the math...


Once you've won the lottery once, the odds of winning it a second time are equal to the odds of you winning it the first time.

But that's only becuase all the balls are returned to machine before every drawing, this essentially makes the odds of drawing any sequence identical... But since this isn't the case, the odds are strained... HENCE the use of the factorial.... which I used.


Your calculation seems to assume some instanious process in which we go from a couple specks of dust to a human being.

No, I was only calculating the odds of trying to build a simple 200 part system.... trying to create a human from scratch would be infintessimally more complex... but to address your point.

I was already being less conservative considering the world of chemistry imposes inescapable restrictions on the creation of super molecules like the very first strand of DNA....

First of all, the constituents involved all need to be 'left handed' molecules, from the bases to the sugar-phosphates...meaning any right-handed molecule floating around and caught by the growing chain would stop the chain's growth all-together... This means that since there is no known natural processes that can create a solution of all left-handed or all-right-handed bases... growth of a DNA chain in a solution of both left and right handed bases would be waging an uphill battle. Again, this is only for the creation of a 200-base strand... and consider that the more left-handed bases that were pulled out of solution would inherently mean that the odds of incorporating a right-handed base on the next step would be increasingly greater... try flipping 200 consecutive 'heads' with a normal coin... yeah. <--- and I like I said, I didn't even include this factor.

Second of all, any incremental addition of smaller molecules to the growing DNA molecule would need to overcome entropic barriers not observed anywhere in the natural world today... (in today's world this process is aided by proteins that stabilize the DNA molecule and allow for its replication... only then can the double helix be opened without risk of 'data' corruption)... These entropies are measureable with today's method's... and they are rather big... which is why in the natural world, 'enzymes' provide the required activation energy of all base incorporations such that the chain can grow...

All this says is that the odds I calculated should have been even smaller due to the torsional strains, and entropic instability that such a growing molecule would have to endure...

All of these observations are very real... the data is their very existence.



You are correct, no field should ever be dismissive of studies because they don't like the results. I agree 100%. Do you agree with it 100%? Science should not be dismissive of a study just because it comes from an IDer. However, don't confuse dismissing a study for lack of scientific merit with dismissing a study just because it came from an IDer. Scientists should give proper evaluation of studies that come along, whether it is 10 seconds or 10 years. As it turns out, so far they are mostly towards the 10 second end of the spectrum.

Here, we agree on something...




Are you equating ID, which you admit there is no scientific evidence for sans a time machine, with the scientific evidence for evolution? Does it then surprise you that you find some people dismissive?

For the record, I never have nor will I ever call you a sheep. I'll say it again - you should embrace your faith.

Explained above...




Maybe there is a definitional problem then. My definition of speciation is as follows:

The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=speciation)

There are many observed examples of this occurring. Maybe we are talking about something else though. Please provide a definition so we can be on the same page and talk about what you are referring to.

Again I will point to the example of canines, whose stored genetic wealth is so vast and active (as opposed to dormant - despite the dominance or recessiveness of a gene)...

Surely the big array of 'species' in this group proves speciation can occur right....?? actually all of the genetic content is passed along as one big book and different manfestations of the genome then present themselves in the phenotype... Dingoes, foxes, wolves, dogs, coyotes... belong to the same 'kind' despite drastic and dramatic changes to its phenotype and irregardless of whether we identify them as different species...




I still know how the clock work. I didn't "have" to infer that the clock arose by chance. This is not a solution set of by chance or by God. I can be comfortable NOT knowing. Because I don't know, that doesn't make me have to infer God or infer a chance process.

It seems the "problem" is your desire to demand answers outside of a study's intent. I say "problem" because it is a good problem. However because a study is unable to answer questions outside of its scope doesn't mean the study is flawed. Continue to search for your answers, the world needs people finding answers. I just ask that you bring forth your answers with a empirical basis.

Even so, the evolution from sundials to clocks to watches is a logical one and where we see evidence of this evolution is it not outside of the rhelm of reason to infer evolution. If the "Universe of Time" is trillions of years old, it is not absurd to believe there could have been tiny adaptations leading to the creation of new species of time keeping devices. That is a theory. It is backed up by logic and empirical evidence in the common design elements. It only gets us from sundial to watch. Never does it infer that the sundial came from a couple of specks of dust. Maybe some grand clockmaker put the first sundial in place which set forth the evolutionary chain... maybe he didn't. I don't have scientific evidence either way, so I need not take a position either way.

Get evolutionary science to claim that much and then we will have gotten somewhere... sadly they never will.



If all the letters in the alphabet (which we assume are living creatures) where to spontaniously jump out of a bag, the odds are very low (the the point of zero) they would end up with Romeo and Juliet. However, if Romeo and Juliet was the optimized sequence of those letters for the survial of those letters, and they were given trillions of years to find that optimized sequence... then the odds begin to increase exponentially as the letters go through the process of adaptation.

As for science ignoring incovenient concepts... the scientists I know tend to focus on matters of science, which by definition come with some sort of scientific evidence. ID, by your admission, is incapable of producing scienctific evidence. What is there for science to ignore?

NO NO NO.... I'm applying the concept to molecular genetics... which would pre-date any incorporation of adaptive mutations or the like... YOU can't mutate a genetic message (a sequence of highly structured base-pairs) which have yet to form....

And sadly 100-base chain cannot be added to other 100-base chains without the exclusive help of ribosomes, which themselves were created by a particular rRNA segment over 2000 base pairs long.... So there goes the theory that additive segments increase the odds of complex molecular formation...

Have you studied how codons are pulled out of the genome to create every biological system present in any and every organism??? The sequencing is highly crucial. Anyhow, all of this can be tested to provide 'blanks'... i.e. the lack of a process to negate what I've just explained... but sadly, your group hinges their faith on this 'yet-to-be-found' natural process as the genesis of molecular biology.... Again a field which has to inherently precede biology itself....

[scott]

And yet you still misinterpret my concern...

ID only addresses the genesis of biological complexity.... it has as much evidence as any other theory out there... none. Can it even be empirically obtained??? The observations need to be addressed nevertheless... and not dismissed.

Replace Evolution with the word adaptation and that is all the evidence we do have... no where does the evidence supporting 'evolution' incorporate a chaotic unguided process.

Natural selection is the guide - that is not an "unguided process". There is far more evidence on evolution than just for adaptation. If you don't want to accept it, that is your choice. With or without it, however, it doesn't lend any credibility to intelligent design. I've already said there would be nothing wrong with teaching intelligent design in a philosophy classroom. Why do you insist on wanting to teach something without any possible scientific evidence in a science class?



You initially claimed high-school teachers being neutral was a solution... I have given you a personal example that they are as predilected to defend an all-evolutionary way of thinking above all else... and this is not relevant?

You've provide this example as a case for teaching non-science in a science class. Making things worse is not a solution. Making sure teachers aren't mis-convaying information, is a solution.



For all those that clamor for empirical data... where is all this data supporting black matter, anti-matter (both concepts I actually believe in).... no, the element of science comes strictly from observations... emission and absorption of gamma-radiation... the bending of x-rays... odd gravitational pulls etc... but nothing that is subjectable to experimentation, only observation.... should I call it false science???

Empirical data, by definition, is based on observation. We have observed data supporting black matter and anti-matter. We have observed nothing to support ID. Sorry.



Again, evidence for adaptive speciation... gets stronger. Adaptive speciation cross-checks the parent genomes of species to determine whether or not phenotypic manifestations are embedded (dormant) in the parent copy... NO where has someone proved a mutation allowed a species to become more fit. Most experiments involving mutations, including the most famous ones for drosophilia flies are actually guided experiments trying to replicate was is supposedly an unguided process... it solves their riddle, but it is also inherently wrong. <--- again another reason, why access to the methods used must be provided before I can agree or disagree with anyones conclusions.

They are inherently wrong... because?

In any case, the scientific evidence for natural selection, speciation, and evolution are available in entire libraries. I'm not the right person to dispute this evidence with. You choose to not believe it, best wishes.


It does whether you choose to see it or not is a different story... and actually, your next point agrees with the math...

But that's only becuase all the balls are returned to machine before every drawing, this essentially makes the odds of drawing any sequence identical... But since this isn't the case, the odds are strained... HENCE the use of the factorial.... which I used.

Sorry, but no. The odds of the next step in evolution occuring are totally independent of all previous steps that have occurred. There is no straining of the odds. It is a pure random walk. You're calculations are vastly overstated. If you disagree and believe your odds hold true, then you should submit them for peer review in scientific journals.

However, I don't think your odds matter anyway, given the near infinate nature of the universe.


No, I was only calculating the odds of trying to build a simple 200 part system.... trying to create a human from scratch would be infintessimally more complex... but to address your point.

Already addressed above. It's a random walk.


I was already being less conservative considering the world of chemistry imposes inescapable restrictions on the creation of super molecules like the very first strand of DNA....

First of all, the constituents involved all need to be 'left handed' molecules, from the bases to the sugar-phosphates...meaning any right-handed molecule floating around and caught by the growing chain would stop the chain's growth all-together... This means that since there is no known natural processes that can create a solution of all left-handed or all-right-handed bases... growth of a DNA chain in a solution of both left and right handed bases would be waging an uphill battle. Again, this is only for the creation of a 200-base strand... and consider that the more left-handed bases that were pulled out of solution would inherently mean that the odds of incorporating a right-handed base on the next step would be increasingly greater... try flipping 200 consecutive 'heads' with a normal coin... yeah. <--- and I like I said, I didn't even include this factor.

Second of all, any incremental addition of smaller molecules to the growing DNA molecule would need to overcome entropic barriers not observed anywhere in the natural world today... (in today's world this process is aided by proteins that stabilize the DNA molecule and allow for its replication... only then can the double helix be opened without risk of 'data' corruption)... These entropies are measureable with today's method's... and they are rather big... which is why in the natural world, 'enzymes' provide the required activation energy of all base incorporations such that the chain can grow...

All this says is that the odds I calculated should have been even smaller due to the torsional strains, and entropic instability that such a growing molecule would have to endure...

All of these observations are very real... the data is their very existence.

I'm not going to comment on this other than to repeat: if you believe in your odds calculations, you should submit them for peer review.



Again I will point to the example of canines, whose stored genetic wealth is so vast and active (as opposed to dormant - despite the dominance or recessiveness of a gene)...

Surely the big array of 'species' in this group proves speciation can occur right....?? actually all of the genetic content is passed along as one big book and different manfestations of the genome then present themselves in the phenotype... Dingoes, foxes, wolves, dogs, coyotes... belong to the same 'kind' despite drastic and dramatic changes to its phenotype and irregardless of whether we identify them as different species...

You never provided your definition of speciation, so I don't know how to respond. Animal husbandry is an example of arfitical speciation - but we have observed natural speciation.





Get evolutionary science to claim that much and then we will have gotten somewhere... sadly they never will.

Evolutionary science in and of itself doesn't make claims either way as to the original clockmaker. There are evolutionary scientists who believe God set everything in motion, there are some who believe everything occured by chance, and there are some who (like me) take the "I don't know and that's okay for now" stance. If you have a problem with certain Evolutionary Scientists, you should take it up with them.


NO NO NO.... I'm applying the concept to molecular genetics... which would pre-date any incorporation of adaptive mutations or the like... YOU can't mutate a genetic message (a sequence of highly structured base-pairs) which have yet to form....

And sadly 100-base chain cannot be added to other 100-base chains without the exclusive help of ribosomes, which themselves were created by a particular rRNA segment over 2000 base pairs long.... So there goes the theory that additive segments increase the odds of complex molecular formation...

Have you studied how codons are pulled out of the genome to create every biological system present in any and every organism??? The sequencing is highly crucial. Anyhow, all of this can be tested to provide 'blanks'... i.e. the lack of a process to negate what I've just explained... but sadly, your group hinges their faith on this 'yet-to-be-found' natural process as the genesis of molecular biology.... Again a field which has to inherently precede biology itself....

