Who Believes the Bible Is Literally True?

[scott]

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 --

I haven't done any math to be "wrong" - I say that your multipicate effects in each step of your calculation of the odds are wrong. The odds of winning a lottery twice is simply not x^2 of winning it once. Anyway, this is a point that doesn't even matter anymore. I'll retract all my statements about your odds - because no matter who is right (which right here I will concede you are), that doesn't make a difference to my position on the issue.

As I said before, molecular biologists are the ones most likely to embrace ID... your friend is probably the exception but not the rule.

My friend is the exception to what rule? All I said about her was that she believes the evidence for evolution (as a whole theory, not specific to DNA formation or any other specific thing) is getting stronger. Either way, we will just have unverified su ion about what the majority of microbiologists believe.

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.

Says you. I'm not attached to my belief system, I'm attached to a logical and supported explanation of things. I haven't presumed to tell you what you believe, it's probably wise you follow suit. You sure make a lot of faulty assumptions about my (unstated) beliefs.

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.

This topic probably fits on where we discussed earlier that (high school science classrooms) take no position.

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'm not concerned with turmabar85 anymore than you are concerned about what the majority thinks. But you are the one trying to get a theory taught in HS science classrooms, and whether you care or not that likely involves getting buy in from the rest of your peers.

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....

I'm not here to change your mind either - I'm simply expressing why I don't want certain topics taught in public school. Furthermore, I never brought up the topic of ID, I said I don't want religion taught in public school. If all world religions were represented fairly in a context that doesn't promote any of them but rather provides historical context, I'd be okay with it... but I don't think that is remotely possible. At the same time, I've acknowledged that some teachers may teach scientific concepts as "religion" - they shouldn't do that either.

[Phenomanul]

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...

Sorry, I was busy with work... as I am back at work...

Let me see if I can clear this up for you...

It has been observed that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can seemingly be 'broken' for larger systems such as stars or galaxies where material from an exploding supernovae can recoalesce to form new planetary nebulas and give rise to order again... The order established in the new system (a few new planets scattered here and there and maybe 20 new stars or so) would still be less than the original order (before the nova)... Sure, the energy balance would take a hit... but small-scale order would nevertheless be established. The principle being that small-scale order can be established at the expense of large-scale disorder.

The example you allude to assumes that if enough solar energy entered a large enough system bounded by an 'imaginary' envelope in 'primitive earth' that then said flux could negate the entropic hurdles posed by a chemical reaction... In essence, the total energy balance would still satisfy the 2nd Law, because the energy bounded by such a large system could then establish small-scale order with the difference... and then create massive disorder around it.

The flaw in said concept when applied to molecular biology is that biomolecular systems require stabilizing forces to prevent deterioration... that is, sufficient energy would have to be channeled to a central location not only to form the highly specialized molecule (DNA in this case), but also to rapidly create the stabilizing environment that would prevent the molecule from breaking apart... There is a reason why we don't observe this phenomena anywhere in the biomolecular world today --- without enzymes that is. The key word here that slips by the minds of many people has been italicized for word stress...


In star systems we rely on gravitational forces to kick-start the 'order-producing' nebulae... Said force is gradient producing in nature (think of a free-body diagram) and inherently able to channel energies into the formation of planetary nebulas or the such... all within the 'boundary' and without the need for additional and external energy sources... that is, flux from outside the system boundary...


Back to your example... Yes, although energy is entering a large scale system, it still needs to be channeled to a focal reaction point (where DNA is being formed) -- bear in mind that the magnitude of the dimensions we are dealing with in regards to the size of DNA are very very small... This is important, because a chemical reaction with such a large entropic hurdle rarely 'sucks' the energy out of its medium in order to proceed -- an energy flux limitation inhibits how fast said energy can be directed at one focal point... that is, the inward gradient (across a spherical boundary immediately surrounding the reaction center) can not exceed the critical thermal conductivity of the medium (water in this case). And because the 'size' of that immediate boundary is small - the critical gradient can be readily approached.

To cir vent this gradient problem one could assume that the solar flux were greater (as this would more evenly distribute the energy and diminish the magnitude of said gradient approach). Unfortunately, the average water temperature would have to rise well above its boiling point... or require that earth's atmospheric pressure be about 25 times greater than it is today... which would not be a valid assumption... so without said pressure credit, an increased flux effect would negate the aqueous phase reaction altogether...

It was then proposed that a concentrated beam of solar energy localized via an atmospherically manifested lightning bolt could produce enough energy to create such a molecule, and not boil the entire system. This seemed to solve the problem since most lightning strikes are somewhat 'random' in nature and do not rely on a guiding force to channel energy toward a specific point. It was afterall a 'chance' path... The next problem that was encountered, however, was dynamic.... A jolt of electricity would require that the cons uent species first be created (amino acids, phosphate sugar bases) followed immediately by the reaction the would produce the DNA molecule itself...

