Who Believes the Bible Is Literally True?

[Mr. Peabody]

[QUOTE=jochhejaam]

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... <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]

"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 cons ute 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 led "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 ing weird man!

Because here is a newsflash.

You dont know 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 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 ing 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 en y 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 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 ing 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 quan ies.

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 , 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 ing weird man!

Because here is a newsflash.

You dont know 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 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 ing 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 en y 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 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 ing 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 quan ies.

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 , 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 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."

, 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 cons ute 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.

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 led "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]

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 ing 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 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 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 ing 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 en y 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 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 , 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.