First of all, what is "my group"?

Second, I hinge my faith for the origin of life on nothing. I've said it several times - I don't know the answer, and I'm not inclined to have a position either way on the origin of the universe.

I don't want this to become a debate on evolution. Save it for someone who cares more than I do. I'm soley focused on keeping that which has no evidence (ID, in this case) out of a science class, where evidence is the foundation. You have problems with evolution, fine. I'll humor you and say that evolution is a load of crap. That doesn't mean we should teach ID instead, but rather we should stop teaching evolution. As it turns out, the bulk of the scientific community happens to disagree that evolution is crap. Either way, you still don't have a case for teaching ID in a science class.

[Phenomanul]

These are getting longer and longer.... geez.


Natural selection is the guide - that is not an "unguided process". There is far more evidence on evolution than just for adaptation. If you don't want to accept it, that is your choice. With or without it, however, it doesn't lend any credibility to intelligent design. I've already said there would be nothing wrong with teaching intelligent design in a philosophy classroom. Why do you insist on wanting to teach something without any possible scientific evidence in a science class?

Natural selection is the effect not the cause.... the 'unguided process' I'm referring to is the theory's dependence on random mutation to bring about said selection... the means in your case are 'random' genetic alterations....




You've provide this example as a case for teaching non-science in a science class. Making things worse is not a solution. Making sure teachers aren't mis-conveying information, is a solution.

How do you make sure those teachers don't misconvey the information if they never have been exposed to the concerns IDers have brought to the table to begin with.

Weeding us out by 'neutral silence' is a very good approach... I see. Kind of reminds me of some fascist tactics... Which is why North Koreans believe, we started WWI, WWII, and The Korean War... and why we have been made out to be some type of blood-thirsty war proliferating nation... After two generations of teaching lies the regime has successfully been able to portray the U.S. as the great enemy.... they are breeding hate. <--- Granted this is an extreme... but the tactic is the same... teach impartially to get the masses to believe what you want.

It's the very opposite of what Darwinists had to fight through in order to get introduced in the public school curriculum... They just got a little carried away, went completely in the other direction and assumed science was the 'catch-all' tool to answer all their questions... forever banishing the question of origins...



Empirical data, by definition, is based on observation. We have observed data supporting black matter and anti-matter. We have observed nothing to support ID. Sorry.

The entropies associated with the fabrication of:
DNA
RNA
all 20 amino acids
hemoglobin
myoglobin
chlorophyll A
chlorophyll C
xanthocyanin

The two most important ones being the energies associated with DNA and RNA... those entropic energies have yet to be surpassed by any known natural process.... and yet those two molecules alone account for the coded creation of all other biological molecules... I don't know how these measured energies can be interpreted as something other than data... Oh that's right... there is a term for this data... they choose to call it psuedo-science...




They are inherently wrong... because?

What, you don't see the inherent flaw in drosophilia experiments???

I've been reading up on them since the mid-90's

They basically handpick the results to be whatever they choose them to be... the mutations are supposed to be random... random mutations are almost always deleterious. So in essence by targeting the sex-cells of these flies with concentrated mutagens not seen anywhere in the natural world... they are interfering with a supposedly natural process. They do this to hundreds of thousands of sex cells to get a viable fly and then proceed to label this fly generation 2.... those flies are subjected to the same selective, and interfering procedures before a generation 3 fly is born... we have done this to the drosophilia fly repeatedly to obtain generation 36 or 37 (I don't remember what the running count is -- oh yeah, someone is making money by selling the later generations) and where said generation is not interfertile with the original fly.... Sadly they base this infertility on the fly's decision not to copulate with the original fly... instead of trying to fertilize the sex cells directly (I mean, afterall we've been interfereing all along, but not in this instance)... They then use that observation to claim a new species has finally been created in the laboratory... And with all due respect, they still have drosophilia flies in their midst... the only difference is that they've managed to make it sexually unattractive to the original fly so that they would never mate in the wild...

People are selective maters too.... does that one inference allow us to claim that two people who choose not to mate are not interfertile??? But let's not talk about people as we don't usually or consciously think about the reproductive fitness of our mates... and we're a whole different animal altogether...



In any case, the scientific evidence for natural selection, speciation, and evolution are available in entire libraries. I'm not the right person to dispute this evidence with. You choose to not believe it, best wishes.

I do believe most of it... I just happen to believe it's a process guided by GOD and not by purposeless chance.



Sorry, but no. The odds of the next step in evolution occuring are totally independent of all previous steps that have occurred.

Again you are confounding the concepts with those of mutating species.... I'm talking about building a molecule, specifically DNA, not a more reproductively fit species.... Besides, your juxtaposed concept here is still erred.

Example: A female macaw species develops a the ability to lay twice the amount of healthy eggs relative to the norm of that species... It's a successful evolutionary change. Successive generations are less likely to revert to a genome that produces less eggs. It is therefore dependent on the historical context of that species' evolutionary path. Not independent.

Some changes are independent some are not... your comment was rather absolute when in fact there are more factors than meet the eye...



There is no straining of the odds. It is a pure random walk. You're calculations are vastly overstated. If you disagree and believe your odds hold true, then you should submit them for peer review in scientific journals.

However, I don't think your odds matter anyway, given the near infinite nature of the universe.

Already addressed above. It's a random walk.

Purely speculative on your part to declare the formation of DNA as a random walk... but you are only fortifying my calculation... not hurting it. As commented in my previous post, DNA is exclusively comprised of 'left-handed' molecules, the requirement is irrefutable. Additionally, the double helical nature of DNA which finally 'stabilizes' the torsional strains of the singular backbone are the work of highly specialized proteins not the work of a haphazard accident... you could wait trillions of years and a lonely strand of DNA would never twist on its own to form that configuration... sadly, it too requires a huge deal of entropic energy. All measurable amounts really... no magic there....




I'm not going to comment on this other than to repeat: if you believe in your odds calculations, you should submit them for peer review.

Others have done this before me, to no avail... these studies get swept under the rug by smug scientists who don't want to face the fact that maybe there is something more to this picture than they originally thought...




You never provided your definition of speciation, so I don't know how to respond. Animal husbandry is an example of arfitical speciation - but we have observed natural speciation.

Again, I will repeat:

I do believe in most of data provided by evolutionary experiments... I just happen to believe that 'evolution' is a process guided by GOD and not by purposeless chance.

In this sense, that's why I don't use the term evolution as loosely as others would... at it's core the secular definition of evolution implies a random selectiveness to genetic alterations. Whereas I believe we are in fact observing a guided process.

^^^ And don't confuse this for what I want taught in schools...
This is my personal belief drawn from the concerns regarding origins. And introduces a model that allows for the gap between origins and adaptive speciation to be bridged. That the model in my view is GOD driven, is irrelevant to the fact that I feel the concerns need to be taught...

Since 'science' cannot produce data to disprove the notion that GOD provided the biological template behind genetics... I will wait 'till they can. Since I know this won't happen, no one can disprove that what I believe is wrong.




Evolutionary science in and of itself doesn't make claims either way as to the original clockmaker. There are evolutionary scientists who believe God set everything in motion, there are some who believe everything occured by chance, and there are some who (like me) take the "I don't know and that's okay for now" stance. If you have a problem with certain Evolutionary Scientists, you should take it up with them.

Addressed above.



First of all, what is "my group"?

Second, I hinge my faith for the origin of life on nothing. I've said it several times - I don't know the answer, and I'm not inclined to have a position either way on the origin of the universe.

I don't want this to become a debate on evolution. Save it for someone who cares more than I do. I'm soley focused on keeping that which has no evidence (ID, in this case) out of a science class, where evidence is the foundation. You have problems with evolution, fine. I'll humor you and say that evolution is a load of crap. That doesn't mean we should teach ID instead, but rather we should stop teaching evolution. As it turns out, the bulk of the scientific community happens to disagree that evolution is crap. Either way, you still don't have a case for teaching ID in a science class.

Teaching ID means that one is acknowledging that the evolutionary model is missing step 1.... everything from step 1 to step 1,000,000,000 can be accounted for and explained... the failure to explain step 1 however opens the door for a question to be asked... ID simply requests that the question be asked... How did a purly inorganic world, give rise to the molecule that would be the basis of all biological organisms???

Answering the question itself is not a necessary requirement. Like Yonivore once stated, Aliens could be the explanation behind DNA....

[boutons_]

While the minds of the Creationists/IDers remains closed and ignorant, science marches forward.

===============

Source: University of Chicago Press Journals

Posted: May 16, 2006


Small Molecule Interactions Were Central To The Origin Of Life

In an important new paper forthcoming in the June issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology, Robert Shapiro (New York University) argues against the widely held theory that the origin of life began with the spontaneous appearance of a large, replicating molecule such as RNA. Instead, Shapiro raises an alternative that does not depend on a "stupendously improbable accident," presenting the more plausible idea that life began within a mixture of simple organic molecules, multiplied through catalyzed reaction cycles and an external source of available energy.
"The diversity of organic chemistry, with its harvest of competing, interconnected reactions, becomes an asset rather than a liability in the case of the energy-driven system," explains Shapiro. "The existence of side reaction paths can provide the network with the capacity of reacting to circumstances."

Shapiro outlines how replicator theories, though they have been supported by "prebiotic" syntheses carried out by chemists using modern apparatus and purified reagents, are highly unlikely. The creation of a molecule that can self-replicate requires the combination of diverse chemicals in a long sequence of reactions in a specific order, interspersed by complicated separations, purifications, and changes in locale.

Instead, Shapiro introduces the idea of a "driver" reaction, linked to a free energy source, that helps convert an unorganized mixture into a organized, self-regulated metabolic network.

"If we wish a more plausible origin of life, then we must work with the assumption that life began, somehow, among one of the mixtures of simple organic molecules that are produced by abiotic processes," writes Shapiro. "Nature will be instructing us, rather than we attempting to impose our schemes onto it."

Reference: Robert Shapiro "Small Molecule Interactions Were Central to the Origin of Life." The Quarterly Review of Biology, June 2006.

[Mr. Peabody]

Google it. You're good for that. Or what? Are we just supposed to twiddle our thumbs and assume no one knows anything???

No, but we are supposed to assume that our knowledge is fallible.


His attributes are described in HIS Word.... If a message contradicts the very essence of these attributes... then it is not from GOD... <--- and these attributes don't lend themselves to misinterpretation... These attributes include Holiniess, Majesty, Truth, Omniscience, Omnipresence, All-Powerful Sovereignty, HE is the very manifestation of LOVE...

You said yourself that if a message is not holy, truthful, majestic, etc. it is not from God. My question is how do you know if a message is holy, etc., unless you have first interpreted that message by means of your admittedly limited, fallible understanding?

[DarkReign]

Aren't you the guy that read a whole 10 pages of the Bible and put it down because it was "boring"? Yet you argue with Christians as if you have an intimate understanding of God, Scripture and others knowledge of God. How is that possible?

I have no intimate understanding of God. Never claimed I did. You claim you do, which is impossible. What? Because you read a book supposedly about God, you know more than me now?


That includes everyone from the Pope to Billy Graham to Mother Theresa...
What little cred you had in this thread (rappers feel free to use that line) has just vanished.
And for what it's worth I'm not a "signed" member of a Church but I am a full fledged member of the Body of Christ.

You telling me how much "cred" I have is laughable, JJ. Like I care what a Bible-thumping, religious zealot thinks of my "cred". In other parts of the world (yup, there are more places than this), youd be jailed for heretical behavior by other like-minded religious zealots....who just so happened to read a book about God not named the Holy Bible.

No, those individuals know nothing more or less about God than me. Sorry, they are just leaders/followers of The Popular Guess. Congratulations on conforming to the bullshit.