Even with the use of 'lightning-like' energy strikes we have never been able to provide either enough energy or enough time to drive both series of reactions forward... If one increases the amperage, more time is needed for the reaction to proceed... but if one reduces it, then there is not enough energy to overcome the entropic hurdle posed by the new set of conditions... on top of that the stabilizing medium would never get a chance to form since the electric currents propagated by a typical lightning strike are the epitome of 'change' and chaos... not stability. It's a very big dilemma.


Based on this premise we have been able to succesfully create 'amino-acids' in laboratories with artificial bolts of electricity only to see them rapidly revert to more stable cons uent species... The kinetic perks for the formation of DNA, however, haven't allowed for experiments to create the molecule from scratch. <-- that's not to assume it never would... but there are many kinetic limitations that oppose the formation of DNA without enzymes.

And the fact of the matter is that the premise small-scale order can be established at the expense of large-scale disorder has not been succesfully applied to the creation of DNA. Will it ever? Who knows, but that is why we pursue the answer.


I haven't even touched on the matter of information... an additional level of complexity conveyed by the DNA code itself...

So yes I am using the concept provided by the Second Law to establish the hurdle, but not solely relying on it... instead I am relying on more practical principles to show why the formation of DNA from nothing has been an empty nest for science thusfar.

On a related subject check out the following study... amazing stuff really, if we were to assume that billions of years have acted on the genetic code.

http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed.../aminoacid.htm

[Cant_Be_Faded]

and perhaps in 10 years we will discovery a quantum physics explanation of how that channellign into biological molecules can work

oh wait, what's the point of furthering in that direction
GOD DID IT
no need to research further

jesus christ how is this thread still going

i wish god hadn't intelligently designed my impatience for religion

[Cant_Be_Faded]

religion is for s

[Guru of Nothing]

Sorry, I was busy with work... as I am back at work...

Let me see if I can clear this up for you...

It has been observed that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can seemingly be 'broken' for larger systems such as stars or galaxies where material from an exploding supernovae can recoalesce to form new planetary nebulas and give rise to order again..... The order established (a few new planets scattered here and there and maybe 20 new stars or so) would still be less than the original amount (before the nova)... The energy balance would take a hit... and nevertheless small-scale order would be established. The principle being that small-scale order can be established at the expense of large-scale disorder.

The example you allude to assumes that if enough solar energy entered a large enough system bounded by an 'imaginary' envelope in 'primitive earth' that then said flux could negate the entropic hurdles posed by a reaction... In essence, the total energy balance would still satisfy the 2nd Law, because the energy bounded by such a large system could then establish small-scale order with the difference... and then create massive disorder around it.

The flaw in said concept when applied to molecular biology is that biomolecular systems require stabilizing forces to prevent deterioration... that is, sufficient energy would have to be channeled to a central location not only to form the highly specialized molecule (DNA in this case), but also to rapidly create the stabilizing environment that would prevent the molecule from breaking apart... There is a reason why we don't observe this phenomena anywhere in the biomolecular world today --- without enzymes that is. The key word here that slips by the minds of many people is italicized for word stress...


In star systems we rely on gravitational forces to kick-start the 'order-producing' nebulae... Said force is gradient producing in nature (think of a free-body diagram) and inherently able to channel energies into the formation of planetary nebulas or the such... all within a boundary and without the need for additional and external energy sources... that is, flux from outside the system boundary...


Back to your example... Yes although energy is entering a large scale system, it still needs to be channeled to a focal reaction point (where DNA is being formed) bear in mind the magnitude of the dimensions we are dealing with in regards to the size of DNA... A chemical reaction, with such a large entropic hurdle however, rarely 'sucks' the energy out of its medium in order to proceed due to energy flux limitations. Thus the amount of solar energy required for the gradient problem not to be an issue would require that the average water temperature rise well above its boiling point... but then that would negate the aqueous phase reaction altogether...


It was then proposed that a concentrated beam of solar energy localized via an atmospherically manifested lightning bolt could produce enough energy to create such a molecule, and not boil the entire system. This seemed to solve the problem since most lightning strikes are somewhat 'random' in nature and do not rely on a guiding force to channel energy toward a specific point. It was afterall a 'chance' path... The next problem that was encountered, however, was dynamic.... A jolt of electricity would require that the cons uent species first be created (amino acids, phosphate sugar bases) followed by the reaction the produces the DNA molecule itself...


