Who Believes the Bible Is Literally True?

[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 ins ute 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.

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!!

[Phenomanul]

No, I have the audacity to call YOUR definition of Intelligent Design BS.

Here's what the discovery ins ute 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.

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 cons uents 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.

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 Sop res....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 s"

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 Sop res....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 s"

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 subs ute 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 Ins ute, 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.

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 cons uents 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 Ins ute 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!!!

[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 --

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 Ins ute 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...