Baaaaa...

[Mr. Peabody]

No one knows shit about God. Being a member of any Church does not make you any sort of authority on God, his teachings or intentions.



That includes everyone from the Pope to Billy Graham to Mother Theresa...
What little cred you had in this thread (rappers feel free to use that line) has just vanished.


You actually believe that the Pope and Billy Graham are authorities on God? That is a scary thought. Those people don't know any more about God than you or I do. We are all getting our information from the same book, why are they any more of an authority than we are?

As for Mother Theresa, I applaud her altruism, and while it may make her an authority on being a good person, it certainly does not make her an authority on God.

What would she know about God that we don't? It's all in the Bible.

[2centsworth]

You actually believe that the Pope and Billy Graham are authorities on God? That is a scary thought. Those people don't know any more about God than you or I do. We are all getting our information from the same book, why are they any more of an authority than we are?

As for Mother Theresa, I applaud her altruism, and while it may make her an authority on being a good person, it certainly does not make her an authority on God.

What would she know about God that we don't? It's all in the Bible.

the more you read and study the bible the more insight you will have into what God wants. However, knowing and doing are two different thing.

[clambake]

I'll try again. God (or the invisible man in the sky) is responsible for everything and responsible for nothing. This is the biggest money making con job on earth. How can people be so influenced by words on paper? People make mistakes? Their only human? Well, I happen to be human and I say slaughter all the aholes that rape our children. I say slaughter all the aholes that attempt to cover up this "human mistake". Apparently your god doesn't seem to care.

[Mr. Peabody]

How can people be so influenced by words on paper? People make mistakes? Their only human?

We are all influenced by words on paper. The differences arise when we disagree over which papers to believe.

[Mr. Peabody]

I'll try again. God (or the invisible man in the sky) is responsible for everything and responsible for nothing. This is the biggest money making con job on earth.

I don't know that anyone is saying God is responsible for everything and responsible for nothing, as it is an absurd statement.

I suppose it is possible for people to say that God could be responsible for the creation of the universe, but not responsible for the individual actions of man or acts of nature.

[Phenomanul]

While the minds of the Creationists/IDers remains closed and ignorant, science marches forward.

===============

Source: University of Chicago Press Journals

Posted: May 16, 2006


Small Molecule Interactions Were Central To The Origin Of Life

In an important new paper forthcoming in the June issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology, Robert Shapiro (New York University) argues against the widely held theory that the origin of life began with the spontaneous appearance of a large, replicating molecule such as RNA. Instead, Shapiro raises an alternative that does not depend on a "stupendously improbable accident," presenting the more plausible idea that life began within a mixture of simple organic molecules, multiplied through catalyzed reaction cycles and an external source of available energy.
"The diversity of organic chemistry, with its harvest of competing, interconnected reactions, becomes an asset rather than a liability in the case of the energy-driven system," explains Shapiro. "The existence of side reaction paths can provide the network with the capacity of reacting to circumstances."

Shapiro outlines how replicator theories, though they have been supported by "prebiotic" syntheses carried out by chemists using modern apparatus and purified reagents, are highly unlikely. The creation of a molecule that can self-replicate requires the combination of diverse chemicals in a long sequence of reactions in a specific order, interspersed by complicated separations, purifications, and changes in locale.

Instead, Shapiro introduces the idea of a "driver" reaction, linked to a free energy source, that helps convert an unorganized mixture into a organized, self-regulated metabolic network.

"If we wish a more plausible origin of life, then we must work with the assumption that life began, somehow, among one of the mixtures of simple organic molecules that are produced by abiotic processes," writes Shapiro. "Nature will be instructing us, rather than we attempting to impose our schemes onto it."

Reference: Robert Shapiro "Small Molecule Interactions Were Central to the Origin of Life." The Quarterly Review of Biology, June 2006.

This theory or approach, though a step in the right direction... still hinges on processes not observed anywhere in the natural world.... all the more reason to raise the question on origins... this guy like myself is trying to find out. So don't give me your typical highly opinionated and unsubstatiated, outburst of lies -- 'while the minds of the Creationists/IDers remains closed and ignorant, science marches forward' :rolleyes please...

Either way, if one assumes that there were molecules that pre-dated DNA or RNA... we would have to conclusively show how these missing 'abiotic' molecules would form? We would also have to explain why we don't see their remnants today? This article is much ado about nothing.... but thank you for posting an article that describes in some depth some of the experiments being conducted by the scientific community on the subject of origins.... Note how much tampering is required... In the end, all it shows is that we can't even create a stable non-reverting broth of amino acids...

[Phenomanul]

No, but we are supposed to assume that our knowledge is fallible.

Humans are fallible indeed.... but since when were we speaking in complete absolutes... Hey, if we don't know anything why bother asking??? Why bother discussing???



You said yourself that if a message is not holy, truthful, majestic, etc. it is not from God. My question is how do you know if a message is holy, etc., unless you have first interpreted that message by means of your admittedly limited, fallible understanding?

For the umpteenth time... we are being guided by the will of the Holy Spirit. I either choose to follow or I don't... The message is usually on a personal level, or is simply a strenghtening of my spirit to prevent a stumbling fall into temptation's grip... you act as if I'm being instructed to give the world a message which is beyond me... I told you I never claimed to be a profet. Which is why those claiming ill-will on their brothers, in the name of GOD are crazy... ill-will is not harbored by the true follower of Christ. Yes, we may have our enemies but we are also told that GOD will take care of them for us... we should never take GOD's justice in our own hands.

Again, this is all in the Bible... which I believe to be true.

[scott]

^^^ And don't confuse this for what I want taught in schools...
This is my personal belief drawn from the concerns regarding origins. And introduces a model that allows for the gap between origins and adaptive speciation to be bridged. That the model in my view is GOD driven, is irrelevant to the fact that I feel the concerns need to be taught...

What is it you want taught in schools then? Maybe I'm just confused. I've already acknowledged that concerns should be taught. That doesn't mean ID should be taught? Do you want ID taught in science classes or not?


Teaching ID means that one is acknowledging that the evolutionary model is missing step 1.... everything from step 1 to step 1,000,000,000 can be accounted for and explained... the failure to explain step 1 however opens the door for a question to be asked... ID simply requests that the question be asked... How did a purly inorganic world, give rise to the molecule that would be the basis of all biological organisms???

I agree, the question should be asked... I disagree with you, however, that ID "simply request that the question be asked"... ID proposes an answer... that is more than a simple request that a question be asked.

Have you ignored throughout this post where I encouraged people who believe in ID to continue on with their research and academic pursuits? All I've asked is that an admittedly non-scientific theory be kept out of science classrooms. You have yet to answer my question... I'll ask for the third time:

What is wrong with wanting to keeping theories out of science classrooms unless there is scientific evidence to validate them?

[jochhejaam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
No one knows shit about God. Being a member of any Church does not make you any sort of authority on God, his teachings or intentions.





Quote:
Originally Posted by jochhejaam
That includes everyone from the Pope to Billy Graham to Mother Theresa...
What little cred you had in this thread (rappers feel free to use that line) has just vanished.




You actually believe that the Pope and Billy Graham are authorities on God? That is a scary thought. Those people don't know any more about God than you or I do. We are all getting our information from the same book, why are they any more of an authority than we are?

As for Mother Theresa, I applaud her altruism, and while it may make her an authority on being a good person, it certainly does not make her an authority on God.

What would she know about God that we don't? It's all in the Bible.

Peabody!?! I realize that DR's Method of Operation is to grossly exaggerate the content of a post to the point where it's almost impossible to decipher who or what he's replying to but "et tu brute"?

Here's a summary;

-DR said "no one knows shit about God"

- I responded with "even the Pope, Billy Graham and Mother Theresa"?

And your response to that exchange was "You actually believe that the Pope and Billy Graham are authorities on God"?

Where was it implied that any of them was an authority?

[smeagol]

I don't know that anyone is saying God is responsible for everything and responsible for nothing, as it is an absurd statement.

I suppose it is possible for people to say that God could be responsible for the creation of the universe, but not responsible for the individual actions of man or acts of nature.
clamdude . . . even Mr P gets it

[Guru of Nothing]

Humans are fallible indeed.... but since when were we speaking in complete absolutes... Hey, if we don't know anything why bother asking??? Why bother discussing???




For the umpteenth time... we are being guided by the will of the Holy Spirit. I either choose to follow or I don't... The message is usually on a personal level, or is simply a strenghtening of my spirit to prevent a stumbling fall into temptation's grip... you act as if I'm being instructed to give the world a message which is beyond me... I told you I never claimed to be a profet. Which is why those claiming ill-will on their brothers, in the name of GOD are crazy... ill-will is not harbored by the true follower of Christ. Yes, we may have our enemies but we are also told that GOD will take care of them for us... we should never take GOD's justice in our own hands.

Weird, you refererence the Holy Spirit and God, but not Jesus, in your lengthy paragraph.

Let's agree not to draw conclusions, except to say it's complicated.

[Phenomanul]

Weird, you refererence the Holy Spirit and God, but not Jesus, in your lengthy paragraph.

Let's agree not to draw conclusions, except to say it's complicated.


Humans are fallible indeed.... but since when were we speaking in complete absolutes... Hey, if we don't know anything why bother asking??? Why bother discussing???

For the umpteenth time... we are being guided by the will of the Holy Spirit. I either choose to follow or I don't... The message is usually on a personal level, or is simply a strenghtening of my spirit to prevent a stumbling fall into temptation's grip... you act as if I'm being instructed to give the world a message which is beyond me... I told you I never claimed to be a profet. Which is why those claiming ill-will on their brothers, in the name of GOD are crazy... ill-will is not harbored by the true follower of Christ. Yes, we may have our enemies but we are also told that GOD will take care of them for us... we should never take GOD's justice in our own hands.


He's there.

[Phenomanul]

What is it you want taught in schools then? Maybe I'm just confused. I've already acknowledged that concerns should be taught. That doesn't mean ID should be taught? Do you want ID taught in science classes or not?



I agree, the question should be asked... I disagree with you, however, that ID "simply request that the question be asked"... ID proposes an answer... that is more than a simple request that a question be asked.

Have you ignored throughout this post where I encouraged people who believe in ID to continue on with their research and academic pursuits? All I've asked is that an admittedly non-scientific theory be kept out of science classrooms. You have yet to answer my question... I'll ask for the third time:

What is wrong with wanting to keeping theories out of science classrooms unless there is scientific evidence to validate them?

You are mistaken, ID does not answer the question... Creationism does. That is the difference between the two movements and also why the former is classified as a scientific movement while the latter is classified as a theistic one...

Again, ID forces the student to question the inconsistencies of the evolutionary model at point zero due to the numerous hurdles posed by the 'origin of life' issue and how they relate to the genesis of any biological progression model... including you guessed it... evolution. Specifically, that without DNA, the evolutionary model has no substance to work with... and essentially can't begin. Therefore, this concern must be addressed before telling the students to accept a model that describes our natural world... while leaving out the part where man is yet to understand (and cannot prove) how said model began. Logically, the same teacher that exposes them to 'evolution' would have to expose them to this conundrum. Now, why is that so hard to understand???

True, there is no 'first-hand' evidence available for origins... Since no one alive was there to gather data... We therefore have to seek out answers based on observations of how the natural world functions around us... Enter fields such as Chemistry and Molecular Biology...

The study of chemical reactions today allows us to quantify the entropic values for the reactions that produce DNA. More importantly we realize that the lack of required enzymes in the earliest 'chemical broth' would pose an even greater hurdle and hamper the kinetics of said formation... DNA replication alone requires about 30 different proteins and the translation process another 90... WOW!!! with a capital W. As I said earlier... this is quantifiable, and reproducible scientific data... stemming from scientific observation.