Even with the use of lightning-like energy strikes there is never either enough energy or enough time to get by both reactions... If one increases the amperage, more time is needed for the reaction to proceed... but if one reduces it, then there is not enough energy to overcome the entropic hurdle posed by the new set of conditions... on top of that the stabilizing medium would never get a chance to form since the electric currents propagated by lightning strikes are the epitome of 'change' and chaos... not stability. Its a big dilemma.


Based on this premise we have been able to succesfully create 'amino-acids' in laboratories with artificial bolts of electricity only to see them rapidly revert to more stable cons uent species... The kinetic perks for the formation of DNA, however, haven't allowed for experiments to create it from scratch. <-- that's not to assume it never would... but there are many kinetic limitations that oppose the formation of DNA without enzymes. And the fact of the matter is that the premise small-scale order can be established at the expense of large-scale disorder has not been succesfully applied to the creation of DNA. Will it ever? Who knows, but that is why we pursue the answer.


I haven't even touched on the matter of information... an additional level of complexity conveyed by the DNA code itself...

So yes I am using the concept provided by the Second Law to establish the hurdle, but not solely relying on it... instead I am relying on more practical principles to show why the formation of DNA from nothing has been an empty nest for science thusfar.

On a related subject check out the following study... amazing stuff really, if we were to assume that billions of years have acted on the genetic code.

Obviously, God is a merely a concept not intended for the common man in Mississippi.

[Phenomanul]

Obviously, God is a merely a concept not intended for the common man in Mississippi.

Haven't you heard? Humanity was were never meant to 'know' everything about GOD... we were supposed to take him for his Word.

And that's not to say that learning about the world around us was ever discouraged either... but GOD did not intend for us to use His creation as the motive for our disbelief.

sshhhht yeah... of course everybody would believe if he kept killin' folks left and right with fire and brimstone from the skies... but that's not how He chooses operate. He would rather people just place their Faith in Him... it's just too hard for many 'doubting' Thomas's out there...

[Phenomanul]

and perhaps in 10 years we will discovery a quantum physics explanation of how that channellign into biological molecules can work

oh wait, what's the point of furthering in that direction
GOD DID IT
no need to research further

jesus christ how is this thread still going

i wish god hadn't intelligently designed my impatience for religion

religion is for s

Warning, Warning -- feeble mind at work.

[boutons_]

"we were supposed to take him for his Word."

aka "The Dark Ages", which is what IDers/Creationists want to establish again.

[xrayzebra]

^^Only the regressive liberals have the true word. Just ask boutons. No other word
is allowed. You mustn't offend, well you cant, but they can.

[Phenomanul]

"we were supposed to take him for his Word."

aka "The Dark Ages", which is what IDers/Creationists want to establish again.

No its about a 'Trust' relationship you seem to have no understanding of...

How about you actually try refuting some arguments instead of spewing your typical hateful rant...

[boutons_]

"refuting some arguments"

because your retrograde/smug stance is "I believe, end of argument". aka, "Dark Ages", shutting off all advances in knoweldge.

When do you start PROVING your own stance with hard evidence, rather than folding your arms and saying "I believe, so it's true", rather trying to discredit/preclude the bulk of current scientific EVIDENCE.

The absence of proof, the incomplete, ever-changing scientific grasping at truth is not, therefore, proof that Genesis is how the world came about. That's the core problem with your creationist/IDer stance.

Seeking the truth, ANY TRUTH, IN ANY CONTEXT, BY ANY MEANS, is the nature of man.

Scientificially/rationally seeking the truth is as religious as any legit religion.

But no, narrow-minedd un-Christian "Christians" insist on blind belief and exclusion of non-Christians from salvation.

Rather than trying to resolve and incorporate scientific knowledge and discoveries into your worldview, your worldview is fixed, closed, and wrong.

It's incredible hubris, and lack of true faith and peace with the universe, to say the Bible is absolutely, literally true and the universe/science must be distorted, bent, perverted to fit the your narrow-minded reading of the Bible.

There are "Christian" docents leading school kids around natural history museums saying "when man and dinosaurs lived togther...". GMAFB

[RandomGuy]

Science Confirms the Bible

http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant...oduct_Code=284

That was good for a laugh, thanks.

[Phenomanul]

"refuting some arguments"

because your retrograde/smug stance is "I believe, end of argument". aka, "Dark Ages", shutting off all advances in knoweldge.

When do you start PROVING your own stance with hard evidence, rather than folding your arms and saying "I believe, so it's true", rather trying to discredit/preclude the bulk of current scientific EVIDENCE.

The absence of proof, the incomplete, ever-changing scientific grasping at truth is not, therefore, proof that Genesis is how the world came about. That's the core problem with your creationist/IDer stance.

