Reply With Quote
Is that written in the original Greek?
My wife is a Christian, believes in intelligent design AND she is one of the authors on this:
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/279/22/23193
When you're ready to debate her, let me know ( , if you can understand any of that, let ME know what it is she does).
Is that written in the original Greek?
Exactly.
When a "Christian" approach to science and intellectual enquiry in general starts off with:
"the Bible is literally and inerrantly true",
... is not open to discussion or interpretation,
... is the end-point of knowledge that all intellectual enquriy must strive an bend itself to arrive at,
.... then such ignorant, close-minded "Christians" deserve all the ridicule and abuse they receive, esp and above all when they ininsuate their fringe cult views into public schools and other public venues.
"the Bible is literally and inerrantly true" is to be categorized with other erroneous bull such as the-earth-is-flat and universe-rotates-around-earth.
VERY few Christians believe this in the way you like to think they believe it, although there are some.
Only if those Christians believe a literal interpretation of the Bible leaves no room for science. But that opinion is held by some Christians and non-Christians alike, which is why we continue to have these circular arguments.
Last edited by Spurminator; 03-09-2006 at 10:35 AM.
Indeed.
We Christians still believe that the sun and the rest of universe revolve around the earth. After all, Galileo was a scientist, too, and probably a left-wing radical liberal socialist communist pinko besides.
You are the one assuming our every thought.... get over yourself, your hate is unwarranted, unsolicited, and unjustified... Are Christians really the ones giving you physical and emotional distress?? Or do you bring it upon yourself???
If I believe GOD 'created the heavens' and the earth... the timeframe I'm given is only a template... GOD did not have to reveal the exact framework from which he built the universe. If he had, the book of Genesis would be a 50 Volume Encyclopedia.... and that was not the purpose or intent of the book.
One thing is for sure, he wants us studying his creation (which is why he gave Adam the task of naming every creature)... cause every new finding reveals the intricacy of His handiwork. Again, you all diminish and even dismiss the importance of high-order complexity in nature but don't even realize that such unfathomable complexity in all areas of SCIENCE are GOD's fingerprints.
If matter can be neither created or destroyed, how is there matter?
Manny, you do realize not all Christians in the so-called 'Bible-belt' are of anglo descent???Poor Christians. Someone should pass a law protecting them. Then we can move torwards protecting anglo men and perhaps we could actualy get the media to cover crime against white women.
Well, I also don't know that it follows inexorably that the existence of high-order complexity in nature is necessarily evidence that God exists. It's certainly a justification for that article of faith, but ultimately, your conclusion is, in my estimation, just that: an article of faith. You choose to see God's fingerprints in high-order complexity because you believe that there is a Divine Creator and that such systems are unlikely to occur randomly in nature. That belief is valid, but it's not scientific. That's not to say that your position will ultimately prove to be untrue, just that it has not been (and likely cannot be) conclusively proven to be true.
I like the way you conflate your "(Bible-literal) Christians" with all Christians.
Just part of your deeply dishonest approach.
You're right... It's mathematical.
Again your assumption...
Yeah, your subtlety is losing me there.
OOH OOH let me try....
I THINK he is implying that the chances of this (evolution to the point of Ipods) is so remote and mathematically improbable that it is tantamount to being impossible.
Because a form of Christianity has connected itself to one political party, and that opens them up to criticism from the masses. Because when I flick through the stations on my television, I don't run into too many Buhdist or Islamic stations. However - EWTN, CBN, the 700 Club - all of these things are on my television. Because the news is filled with stories of people whining one way or another about the seperation of a Christian Church, and Federal ins utions in this country.
Because a bas ized, hustling version of Christianity has risen up in this country, and tells us of the coming war with Russia and Iran, and is endlessly selling products to make fortunes off of God's name. This is what we deal with in this country, what most of us are facing everyday. What most of us know about because it is in our backgrounds.
Go right ahead. Let's see the intelligent comments we get about a religion and a society that most of us do not know very little about, and practically none have personally experienced.
-----
I would rather we spend more resources on fixing legitimate problems in this world, having lively debate in this small little corner of the world, then to cry about how persecuted the Christians are in this country, when they are essentially the ruling class of all the religions. Tell me the last time the White House decorated for Rahmadan.
I'm not trying to lose you.... I'm simply stating that it's not evidenced by 'experimental' data... but rather by a mathematical analysis of entropy and order.
On a previous thread I calculated the odds of building a simple 200 part system. The magnitude required for it to build itself by random unguided processes was on the order of 10^-319. The recognized and 'accepted' age of the universe in scientific communities is roughly 13.7 billion years old... even if you totaled up all those seconds (10^18), you wouldn't have enough time for such a system to develop.
The theory of evolution, which is conveniently ignores the origin of life, cannot propose a process to create even the smallest of organic molecules.... The odds are greatly against it.
really? seriously now, is this true? I didn't know. How did scientists arrive at taht conclusion without having had a glimpse of what the universe is made of? So you base your entire belief in intelligent design on the theory that the universe is that old?
Hector, Statistical Analysis like that will give a mean. It doesn't mean it can't happen sooner. Maybe in this universe it happend faster out of pure luck. Maybe in the next itll take 5 times as long.
Its really not that big a hurdle to move over.
non-christians believe in the literal interpretation of the bible?
You're right on the concept, but the numbers are so huge that you'd have to make a shift spanning several orders of magnitude to have the sort of impact you are referring to.
Besides, I'm not really debating the probablity of the universe's existence, or the timeframe of its existence more so than pointing to the fact that the simplest biological molecules which (we would agree) developed after the inception of the physical universe would have to overcome immense odds to even come into existence.
The example I gave was for an organic molecule with 200 atoms... really small when compared to say a strand of DNA with millions and millions of atoms... The likelyhood that the 200 atom molecule arises out of random unguided processes is: 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000001 (wait are there about 300 zeroes there???) yes the odds are there... but anyone with a mathematics degree would tell you that numbers smaller than 10^-50 are generally considered zero for all intents and purposes. Playing by those odds you would have to have 'faith' to believe that life arose from an unguided random process.
Some place their faith on those odds, however tangible, I choose to place my faith in GOD. I'm not saying you have to accept my own faith in a supreme creator in order to reconcile those odds with the aforementioned theory. I'm just saying high order complexity should not be dismissed from any arguments that try to imply that the origin of life was a chance process. Since the Theory of Evolution does not attempt to address this issue and conveniently jumps ahead to 'explain' some of the processes that we do observe today... people automatically assume the inception of life 'just happened'. No, it was willed into existence.
Oh I almost forgot.... the example was only a 200 part system.... the odds for building the smallest self-replicating DNA strand would be 1 in 10^10,467. Even supercomputers can't deal with that number without crashing.
Last edited by hegamboa; 03-09-2006 at 04:29 PM.
From your favorite sources with no religious affiliation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Universe
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...se_030103.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