The odds for the formation of large DNA strands without the help of said enzymes or enzyme altered concentrations is for all intents and purposes zero. More specifically, the probability of success for the formation of a growing polypeptide chain is a function of the number of bases required for the requested DNA or RNA strand.

And you are also mistaken that the absence of 'first-hand' data dictates that a concept cannot be taught in a science classroom. No one has seen the core of the earth, we can only infer what lies at the center of our planet based on observations of earth's magnetic field (i.e. 'second-hand' data)... The same was true for the other concepts I mentioned in the earlier post (dark-matter). We have 'second-hand' data for dark-matter that is inferred from gravitational pulls on other celestial bodies and from rotational inconsistencies observed for certain galaxies, not from 'first-hand' data... And yet, we teach those concepts in school... No one raises hell about it either...

Also, a theory does not have to provide the answers it seeks out before it is classified as science... in fact, the concept of anti-matter is the subject of much study and yet many consider the search for proof in said field to be speculative in nature while others classify the field as pure 'science fiction'...

Somehow, ID is relegated into having to provide 'first-hand' data when everyone knows it cannot be provided. What I'm getting at is that the data IDers do have is 'second-hand' data... but that in this case we are being told that the data isn't enough... Many also question how a field which bases its entire platform on trying to decipher the issue of origins, can even be a field. To that, I point to the anti-matter analogy. Scientific proponents wanting to discredit the theory of Intelligent Design can't have it both ways.

The bigger problem and essentially the core of this great controversy (boutons_ alludes to it all the time) is that the ID movement is seen as the platform for Creationists... when by all practical definitions they are not the same thing. This perspective is unfair and dismissive... and goes completely against the scientific ideals and principles established for all fields of study. Science is a tool that aids in the search for truth, and helps us describe our natural world... not one that exists to prove or disprove the existence of GOD... or for that matter dispel the beliefs of the world's religions. That was never the intent... And yet many people have placed their whole-hearted faith on science alone... Ironic isn't it???

[Buddy Holly]

So 2000 years ago, 12 ignorant jewish fishermen and their followers invented a story that is believed by billions of people today.

Yeah, right . . .

:lol :lol

Really, that's how the bible came to be?

It's years and years of man's simple point of view and ways to control the gulible minds of humans.

[Buddy Holly]

Show me another example in history of a book of fiction that is believed to be true by billions of people.

Why by billions?

Look at scientology.

Look at those geeks who are so into Star Trek and Star Wars. That's religion in its simpliest form.

[Mr. Peabody]

Peabody!?! I realize that DR's Method of Operation is to grossly exaggerate the content of a post to the point where it's almost impossible to decipher who or what he's replying to but "et tu brute"?

Here's a summary;

-DR said "no one knows shit about God"

- I responded with "even the Pope, Billy Graham and Mother Theresa"?

And your response to that exchange was "You actually believe that the Pope and Billy Graham are authorities on God"?

Where was it implied that any of them was an authority?

Read DR's statement again


No one knows shit about God. Being a member of any Church does not make you any sort of authority on God, his teachings or intentions.

Your reply


That includes everyone from the Pope to Billy Graham to Mother Theresa...
What little cred you had in this thread (rappers feel free to use that line) has just vanished.

At least read the thread before calling me out and accusing me of exxagerating facts.

[Darrin]

How can anyone believe an English translation of a Hebrew book that is a compilation of stories passed down from word of mouth for a generation before they were put down on paper?

[2centsworth]

How can anyone believe an English translation of a Hebrew book that is a compilation of stories passed down from word of mouth for a generation before they were put down on paper?
first manuscript of the new testament dates back to 30-60 years after Christ.

There are also more original manuscripts than any other book including Illiad. There are something like 24,000 original manuscripts compared to 700 or so for the Illiad.

Plus, researchers have found that all copies of the bible say pretty much the same thing as the original manuscripts.

[Darrin]

first manuscript of the new testament dates back to 30-60 years after Christ.

There are also more original manuscripts than any other book including Illiad. There are something like 24,000 original manuscripts compared to 700 or so for the Illiad.

Plus, researchers have found that all copies of the bible say pretty much the same thing as the original manuscripts.

That doesn't cover the "word-of-mouth" thing.

[Extra Stout]

How can anyone believe an English translation of a Hebrew book that is a compilation of stories passed down from word of mouth for a generation before they were put down on paper?
You're a little confused there.

NT is Koine Greek. Its books were written either by eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry or to students under those eyewitnesses. Even to a nonbeliever, its documentary evidence is at least as reliable as any other work of antiquity, and in most cases, far more so. A nonbeliever may choose to discount the supernatural aspects of the books.

OT is Hebrew. Its books were written down as much as hundreds of years after the occurences they describe. They were passed down by oral tradition until that time.

[jochhejaam]

Read DR's statement again... At least read the thread before calling me out and accusing me of exxagerating facts.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DR

No one knows shit about God. Being a member of any Church does not make you any sort of authority on God, his teachings or intentions.





Quote:
Originally Posted by jj

That includes everyone from the Pope to Billy Graham to Mother Theresa...
What little cred you had in this thread (rappers feel free to use that line) has just vanished.

Unless you agree with DR that no one knows shit about God including the Pope, Billy Graham and Mother Theresa then you totally misunderstood what I was responding to in his post.

In the future pay close attention to what's bolded (or don't) and don't switch what I bolded to fit your misunderstanding.

The call out stands.

[rascal]

Humans are fallible indeed.... but since when were we speaking in complete absolutes... Hey, if we don't know anything why bother asking??? Why bother discussing???




For the umpteenth time... we are being guided by the will of the Holy Spirit. I either choose to follow or I don't... The message is usually on a personal level, or is simply a strenghtening of my spirit to prevent a stumbling fall into temptation's grip... you act as if I'm being instructed to give the world a message which is beyond me... I told you I never claimed to be a profet. Which is why those claiming ill-will on their brothers, in the name of GOD are crazy... ill-will is not harbored by the true follower of Christ. Yes, we may have our enemies but we are also told that GOD will take care of them for us... we should never take GOD's justice in our own hands.

Again, this is all in the Bible... which I believe to be true.


Great post. I totally agree.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Has anyone said yes to the original question?

[Condemned 2 HelLA]

Can anyone quote EXACTLY where in the bible that dinosaurs, NOT beasts, are mentioned?
And can someone LOGICALLY explain the difference between religion and cults?

[Guru of Nothing]

And can someone LOGICALLY explain the difference between religion and cults?

Beyond popularity?

Seriously - cults are founded upon greed and insanity. Religions are more in tune to man's intuitive grasp that a greater power exists, until greed and insanity take control.

Does that answer your question? Best I can do this time of the morning.

[Condemned 2 HelLA]

So ultimately, they are both one and the same?

[Gerryatrics]

Can anyone quote EXACTLY where in the bible that dinosaurs, NOT beasts, are mentioned?
And can someone LOGICALLY explain the difference between religion and cults?

Not sure where the question comes from, but just to play... God's Advocate?

Job 40: Behemoth was a Apatosaurus. Job 41: Leviathan was a Plesiosaurus (not actually a dinosaur, but close enough).

[Condemned 2 HelLA]

Job 40: Behemoth was a Apatosaurus. Job 41: Leviathan was a Plesiosaurus (not actually a dinosaur, but close enough).

Nope.
Behemoth was an elephant.
Leviathan was a whale.

[Gerryatrics]

Nope.
Behemoth was an elephant.
Leviathan was a whale.

Were they? Are you sure? Were you there? Because there's quite a debate among historians and theologians as to what exactly they represent. Were they Spiritual allegory? A Water Buffalo and Crocodile? Symbols of Good and Evil? The results of a bad Hashish trip? That's the point. We weren't there, we don't know. That's why it's called Faith. Any attempts to cast Biblical accounts as solid fact are as futile as attempts to cast the entire Bible as a fairytale book. We just don't know.

(By the way, Whale is a interpretation of the modern Hebrew word Leviathan, not a description of the animal mentioned in Job. In ancient Hebrew it meant Coiled or Twisted.)

[Condemned 2 HelLA]

Just looked it up in the King James to check the accuracy of the books that you made mention of.
Check for yourself. You'll probably find the same thing I did.

[Gerryatrics]

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.


1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?

2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?

3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?

4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?

5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?

6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?

7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?

8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.

9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?

10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.

12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.

13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?

14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.

15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.

16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.

17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.

18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.

19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.

23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.

24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.

25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.

26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.

27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.

28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.

29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.

30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.

31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.

32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.

33 Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.

34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

I usually use the NKJV or NIV translations, but here's the KJV translation, now what was it you wanted to point out?

[Condemned 2 HelLA]

Again, where is the mention of dinosaurs?
I'm not seeing it.
:)

[Gerryatrics]

Do you expect the author of Job to call creatures by names invented in the 19th century? I would point out that elephants do not have a "tail like a cedar". Also whales do not usually have "teeth" that "are terrible round about", "scales", smoking "nostrils" or a "neck". All that said, I personally have no idea what these creatures described in the book of Job were, if they were creatures at all. I was just pointing out that they could possibly describe dinosaurs (or a dinosaur and an aquatic reptile).

[scott]

You are mistaken, ID does not answer the question... Creationism does. That is the difference between the two movements and also why the former is classified as a scientific movement while the latter is classified as a theistic one...

Again, ID forces the student to question the inconsistencies of the evolutionary model at point zero due to the numerous hurdles posed by the 'origin of life' issue and how they relate to the genesis of any biological progression model... including you guessed it... evolution. Specifically, that without DNA, the evolutionary model has no substance to work with... and essentially can't begin. Therefore, this concern must be addressed before telling the students to accept a model that describes our natural world... while leaving out the part where man is yet to understand (and cannot prove) how said model began. Logically, the same teacher that exposes them to 'evolution' would have to expose them to this conundrum. Now, why is that so hard to understand???

I won't use big bold letters, but BS. ID simply doesn't "ask questions" it proposes a theory for the origins of the universe/life, albeit a vague one (yet IDers must think non-IDers are stupid to not see through the thinly veiled vaugeness that is trying to hide the fact that most of them believe that the intelligent designer is in fact the Christian God).

All things you just pointed out that ID supposedly does can all be done without ever mentioning the words "Intelligent Design" and yet you want Intelligent Designed mentioned in science classrooms, which is pretty direct evidence that ID is more than those things you just mentioned. In fact, the one year of HS I spent in public school (freshman), my biology teacher specially said that evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, just the origins of species and how life changes. And never once did she say anything about ID... amazing.

As for "why is it so hard to understand???" It's because your points are void of logic. If this is how all your arguements are framed, it's no wonder you think scientists are dismissive.

!!!


True, there is no 'first-hand' evidence available for origins... Since no one alive was there to gather data... We therefore have to seek out answers based on observations of how the natural world functions around us... Enter fields such as Chemistry and Molecular Biology...

I didn't say first-hand evidence, I said scientific evidence. Are you changing your story now?


The study of chemical reactions today allows us to quantify the entropic values for the reactions that produce DNA. More importantly we realize that the lack of required enzymes in the earliest 'chemical broth' would pose an even greater hurdle and hamper the kinetics of said formation... DNA replication alone requires about 30 different proteins and the translation process another 90... WOW!!! with a capital W. As I said earlier... this is quantifiable, and reproducible scientific data... stemming from scientific observation.

The odds for the formation of large DNA strands without the help of said enzymes or enzyme altered concentrations is for all intents and purposes zero. More specifically, the probability of success for the formation of a growing polypeptide chain is a function of the number of bases required for the requested DNA or RNA strand.

I've already addressed my reasons for not putting much credibility in your calculation of odds, but aside from that... this someone means there must have been an Intelligent Designer??? Not sure where you are going here.