Seeking the truth, ANY TRUTH, IN ANY CONTEXT, BY ANY MEANS, is the nature of man.

Scientificially/rationally seeking the truth is as religious as any legit religion.

But no, narrow-minedd un-Christian "Christians" insist on blind belief and exclusion of non-Christians from salvation.

Rather than trying to resolve and incorporate scientific knowledge and discoveries into your worldview, your worldview is fixed, closed, and wrong.

It's incredible hubris, and lack of true faith and peace with the universe, to say the Bible is absolutely, literally true and the universe/science must be distorted, bent, perverted to fit the your narrow-minded reading of the Bible.

There are "Christian" docents leading school kids around natural history museums saying "when man and dinosaurs lived togther...". GMAFB

You go ahead and believe that... I believe what I've studied to be true, and I pursue to study that which remains unanswered. You really have no clue... only hate.

Sure... there is incomplete data.... and many unanswered questions but you seem to ignore that the incompleteness is there for both sides.

I continue studying despite your lies that religion is trying to bring back the 'dark-ages'... In fact I'm not even a proponent of religion the way you see it... I'm a proponent of GOD's Word. True religion is taking care of the hungry, the weak, the poor, widows and orphans. But you never care to see that...

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Warning, Warning -- feeble mind at work.

you're right, we should keep researching more and more in every possible field, so that we may develop more intricate theories on how and why god created reality

[gtownspur]

you're right, we should keep researching more and more in every possible field, so that we may develop more intricate theories on how and why god created reality

No, we should sit around like pious assholes like you and not question our existance.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

religion is for S

[NASpurs]

religion is for S

Says the guy going to

[Cant_Be_Faded]

LoLL that statement is just as ignorant as mine
thats why religion is for s

[NASpurs]

You going to I saaaaaaaaaaid

What's your fall back plan when you die? You're going to be in your death bed praying for your sins to be repented like a pussy.

[Guru of Nothing]

Haven't you heard? Humanity was were never meant to 'know' everything about GOD... we were supposed to take him for his Word.

And that's not to say that learning about the world around us was ever discouraged either... but GOD did not intend for us to use His creation as the motive for our disbelief.

sshhhht yeah... of course everybody would believe if he kept killin' folks left and right with fire and brimstone from the skies... but that's not how He chooses operate. He would rather people just place their Faith in Him... it's just too hard for many 'doubting' Thomas's out there...

o! Thomas doubted Christ; I doubt You. Please don't confuse the two.

My disbelief is rooted in Your words, and others like You, ... moreso than You will ever recognize.

Ponder that.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

You going to I saaaaaaaaaaid

What's your fall back plan when you die? You're going to be in your death bed praying for your sins to be repented like a pussy.

Well if that came to pass noone would know about it unless i blogged with my final reserves of energy...energy.....conserved, or not? I guess you can only violate the laws of energy based on faith...

faith....the premise by which you assume i care about , afterlife, sins, or death

death....the greatest adventure of all...the undiscovered country...

country....the usa....the usa is mostly christian....christian....these people have done nothing but good for the entire world....world....a world intelligently designed.....design....whoa, i've come full circle!

how foolish of me? This proves god in fact designed (intelligently of course) our entire existence!

I was wrong.
Christians were right.

[NASpurs]

Well if that came to pass noone would know about it unless i blogged with my final reserves of energy...energy.....conserved, or not? I guess you can only violate the laws of energy based on faith...

faith....the premise by which you assume i care about , afterlife, sins, or death

death....the greatest adventure of all...the undiscovered country...

country....the usa....the usa is mostly christian....christian....these people have done nothing but good for the entire world....world....a world intelligently designed.....design....whoa, i've come full circle!

how foolish of me? This proves god in fact designed (intelligently of course) our entire existence!

I was wrong.
Christians were right.

You go from science to sarcasm at the end. Seems like close minded people like you who belittle religion with your ignorant insults don't even care what we say as long as you get to throw your little jabs at us thinking we're dumbasses because we believe something that you can't see.

I'm not even here to try and argue with you because we all know it's futile. Just don't go saying religion is for s because those " s" are probably better people than you I saiiiiid.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

im not arguing with you bro
i respect you, anyone with true faith, and if you were skilled at blogging sarcasm you'd realize i was just playing generic devil's advocate after turambar's post saying how he wished this thread was how it was at the beginning

[NASpurs]

im not arguing with you bro
i respect you, anyone with true faith, and if you were skilled at blogging sarcasm you'd realize i was just playing generic devil's advocate after turambar's post saying how he wished this thread was how it was at the beginning

sorry about that then.

[Extra Stout]

LoLL that statement is just as ignorant as mine
thats why religion is for s

I'm keeping the faith.
Pack lightly for .