And you are also mistaken that the absence of 'first-hand' data dictates that a concept cannot be taught in a science classroom. No one has seen the core of the earth, we can only infer what lies at the center of our planet based on observations of earth's magnetic field (i.e. 'second-hand' data)... The same was true for the other concepts I mentioned in the earlier post (dark-matter). We have 'second-hand' data for dark-matter that is inferred from gravitational pulls on other celestial bodies and from rotational inconsistencies observed for certain galaxies, not from 'first-hand' data... And yet, we teach those concepts in school... No one raises hell about it either...

You are mistaken that I ever brought up "first hand" data. I brought up "scientific evidence" being the foundation of teaching things in science classrooms. So after all time that you admit to having no possible way of gathering scientific evidence short of a time machine, you are now going to change your story and say you DO have scientific evidence?


Also, a theory does not have to provide the answers it seeks out before it is classified as science... in fact, the concept of anti-matter is the subject of much study and yet many consider the search for proof in said field to be speculative in nature while others classify the field as pure 'science fiction'...

Somehow, ID is relegated into having to provide 'first-hand' data when everyone knows it cannot be provided. What I'm getting at is that the data IDers do have is 'second-hand' data... but that in this case we are being told that the data isn't enough... Many also question how a field which bases its entire platform on trying to decipher the issue of origins, can even be a field. To that, I point to the anti-matter analogy. Scientific proponents wanting to discredit the theory of Intelligent Design can't have it both ways.

ID is relagated to the same thing as all scientific concepts... having scientific evidence. You seem to think that because other scientists aren't buying into it (based on your admitted lack of scientific evidence) that they are somehow being dismissive or you are being held to an unfair standard. But you've already admitted to having no scientific evidence.


The bigger problem and essentially the core of this great controversy (boutons_ alludes to it all the time) is that the ID movement is seen as the platform for Creationists... when by all practical definitions they are not the same thing. This perspective is unfair and dismissive... and goes completely against the scientific ideals and principles established for all fields of study. Science is a tool that aids in the search for truth, and helps us describe our natural world... not one that exists to prove or disprove the existence of GOD... or for that matter dispel the beliefs of the world's religions. That was never the intent... And yet many people have placed their whole-hearted faith on science alone... Ironic isn't it???

It probably is unfair that ID is seen as the platform for Creationists, however there is some truth to it as Creationists jump on the ID bandwagon and try to use it that way. Maybe there are IDers who don't have the Creationist agenda in mind, but the most outspoken ID proponents seem to. And as the Dover case pointed out, some ID textbooks are literal word-for-word reproductions of Creationist textbooks with the words "Creationism" swapped out for "ID".

In the end, you have pretty much solidified for me why ID shouldn't be taught in science classrooms... there is no science behind it. It seems only IDers think ID is a scientific movement... you claim its because scientists are against you - but it appears more obvious than that: you aren't talking science, you are talking philisophical theories on the origin of the universe.

There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of understanding and developing philisophical theories, but they still aren't science no matter how many letters you put in bold.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=DarkReign]Again, no you dont. Did He talk to you specifically?
Throughout his Word he's speaking specifically to everyone (difficult to fathom?). Anyone who reads, believes and chooses to receive it the way he intended for it to be received reaps the benefits of what he meant for all.



How would you know? You dont know that. You believe that.
I know because I've experienced it in a tangible way and that makes it more than a belief. You choose to dismiss it outright without an honest look into it.





You think you do only because you surround yourselves with like-minded individuals to prop yourselves up.
We have all been called to God and many have willingly submitted themselves to this call. His followers or disciples have gravited toward their creator. God is the epicenter and we have surrounded him and He's the main focus and reason like-minded individuals have this inclination for binding together.
We see God in each other, he's the common bond.



You know nothing more or less than me. Just because you read a book or worship at some building, does not make you better or more knowledgeable about God, his intentions, or his control.
I know more because I've wanted more and searched for more and found what I was searching for, i.e., what he wanted me (and you) to find all along. We're told that we will seek him and find him when we search for him with all of our hearts.Deut. 4: 29-31 I've done that and because I have I'm more knowledgeable about God. If you had done it and I hadn't then you would be more knowledgeable.

[DarkReign]

I know more because I've wanted more and searched for more and found what I was searching for, i.e., what he wanted me (and you) to find all along. We're told that we will seek him and find him when we search for him with all of our hearts.Deut. 4: 29-31 I've done that and because I have I'm more knowledgeable about God. If you had done it and I hadn't then you would be more knowledgeable.

Finally, you admit it. Youre better than me.

GG. You win at the internet.

Cultist.

[Phenomanul]

I won't use big bold letters, but BS. ID simply doesn't "ask questions" it proposes a theory for the origins of the universe/life, albeit a vague one (yet IDers must think non-IDers are stupid to not see through the thinly veiled vaugeness that is trying to hide the fact that most of them believe that the intelligent designer is in fact the Christian God).

That is only your opinion and yet you have the audicity to call the literal definition of 'Intelligent Design' B.S.??? Oh that's great... let's just base curriculae on people's paranoic opinions instead of objective concerns.

P.S. The bold letters were so that you knew what part of the paragraph I was emphasizing... I didn't realize you were taking a personal attack from the use of said feature.



All things you just pointed out that ID supposedly does can all be done without ever mentioning the words "Intelligent Design" and yet you want Intelligent Designed mentioned in science classrooms, which is pretty direct evidence that ID is more than those things you just mentioned. In fact, the one year of HS I spent in public school (freshman), my biology teacher specially said that evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, just the origins of species and how life changes. And never once did she say anything about ID... amazing.

And you accepted this without looking back??? Your example personifies the problem. Everybody accepts 'evolution' as the ultimate model describing the biological world... and I'm willing to bet over half of them don't understand all of its implications...


As for "why is it so hard to understand???" It's because your points are void of logic. If this is how all your arguements are framed, it's no wonder you think scientists are dismissive.

!!!

Void of logic..... hardy har har... since when did this discussion turn into a clown party? My posts have contained real scientific concerns, that logically, require answers...

Aside from opinions, you've failed to bring any legitimate scientific counterpoints to my examples... In fact, the only personal attempt to do so proved that you didn't even understand my calculations to begin with. Calling the formation of DNA a pure random walk... another stroke of genius on your part. Citing papers on speciation without any of them actually addressing how 'random' mutation led to 'natural selection' is another personal favorite. But I can't expect someone, who accepted everything their teachers told them without reproof, to understand why that would be an issue.

Yes... if you've noticed... I'm tired of trying to be Mr. Nice. All the while, you've been trying to discredit my work, 1) without really understanding it, 2) by claiming my motives are tainted, and 3) by letting your opinions do the talking...



I didn't say first-hand evidence, I said scientific evidence. Are you changing your story now?

Scientific data as evidence is evidence... in the scientific community, however, we characterize the relevance of said evidence based on whether something can be directly measured or indirectly measured.... i.e. 'first' or 'second' hand evidence... I mentioned it, since apparently you were unaware of said distinction. And just what was I basing this on? Another little gem of yours, since you misunderstood my comment, "there is no evidence on origins without a time-machine" and took that for meaning that there was no scientific evidence at all for I.D... Unfortunately you ran rampant with that one little admission, trying to use it as your 'catch-all' argument... but you never really understood it either.


I've already addressed my reasons for not putting much credibility in your calculation of odds, but aside from that... this someone means there must have been an Intelligent Designer??? Not sure where you are going here.

And I've already told you they were without base. And that's not an opinion either.

Where this is going is that there are engineering elements present in biological organisms that go beyond their formation... a purpose was addressed before the functionality was engineered. Evolution requires that this sequence be followed depite the fact that this order is not observed for any biological, physical or chemical process today... and yet we are being told to accept the fact that this is the way it went down. Others much like myself don't buy it.



You are mistaken that I ever brought up "first hand" data. I brought up "scientific evidence" being the foundation of teaching things in science classrooms. So after all time that you admit to having no possible way of gathering scientific evidence short of a time machine, you are now going to change your story and say you DO have scientific evidence?

Addressed above... on a side note, I believed I was talking to fellow scientist... but your lack of understanding of basic scientific principles gave it away. Hey, you wanted an answer didn't you. Now you got called out.



ID is relagated to the same thing as all scientific concepts... having scientific evidence. You seem to think that because other scientists aren't buying into it (based on your admitted lack of scientific evidence) that they are somehow being dismissive or you are being held to an unfair standard. But you've already admitted to having no scientific evidence.

Same as the theory of earth's core, or the theory of dark-matter, of neutrinos, of baryons... all fields of study classified as science. Not to mention the string theory, the multiverse theory, the theory of anti-matter... theories still referred to as science but all with less 'second-hand' data than what I've provided you in favor of I.D.



It probably is unfair that ID is seen as the platform for Creationists, however there is some truth to it as Creationists jump on the ID bandwagon and try to use it that way. Maybe there are IDers who don't have the Creationist agenda in mind, but the most outspoken ID proponents seem to. And as the Dover case pointed out, some ID textbooks are literal word-for-word reproductions of Creationist textbooks with the words "Creationism" swapped out for "ID".

The Dover proponents were not counseled properly.... they were fools. Don't confuse me or other true seekers of truth for them.


In the end, you have pretty much solidified for me why ID shouldn't be taught in science classrooms... there is no science behind it. It seems only IDers think ID is a scientific movement... you claim its because scientists are against you - but it appears more obvious than that: you aren't talking science, you are talking philisophical theories on the origin of the universe.

I distinctly recall the 'Big-Bang' Theory addressing the origin of our universe and being taught at school.... for that matter I was also told to accept the fact that the first biotic molecules were formed in a 'chemical-broth' pool... funny how they never scientifically prooved it.


There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of understanding and developing philisophical theories, but they still aren't science no matter how many letters you put in bold.

By your own admission I take it you classify the 'big-bang' theory as a philosophical one instead of a scientific one... hmmm... what a dilemma you've placed yourself in.

[Phenomanul]

I found this on another forum:




Hi there!

There are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible, but they were not known as dinosaurs. The word dinosaur was not used until 1841. The word dinosaurs comes from two Greek words "deinos" which means "terrible" or "awesome" and "sauros" which means "lizard." So dinosaur literally means "a terrible lizard." Before that time they were called by different names including "dragon".
There are references to dinosaur-type creatures in the Bible. In Job 40:15-24, there is a description of a very large creature. Some would describe this as the hippopotamus or an elephant, but that is not possible because of the description of the tail (as a cedar). It fits the description of a Brachiosaurus, Apatosaurus, or Diplodocus.

15 "Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.
<<<<vegetarian>>>>>>

16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly!
<<<<strength in legs, large stomach>>>>

17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
<<<<tail like a tree trunk>>>>

18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron.
<<<<huge, strong, long bones>>>>>

19 Ye ranks first among the works of God,yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
<<<< the largest creature >>>>

20 The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby
<<<<peaceful creature>>>>

21 Under the lotus plants he lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
<<<<lives in the swamp>>>>

22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow, the polars by the stream surround him.
23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed; he is secure, thought the Jordan should surge against his mouth.
24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes, or trap him and pierce his nose?


Also is a description of the leviathan in Job Chapter 41 which I will not include in its entirity, but the description of the leviathan is described as follows. It is described the same as a Elasmosaurus

tie down his tongue with a rope (v1)
he cannot be subdued (v9)
his limbs, his strength, his graceful form (v10)
fearsome teeth (v14)
his sneezing throws out flashes of light (v18)
his eyes are like the rays of dawn. (v18)
Firebrands stream from his mouth (19)
sparks of fire shoot out(v19)
smoke from his nostrils (v20)
undersides are jagged potsherds (v30)

The leviathan is noted in four separate passages in the Bible. The meaning in Hebrew is sea monster or dragon (the word being livyathan).


Job 41:1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord [which] thou lettest down?

Psa 74:14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, [and] gavest him [to be] meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

Psa 104:26 There go the ships: [there is] that leviathan, [whom] thou hast made to play therein.

Isa 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that [is] in the sea.


One characteristic of the reptile family is that the reptiles never stop growing completely. Dinosaurs were created at the same time as the reptiles in creation (day six). And from that point they continued to grow, and they became the largest of animals. They were vegetarians which fit the lifestyle of the garden of Eden at which time mankind was also vegetarian. After the flood, it is considered that the dinosaurs were killed off for food to support the people.

At the time of the flood, it wasn't necessary to take on board a full-grown set of dinosaurs, but just a baby set of dinosaurs to replenish the earth.

I do not believe in a pre-historic time for dinosaurs. I believe in an young-age creationism in which the earth was created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. I believe that is what the Word of God tells us, and that I what I support.


Also, behemoth in Greek, b@hemowth, the word from Egyptian origin. The word "Behemoth" is not a direct translation, it is a transliteration. Which means that the original Greek letters were substituted with the equivalent English letters to enable us to pronounce it. The translators did this because they did not know of any living animal that fit the description to directly translate the name.

~serapha~

[smeagol]

:lol :lol

Really, that's how the bible came to be?

Yes, that's how it came to be. The Bible was written by the Apostles of Christ and the apostles of the Apostles, so ultimately, it was written by uneducated jew 2000 years ago.

Why don't you learn about a topic before writting the first moronic thought that pops your mind. It will make you look less stupid. You have a tendency to do this (look stupid, that is).


It's years and years of man's simple point of view and ways to control the gulible minds of humans.

No, it's not. The Bible was written in the span of 50 years. 70 years after Christ's death, it was all said and done.

[smeagol]

Why by billions?.

Because there are more than a billion Christians.


Look at scientology.

How many Scientologists are there (aside from Cruise)?

[jochhejaam]

Finally, you admit it. Youre better than me.

GG. You win at the internet.

Cultist.
Glad to see that after almost 500 posts in this thread your thirst for the truth was quenched.
Epistemophobic

[Phenomanul]

hahaha
hegamboa you've sunk to your lowest level yet


hahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaha

yeah t-rex was just a REALLY big chicken they didn't have room for on the ark


Huh...??? me??? I simply posted what someone from a different forum said on the issue...

[Guru of Nothing]

Huh...??? me??? I simply posted what someone from a different forum said on the issue...

Snap, Crackle, Fizzle.

[Guru of Nothing]

yeah t-rex was just a REALLY big chicken

Big PLUCKING chicken!!

[Phenomanul]

Snap, Crackle, Fizzle.


Did you forget POP??? Try me, on something with a little more Bang, GON...

[Guru of Nothing]

Did you forget POP??? Try me, on something with a little more Bang, GON...

Fizzle.

[scott]

When you have some solid scientific evidence, come talk to me.
The problem is neither side can provide it... unless one of us manages to build a time machine to gather evidence... all we will have is speculation.

[scott]

That is only your opinion and yet you have the audicity to call the literal definition of 'Intelligent Design' B.S.??? Oh that's great... let's just base curriculae on people's paranoic opinions instead of objective concerns.

No, I have the audacity to call YOUR definition of Intelligent Design BS.

Here's what the discovery institute says ID is:


The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause

That goes far beyond the hegamboa definition of "ID simply requests that the question be asked."

ID proposes the idea that there is an intelligent designer, there is no denying that.


And you accepted this without looking back??? Your example personifies the problem. Everybody accepts 'evolution' as the ultimate model describing the biological world... and I'm willing to bet over half of them don't understand all of its implications...

Did I say I just "accepted them without looking back"? Is that what everyone who believes in evolution is to you? Sheep? If so, it's okay... just come out and say it.


Void of logic..... hardy har har... since when did this discussion turn into a clown party? My posts have contained real scientific concerns, that logically, require answers...

"Here's my theory that has no scientific evidence that I demand be taught in science classes... WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?!?!?"

Yeah... void of logic.


Aside from opinions, you've failed to bring any legitimate scientific counterpoints to my examples... In fact, the only personal attempt to do so proved that you didn't even understand my calculations to begin with. Calling the formation of DNA a pure random walk... another stroke of genius on your part. Citing papers on speciation without any of them actually addressing how 'random' mutation led to 'natural selection' is another personal favorite. But I can't expect someone, who accepted everything their teachers told them without reproof, to understand why that would be an issue.

I'm not a scientist, you should know this. I'm an economist and a statistician. You may believe in your calculations, but they are wrong. If you disagree, again take them to peer review. Oh yeah... they are dismissed because all the other scientists are part of some conspiracy to hold down your theory.

I cited one paper, which you said you have no access to. How do you know what it discusses? I guess I wouldn't expect someone who accepted everything their preachers told them without reproof to understand why that would be an issue.


Yes... if you've noticed... I'm tired of trying to be Mr. Nice. All the while, you've been trying to discredit my work, 1) without really understanding it, 2) by claiming my motives are tainted, and 3) by letting your opinions do the talking...

Uhoh... you aren't being Mr. Nice anymore. Should I hide all the women and children?

I discredited your work on one count and one count only: the statistical invalidity apparent in your odds calculations. I don't really care if your motives are tainted or not, because it's obvious your statistics are.


Scientific data as evidence is evidence... in the scientific community, however, we characterize the relevance of said evidence based on whether something can be directly measured or indirectly measured.... i.e. 'first' or 'second' hand evidence...

Both are scientific data... do you have it or not?


I mentioned it, since apparently you were unaware of said distinction. And just what was I basing this on? Another little gem of yours, since you misunderstood my comment, "there is no evidence on origins without a time-machine" and took that for meaning that there was no scientific evidence at all for I.D... Unfortunately you ran rampant with that one little admission, trying to use it as your 'catch-all' argument... but you never really understood it either.

Sorry, I thought you meant exactly what you said. I said present some solid scientific evidence, you said it was not possible without a time machine. Am I supposed to read your mind as to what you mean?


And I've already told you they were without base. And that's not an opinion either.

Oh well, okay... since you said they aren't without base and it's not an opinion... I guess you are right. :rolleyes


Where this is going is that there are engineering elements present in biological organisms that go beyond their formation... a purpose was addressed before the functionality was engineered. Evolution requires that this sequence be followed depite the fact that this order is not observed for any biological, physical or chemical process today... and yet we are being told to accept the fact that this is the way it went down. Others much like myself don't buy it.

And others much like yourself continually find themselves in the scientific minority, with the hole getting deeper with the passing days. For every one of you who decries evolution, there are 10 who stand by it. And all you can do is chalk it to some vast conspiracy against ID.


Addressed above... on a side note, I believed I was talking to fellow scientist... but your lack of understanding of basic scientific principles gave it away. Hey, you wanted an answer didn't you. Now you got called out.

Why would you think that? Did I ever say I was a scientist. Most in this forum know what I am. But, prey tell, which basic scientific prinicpals "gave it away"? Is it the one where I don't read your mind to assume that when you say "I have no scientific evidence" you really mean that you have some other kind of scientific evidence?


Same as the theory of earth's core, or the theory of dark-matter, of neutrinos, of baryons... all fields of study classified as science. Not to mention the string theory, the multiverse theory, the theory of anti-matter... theories still referred to as science but all with less 'second-hand' data than what I've provided you in favor of I.D.

All of which have data which go beyond "this looks complex... I bet an intelligent designer did it."


The Dover proponents were not counseled properly.... they were fools. Don't confuse me or other true seekers of truth for them.

Whether they were counciled by a team of monkeys or God himself is irrelevant. I didn't say anything about the trial or how Dover proponents presented their case... you sure have trouble staying on point. The fact of the matter is that an ID textbook is just a re-written version of a Creationism textbook.



I distinctly recall the 'Big-Bang' Theory addressing the origin of our universe and being taught at school.... for that matter I was also told to accept the fact that the first biotic molecules were formed in a 'chemical-broth' pool... funny how they never scientifically prooved it.

I distinctly remember my teachers making it clear that it wasn't fact, but merely prevailing scientific theory. Maybe you had some bad teachers.




By your own admission I take it you classify the 'big-bang' theory as a philosophical one instead of a scientific one... hmmm... what a dilemma you've placed yourself in.

Yeah, I'm really torn up over this dilemma. You believe the evidence for ID is on par with the evidence for big-bang theory? I classify the big bang theory as science because it has accompanying scientific evidence (notice I didn't say proof). It always seems to come back to that damn scientific evidence stuff, doesn't it? Where is yours?

[jochhejaam]

Fizzle.

Big PLUCKING chicken!!

Snap, Crackle, Fizzle.

An excellent series of posts GON, journalistic prose at it's finest! Pulitzeresque!! Absolutely profound!! :worthy:

[Phenomanul]

No, I have the audacity to call YOUR definition of Intelligent Design BS.

Here's what the discovery institute says ID is:


That goes far beyond the hegamboa definition of "ID simply requests that the question be asked."

ID proposes the idea that there is an intelligent designer, there is no denying that.

We keep going around in circles...

You chose to define your 'place holder' for the term 'intelligent cause' not me. Again, the ID theory leaves the 'door' open to the possibility that DNA arrived from Mars, or that aliens planted life on earth... or I'll take one from another scientific field... that someone from a parallel universe placed it on earth.

However, you can't discredit my scientific beliefs simply because I choose to credit GOD in my personal beliefs...



Did I say I just "accepted them without looking back"? Is that what everyone who believes in evolution is to you? Sheep? If so, it's okay... just come out and say it.

Most students are sheep... is this news to you??? They are more concerned about other things and not academic endeavors... few take the time to really look into what they are learning... and only a few of them will even question what they are being taught.... most just accept it to earn their grade and move on. Unfortunately many of them will also feverishly fight as proponents of evolution.


"Here's my theory that has no scientific evidence that I demand be taught in science classes... WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?!?!?"

Yeah... void of logic.

Once again, your definition of 'evidence' is your entire platform for said comment. If that's how you see it, I can't really change your point of view... but that's not what it's about. Will be discussed below.



I'm not a scientist, you should know this. I'm an economist and a statistician. You may believe in your calculations, but they are wrong. If you disagree, again take them to peer review. Oh yeah... they are dismissed because all the other scientists are part of some conspiracy to hold down your theory.

Dude, I made those calculations on this forum, on the fly nonetheless... not on a publicized paper... they're really not that difficult to understand and they really don't require 'Will Hunting' out-of-this-world mathematical thinking. Which is why, I know they are correct....but you keep superimposing an erred premise that they were never meant to calculate... and in that light they will be wrong.

I've told you repeatedly that I'm calculating the step-wise polypeptide formation of DNA... but you keep ignoring it... <--- Maybe now that it's big and bolded you won't miss it. And since your comment regarding the formation of said molecule was way off base, how then can you keep trying to call me out on said calculations??? You really ought to stop on that front or you will give me no choice but to call you out for your ignorance in the fields of molecular biology and chemistry....

Oh... I guess it's too late... but you gave me no choice; after that last post, I would have hoped that seeing your misunderstanding would allow you to move on -- but you didn't, and you just had to insist on driving that stake further into my calculations by claiming that you were right... Oh my... You got called out again.




I cited one paper, which you said you have no access to. How do you know what it discusses? I guess I wouldn't expect someone who accepted everything their preachers told them without reproof to understand why that would be an issue.

I've read more drosophilia papers than you would know. More than half of them claim speciation.... but none of them can prove that an 'unguided process' is at work behind their highly interfering 'natural selection' studies....

I still haven't read your cited papers, I'll admit that much; but I did find two of the abstracts (because I originally said I hadn't seen the data)... and the abstracts had no reference to what would be the biggest evolutionary 'find' in the last few years... Though still only my assumption, logically, if they had found undeniable proof that 'random' forces were at work you could bet your house that this claim would have been the very first statement of said abstracts. So yes, I perfectly understand why that would be an issue.



Uhoh... you aren't being Mr. Nice anymore. Should I hide all the women and children?

I discredited your work on one count and one count only: the statistical invalidity apparent in your odds calculations. I don't really care if your motives are tainted or not, because it's obvious your statistics are.

I probably wouldn't question your statistical background with regards to financial or market factors... How you apply your 'specialty' to science, however, will be erred on all accounts unless you intricately understand the subject matter -- and you have clearly demonstrated that you don't. :wakeup


Both are scientific data... do you have it or not?

Are you blind??? Or do you keep ignoring what I have provided out of convenience???

-- Measured entropic energy formations for DNA and RNA...

-- The fact that the replicative and translation processes of DNA require over 120 proteins and enzymes.... left alone a solitary DNA molecule will break apart, not grow.... much less try to replicate.

-- That no known molecular process can account for the formation of DNA without said enzymes.

-- That all DNA and protein constituents are 'left-handed' molecules.... and that no known process can create a solution of pure 'left-handed' molecules without the use of enzymes (which in-turn are all 'left handed')... a big 'chicken before the egg' problem....

-- That the double-helical twist in DNA serves many functions; stability, increased data-density, and data-protection. The double-helix configuration is provided by yet another protein... without it the double-stranded DNA molecule would break apart.

Here's a new one for your delight and enjoyment from the Human Genome project.

-- It was found that some genes can code for multiple proteins depending on interaction with a codified mRNA strand pulled from a separate gene altogether... what allows the 'rogue' mRNA strand to 'know' where to find the gene that needs its codified capability in order to unlock its own translation??? The analogy would be to imagine that my house key can 'know' how to find its way back to my house if I dropped it in Germany -- and without any help whatsoever. Really amazing stuff. The processes being observed defy all levels of logic...

It's no wonder many of the molecular biologists in the scientific community are the ones embracing ID.



Sorry, I thought you meant exactly what you said. I said present some solid scientific evidence, you said it was not possible without a time machine. Am I supposed to read your mind as to what you mean?

Oh well, okay... since you said they aren't without base and it's not an opinion... I guess you are right. :rolleyes

With regards to the calculation... yes, I am correct.... and on top of that the calculated odds were very generous because they didn't include any of the hindering effects posed by the problems in the bulleted list above. If I had included them then I would have had to develop kinetic models... and perhaps call Will Hunting himself to help me formulate them. But I felt inclined not to factor them in on account of the fact that it would only add a couple more zeroes behind the decimal... to a number that was as 'close to zero' as zero itself. Much extra work not worth the effort.



And others much like yourself continually find themselves in the scientific minority, with the hole getting deeper with the passing days. For every one of you who decries evolution, there are 10 who stand by it. And all you can do is chalk it to some vast conspiracy against ID.

The conspiracy is not against ID... it's against Creationism.... and it is born out of man's rebellious nature to think he has it all under control, that he is accountable to no one.... Man, can't and won't accept the notion that there is something more to this life than his very own.... That selfish lie keeps most men from acknowlegding GOD and His amazing creation. It's about a theistic and secular battle that you can't deny exists... And I know that having said this will open up a 'can of worms'... but it's not like this isn't a controversy already.

And you are mistaken about the 'hole getting deeper with the passing days' the scientific community KNOWS these are very big issues, and KNOWS they can't offer proof to make the ID theory just disappear... What makes you think you can convince me otherwise without that proof???

The important thing is that ID brings some legitimate scientific concerns to the table that need answers. Have you noticed that I'm always speaking about DNA. It is the most amazing molecule in the natural world - with design written all over it.... The more people look into this one molecule the more people will realize that the platform that evolution is built on (the 'unguided' random process version) is very shaky.



Why would you think that? Did I ever say I was a scientist. Most in this forum know what I am. But, prey tell, which basic scientific prinicpals "gave it away"? Is it the one where I don't read your mind to assume that when you say "I have no scientific evidence" you really mean that you have some other kind of scientific evidence?

I did say that... to immediately say that no one has any evidence on origins... and no one can therefore disprove ID's claims.... when taken out of context you almost had a point. Almost.




All of which have data which go beyond "this looks complex... I bet an intelligent designer did it."

That is how a feeble mind would choose to see this.

A scientific mind would try to find the solutions to many of these complex questions... not just dismiss them on the grounds that possibly, maybe, the GOD that my 'dumb' republican neighbor was advocating might actually exist.




Whether they were counciled by a team of monkeys or God himself is irrelevant. I didn't say anything about the trial or how Dover proponents presented their case... you sure have trouble staying on point. The fact of the matter is that an ID textbook is just a re-written version of a Creationism textbook.

Hey you brought it up... Don't confuse their 'ill-prepared' agendas for my own legitimate scientific pursuits...



I distinctly remember my teachers making it clear that it wasn't fact, but merely prevailing scientific theory. Maybe you had some bad teachers.

So you admit the 'big-bang' theory is a scientific theory... not a philosophical one. That's all. But I'll clarify the difference for you... If I was talking about theories relating to the origin of consciousness then... maybe it enters the philosophical or meta-physical realm... But because I'm talking about theories relating the the origin of biological molecules and processes... you can bet your house again that they are scientific in nature.





Yeah, I'm really torn up over this dilemma. You believe the evidence for ID is on par with the evidence for big-bang theory? I classify the big bang theory as science because it has accompanying scientific evidence (notice I didn't say proof). It always seems to come back to that damn scientific evidence stuff, doesn't it? Where is yours?

You are misreading my posts again. I used the 'big-bang' theory to dispel your tendency for relegating theories on the subject of origins to the philosophical realm. But the evidence for ID is definitely on par for that provided for baryons, neutrinos, anti-matter, or the string theory... again all valid scientific fields of study. Yet you keep saying ID isn't?? Odd...


Rather than go around in circles for what seems like forever, all I will say is this... I will no longer discuss this matter with you. So for the third time: "Let's just agree to disagree"...

My vacation week is over... and I simply won't have the time anymore.

PEACE.

[turambar85]

Shut down this thread, its not fun anymore. Hegamboa has ruined any chance at that. lol. You forget, you have many lay-people here and college Sophomores....lol.

I dont have the capacity to argue a 10,000 word mammoth of an essay, I have to sleep sometimes.

I liked it better when it was simple, one line quips like:

-"I'm keeping the faith."
or
-"I do"
or
- "religion is for fags"

See, weren't things so much more fun back in the day, on page 1?

[jochhejaam]

Shut down this thread, its not fun anymore. Hegamboa has ruined any chance at that. lol. You forget, you have many lay-people here and college Sophomores....lol.

I dont have the capacity to argue a 10,000 word mammoth of an essay, I have to sleep sometimes.

I liked it better when it was simple, one line quips like:

-"I'm keeping the faith."
or
-"I do"
or
- "religion is for fags"

See, weren't things so much more fun back in the day, on page 1?
No.

Props to hegamboa who has clearly dominated in the are of substance.

And I agree turambar, arguing at that level isn't for everyone. Thankfully I fall on the same side of the arguement/discussion as hegamboa. : )

[scott]

We keep going around in circles...

You chose to define your 'place holder' for the term 'intelligent cause' not me. Again, the ID theory leaves the 'door' open to the possibility that DNA arrived from Mars, or that aliens planted life on earth... or I'll take one from another scientific field... that someone from a parallel universe placed it on earth.

I'm willing to substitute the word "agent" for "designer" if it makes you feel better. I'm not defining any placeholders - I'm going by the definition provided by the Discovery Institute, who appears to be at the forefront of this movement.


However, you can't discredit my scientific beliefs simply because I choose to credit GOD in my personal beliefs...

I don't think I've ever done so. In fact, I've encouraged your scientific pursuits - I've just requested you keep them out of the classroom until you have solid scientific evidence.





Most students are sheep... is this news to you??? They are more concerned about other things and not academic endeavors... few take the time to really look into what they are learning... and only a few of them will even question what they are being taught.... most just accept it to earn their grade and move on. Unfortunately many of them will also feverishly fight as proponents of evolution.

Most of them are sheep so... what, we should just stop teaching anything that requires effort to learn/reasonably question/understand?




Once again, your definition of 'evidence' is your entire platform for said comment. If that's how you see it, I can't really change your point of view... but that's not what it's about. Will be discussed below.

How have I definied "evidence"?



Dude, I made those calculations on this forum, on the fly nonetheless... not on a publicized paper... they're really not that difficult to understand and they really don't require 'Will Hunting' out-of-this-world mathematical thinking. Which is why, I know they are correct....but you keep superimposing an erred premise that they were never meant to calculate... and in that light they will be wrong.

I've told you repeatedly that I'm calculating the step-wise polypeptide formation of DNA... but you keep ignoring it... <--- Maybe now that it's big and bolded you won't miss it. And since your comment regarding the formation of said molecule was way off base, how then can you keep trying to call me out on said calculations??? You really ought to stop on that front or you will give me no choice but to call you out for your ignorance in the fields of molecular biology and chemistry....

Oh... I guess it's too late... but you gave me no choice; after that last post, I would have hoped that seeing your misunderstanding would allow you to move on -- but you didn't, and you just had to insist on driving that stake further into my calculations by claiming that you were right... Oh my... You got called out again.

I get it that it's a step process, hence the need fto adjust your odds for the "resetting" of probability from one step to the next. That is the very nature of a stepped process.



I've read more drosophilia papers than you would know. More than half of them claim speciation.... but none of them can prove that an 'unguided process' is at work behind their highly interfering 'natural selection' studies....

I still haven't read your cited papers, I'll admit that much; but I did find two of the abstracts (because I originally said I hadn't seen the data)... and the abstracts had no reference to what would be the biggest evolutionary 'find' in the last few years... Though still only my assumption, logically, if they had found undeniable proof that 'random' forces were at work you could bet your house that this claim would have been the very first statement of said abstracts. So yes, I perfectly understand why that would be an issue.

So that I am also clear, I've never made claim that there is any proof, undeniable or otherwise, that there are unguided or guided processes at work. In fact, I've made a point of saying that I don't take sides either way. You said there was no evidence of speciation. I provided one study which shows evidence of speciation. Maybe you have a different definition of speciation, but when I asked you for it so we could talk about the same thing you didn't respond.





I probably wouldn't question your statistical background with regards to financial or market factors... How you apply your 'specialty' to science, however, will be erred on all accounts unless you intricately understand the subject matter -- and you have clearly demonstrated that you don't. :wakeup

Again, you admit that it is a stepped process, which by it's very nature implies a random walk. The statistics are the same, independent of the field of study. Maybe we have a misunderstanding by what I mean of random walk... apparently the two of us have varying definitions on many terms.




Are you blind??? Or do you keep ignoring what I have provided out of convenience???

-- Measured entropic energy formations for DNA and RNA...

-- The fact that the replicative and translation processes of DNA require over 120 proteins and enzymes.... left alone a solitary DNA molecule will break apart, not grow.... much less try to replicate.

-- That no known molecular process can account for the formation of DNA without said enzymes.

-- That all DNA and protein constituents are 'left-handed' molecules.... and that no known process can create a solution of pure 'left-handed' molecules without the use of enzymes (which in-turn are all 'left handed')... a big 'chicken before the egg' problem....

-- That the double-helical twist in DNA serves many functions; stability, increased data-density, and data-protection. The double-helix configuration is provided by yet another protein... without it the double-stranded DNA molecule would break apart.

Here's a new one for your delight and enjoyment from the Human Genome project.

-- It was found that some genes can code for multiple proteins depending on interaction with a codified mRNA strand pulled from a separate gene altogether... what allows the 'rogue' mRNA strand to 'know' where to find the gene that needs its codified capability in order to unlock its own translation??? The analogy would be to imagine that my house key can 'know' how to find its way back to my house if I dropped it in Germany -- and without any help whatsoever. Really amazing stuff. The processes being observed defy all levels of logic...

It's no wonder many of the molecular biologists in the scientific community are the ones embracing ID.

There are all great points, all should be looking into further. None of them are inherent evidence of a "intelligent" process in the way in which I believe you are referring it.




With regards to the calculation... yes, I am correct.... and on top of that the calculated odds were very generous because they didn't include any of the hindering effects posed by the problems in the bulleted list above. If I had included them then I would have had to develop kinetic models... and perhaps call Will Hunting himself to help me formulate them. But I felt inclined not to factor them in on account of the fact that it would only add a couple more zeroes behind the decimal... to a number that was as 'close to zero' as zero itself. Much extra work not worth the effort.

Okay fine, you are correct. Good for you.




The conspiracy is not against ID... it's against Creationism.... and it is born out of man's rebellious nature to think he has it all under control, that he is accountable to no one.... Man, can't and won't accept the notion that there is something more to this life than his very own.... That selfish lie keeps most men from acknowlegding GOD and His amazing creation. It's about a theistic and secular battle that you can't deny exists... And I know that having said this will open up a 'can of worms'... but it's not like this isn't a controversy already.

I don't deny this "secular and theistic" battle. I think it is mostly brought about by theists, however. Evolution and the existence of God are not in conflict with one another, yet some make it out to be one.


And you are mistaken about the 'hole getting deeper with the passing days' the scientific community KNOWS these are very big issues, and KNOWS they can't offer proof to make the ID theory just disappear... What makes you think you can convince me otherwise without that proof???

The evidence for evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger, at least according to my friends in the field of evolutionary and microbiology. That doesn't discredit ID - but so long as IDers choose to be "anti-evolution" (which is not necessary, and the Discovery Institute makes a point to say they are not) - then they do dig themselves into a hole.


The important thing is that ID brings some legitimate scientific concerns to the table that need answers. Have you noticed that I'm always speaking about DNA. It is the most amazing molecule in the natural world - with design written all over it.... The more people look into this one molecule the more people will realize that the platform that evolution is built on (the 'unguided' random process version) is very shaky.

Several times throughout this thread I've applauded the questions that ID brings to the table. Haven't I encouraged ID to continue in a scientific pursuit of knowledge? All I've asked is that ID not be taught in public science classrooms, because it doesn't have scientific evidence on par with the other scientific theories being taught in those classrooms.




I did say that... to immediately say that no one has any evidence on origins... and no one can therefore disprove ID's claims.... when taken out of context you almost had a point. Almost.

Is that your stance: "you can't disprove it"? There are a lot of things that can't be "disproven" but that doesn't lend credibility to any of them.





That is how a feeble mind would choose to see this.

A scientific mind would try to find the solutions to many of these complex questions... not just dismiss them on the grounds that possibly, maybe, the GOD that my 'dumb' republican neighbor was advocating might actually exist.

Have I dismissed your theories because they may entail theism? No, I've encouraged them, despite any such theistic ties. Yet, you don't care about that... all you see is that I don't want it taught in a public science classroom and you assume its because I'm a warrior of secularism out to destroy theistic belief.





Hey you brought it up... Don't confuse their 'ill-prepared' agendas for my own legitimate scientific pursuits...

You still miss the point. I brought it up because whether or not you like it, a promonent contingent of the ID movement equates creationism with ID. Sometimes, perception is reality. That is something ID will have to deal with, regardless of what it "really" is.




So you admit the 'big-bang' theory is a scientific theory... not a philosophical one. That's all. But I'll clarify the difference for you... If I was talking about theories relating to the origin of consciousness then... maybe it enters the philosophical or meta-physical realm... But because I'm talking about theories relating the the origin of biological molecules and processes... you can bet your house again that they are scientific in nature.


You are misreading my posts again. I used the 'big-bang' theory to dispel your tendency for relegating theories on the subject of origins to the philosophical realm. But the evidence for ID is definitely on par for that provided for baryons, neutrinos, anti-matter, or the string theory... again all valid scientific fields of study. Yet you keep saying ID isn't?? Odd...

You say the evidence for ID is on par with that provided for all those things, then as soon as the majority of the scientific community (who us non-scientists must rely on in the end, whether it makes us sheep or not) agrees with you then maybe I will change my tune. Part of being "scientific evidence" in my mind is having more than 1% (or 10%, whatever ID boasts as its "membership") of scientists bought into the viability of the theory.

From page 5 of this thread, I've said that my only criteria for having something taught in a science classroom is that it have solid scientific evidence. Most of the scientific community disagrees with your appriasal of the evidence for ID. You question their motives, apparently, but why should your scientific opinion hold more weight than anyone elses? If I, the non-scientist, believe you on this topic instead of the majority of the scientific community - than how would I be any less sheep-ish as you inferred I am for my believe in the theory of evolution?



Rather than go around in circles for what seems like forever, all I will say is this... I will no longer discuss this matter with you. So for the third time: "Let's just agree to disagree"...

My vacation week is over... and I simply won't have the time anymore.

PEACE.

I hope you managed to enjoy your vacation. In the end, I don't think we are arguing the same point. From the begining I encouraged ID's scientific pursuit of the truth - but you apparently won't be happy until I believe the theory is on par with evolution or any other scientific theory, and unless I do then I'm a sheep. Then Darwin be my sheppard because I'm going with the bulk of the scientific community over some guy on SpursTalk.com

[scott]

Because there are more than a billion Christians.


Are there more than a billion Christians, or more than a billion people who identify themselves as Christians. If it's the ladder, then why does that number mean anything to you. You've already expressed you feel that it's a meaningless statistic.

[clambake]

I started reading the bible the moment this thread was started.............still don't understand the appeal. Someone accused me of blaming a mental weakness on believers of the bible.

I guess thats how I do feel about it.

[smeagol]

Are there more than a billion Christians, or more than a billion people who identify themselves as Christians. If it's the ladder, then why does that number mean anything to you. You've already expressed you feel that it's a meaningless statistic.
There are a billion+ people who believe the Bible to be true (i.e., they believe it is not a book of fiction), irrespective if they are good or bad Christians.

[Oh, Gee!!]

There are a billion+ people who believe the Bible to be true (i.e., they believe it is not a book of fiction), irrespective if they are good or bad Christians.


you get a prize for posting the 500th post.

Enjoy your new Penguin!!!

:guin

[Dominic Toretto]

the bible is the oldest gossip book in the world.....translated millions of times through history there is no way this freaking book could even be a quarter of the truth........sorry its just a bunch of fabricated stories to me

[Phenomanul]

Again, you admit that it is a stepped process, which by it's very nature implies a random walk. The statistics are the same, independent of the field of study. Maybe we have a misunderstanding by what I mean of random walk... apparently the two of us have varying definitions on many terms.

All I will say is this.... if I did reset my odds at every step, the probability is lower not greater (cause that would mean I was always multiplying by a larger number).... so your math is still wrong -- :wakeup



The evidence for evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger, at least according to my friends in the field of evolutionary and microbiology. That doesn't discredit ID - but so long as IDers choose to be "anti-evolution" (which is not necessary, and the Discovery Institute makes a point to say they are not) - then they do dig themselves into a hole.

As I said before, molecular biologists are the ones most likely to embrace ID... your friend is probably the exception but not the rule.




Have I dismissed your theories because they may entail theism? No, I've encouraged them, despite any such theistic ties. Yet, you don't care about that... all you see is that I don't want it taught in a public science classroom and you assume its because I'm a warrior of secularism out to destroy theistic belief.

Let me put it this way... you allowing or consenting to IDs exposure in the classrooms would be tantamount to accepting your entire belief system, with regards to the belief that a higher power does not exist, was possibly wrong... So in essence, you already embody a great deal of resistance against the ID movement whether you choose to admit it or not.

If you are looking for 'proof' of 'GOD' you won't get it here... His creation is proof enough already and men are still blinded by their pitiful arrogance. All I can offer is evidence suggesting point-zero of evolution, never existed - since no process for the unguided formation of DNA will ever be found... How can I be certain? it goes against the very fundamentals of the scientific principles you boast about. Sure, how about we break the Second Law of Thermodynamics this one bitsy time.... no one will mind... right??. Well IDers, such as myself do.




You say the evidence for ID is on par with that provided for all those things, then as soon as the majority of the scientific community (who us non-scientists must rely on in the end, whether it makes us sheep or not) agrees with you then maybe I will change my tune. Part of being "scientific evidence" in my mind is having more than 1% (or 10%, whatever ID boasts as its "membership") of scientists bought into the viability of the theory.

From page 5 of this thread, I've said that my only criteria for having something taught in a science classroom is that it have solid scientific evidence. Most of the scientific community disagrees with your appriasal of the evidence for ID. You question their motives, apparently, but why should your scientific opinion hold more weight than anyone elses? If I, the non-scientist, believe you on this topic instead of the majority of the scientific community - than how would I be any less sheep-ish as you inferred I am for my believe in the theory of evolution?

turmabar85 exemplified the problem with his post a few posts ago.... and you still don't see this. Many in the scientific community, despite their studies are still not very well versed in the concepts exposed by molecular biology... I don't care what the majority thinks, as long as I have a basis for my doubts on their claims. The hurdles are too great, too massive, too hindering to have allowed the evolutionary model from even commencing as they believe it did.




I hope you managed to enjoy your vacation. In the end, I don't think we are arguing the same point. From the begining I encouraged ID's scientific pursuit of the truth - but you apparently won't be happy until I believe the theory is on par with evolution or any other scientific theory, and unless I do then I'm a sheep. Then Darwin be my sheppard because I'm going with the bulk of the scientific community over some guy on SpursTalk.com

And that is your 'GOD-given' perogative. I was never here to change your mind, I was here to show that people on the other side have legitimate concerns to back up their claims. Adieu.

edit: Third ---> Second....

[Extra Stout]

the bible is the oldest gossip book in the world.....translated millions of times through history there is no way this freaking book could even be a quarter of the truth........sorry its just a bunch of fabricated stories to me
So I take it you haven't read any of the thread.

[Extra Stout]

Sure, how about we break the Third Law of Thermodynamics this one bitsy time.... no one will mind... right??. Well IDers, such as myself do.
Please explain how the Third Law of Thermodynamics pertains to the creation of DNA.

[Phenomanul]

Please explain how the Third Law of Thermodynamics pertains to the creation of DNA.


My bad... I meant Second Law of Thermodynamics... will correct shortly.

Creating a massive amount of order in the form of a highly specialized, molecule.... from no order at all, is how that law would be broken...

[Extra Stout]

My bad... I meant Second Law of Thermodynamics... will correct shortly.

Creating a massive amount of order in the form of a highly specialized, molecule.... from no order at all, is how that law would be broken...

That's not really true; it would be true absent an external source of energy to perform work.

[Extra Stout]

according to my quantum mechanics manual -- there is a possibility that what we perceive as order would arise from what we perceive as no order
So I guess you used the library service in prison. Self-improvement.

[Extra Stout]

everything i needed to know for prison i learned by watching Blood In Blood Out Bound By Honor
So you needed to brush up on quantum mechanics for your new job as a drug kingpin?

[Extra Stout]

I'm going to let hegamboa off the hook, because I'm impatient...

This has been a test of the Emergency Secularist System... if I had been an actual secularist, I would have waited for hegamboa to suggest that the external source of energy to perform work must be God... to which I would have made the bitingly sardonic suggestion in reply to go outside and look up at the big glowing spherical source of external energy in the sky...

...falling into the use of the Second Law creationist fallacy is not a mistake that a person as smart as hegamboa ought to make... a hostile secularist could destroy his credibility if he caught hold of such an elementary mistake...

...this concludes the test of the Emergency Secularist System...