Big Bang and creation of the universe

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

04/11/2005 02:02:15 PM · #226

Originally posted by milo655321:

You can believe in invisible sugar plum fairies dump bucket of water from the sky to make it rain for all I care. It�s your right under the first amendment. But as soon as you demand that the sugar plum fairy rain theory be given equal time in the American science class, I will demand a higher standard of evidence other than a whole bunch of people believe so it must be true.

You do realize don't you, or am I assuming WAY too much, that "we" are not arguing for EQUAL TIME in the American science class. All we are arguing is for the CORRECT teaching that macro-evolution is a THEORY, and not a FACT - at least not yet it isn't. You don't have to teach anything about religion or theology or creationism at all. Just stop teaching theories as though they were fact. And, fwiw, that's all the Georgia legislature requested - a little sticker saying that macro-evolution was a theory.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/11/2005 02:13:59 PM · #227

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by milo655321:
You can believe in invisible sugar plum fairies dump bucket of water from the sky to make it rain for all I care. It�s your right under the first amendment. But as soon as you demand that the sugar plum fairy rain theory be given equal time in the American science class, I will demand a higher standard of evidence other than a whole bunch of people believe so it must be true.

You do realize don't you, or am I assuming WAY too much, that "we" are not arguing for EQUAL TIME in the American science class. All we are arguing is for the CORRECT teaching that macro-evolution is a THEORY, and not a FACT - at least not yet it isn't. You don't have to teach anything about religion or theology or creationism at all. Just stop teaching theories as though they were fact. And, fwiw, that's all the Georgia legislature requested - a little sticker saying that macro-evolution was a theory.

Ron, that gets us back to the confusion in how scientists and laymen use the word "theory". Why not substitute "hypothesis" instead? "...a little sticker saying that macro-evolution is a hypothesis."

Robt.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/11/2005 02:25:28 PM · #228

Originally posted by RonB:

All we are arguing is for the CORRECT teaching that macro-evolution is a THEORY, and not a FACT - at least not yet it isn't.

You're still pushing that "theory" misconception? In layman's terms, if something is said to be "just a theory," it usually means that it is a mere guess. In scientific terms, both a scientific theory and a scientific law have been proven and are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology. The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena. If you'd like to place a label on books stating that the Theory of Evolution is accepted as fact by the scientific community as a whole (which is what that term means), be my guest.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

04/11/2005 02:54:11 PM · #229

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by milo655321:
You can believe in invisible sugar plum fairies dump bucket of water from the sky to make it rain for all I care. It�s your right under the first amendment. But as soon as you demand that the sugar plum fairy rain theory be given equal time in the American science class, I will demand a higher standard of evidence other than a whole bunch of people believe so it must be true.

You do realize don't you, or am I assuming WAY too much, that "we" are not arguing for EQUAL TIME in the American science class. All we are arguing is for the CORRECT teaching that macro-evolution is a THEORY, and not a FACT - at least not yet it isn't. You don't have to teach anything about religion or theology or creationism at all. Just stop teaching theories as though they were fact. And, fwiw, that's all the Georgia legislature requested - a little sticker saying that macro-evolution was a theory.

Ron, that gets us back to the confusion in how scientists and laymen use the word "theory". Why not substitute "hypothesis" instead? "...a little sticker saying that macro-evolution is a hypothesis."

Robt.

A brilliant alternative. One I believe Creationists would accept. But would the evolutionist accept that? I seriously doubt it.

milo655321

Nikon D70

04/11/2005 02:55:47 PM · #230

Originally posted by RonB:

Since you hadn�t specifically stated which camp you�re in, I have to go with the information available to me. There are still groups (recently in Arkansas) pushing for �equal time� for creationism even though the Supreme Court ruled creationism to be a religious concept and an infringement of the Establishment Clause back in the �80s. There are groups (recently in Georgia) pushing for the inclusion of stickers stating that evolution is a �theory� not a �fact,� while ignoring the theory of relativity, germ theory of disease, atomic theory, etc. There are also other groups (recently in Pennsylvania) pushing for the inclusion of Intelligent Design as a theory on par with evolution, even though Intelligent Design makes no predictions and not falsifiable while evolution does and is.

Meanwhile, I�m still curious about the lack of attention to several prior questions I�ve put to you. Reviewing your response to scalvert, is it now your contention that flightless cormorants walked from Asia Minor, down the European/African continental shelf, across the current ocean floor which, it appears you are saying, would have been, to a large extent, dry land, up the North/South American continental shelf, across either North or South America, and 600 miles east of South America to the Galapagos Islands?

Edited to add: After more research, I found that it was in Tennessee that a bill was introduced to give "equal time" to scientific creationism, not Arkansas like I originally wrote.

Message edited by author 2005-04-11 23:44:22.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/11/2005 03:03:51 PM · #231

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
All we are arguing is for the CORRECT teaching that macro-evolution is a THEORY, and not a FACT - at least not yet it isn't.

You're still pushing that "theory" misconception? In layman's terms, if something is said to be "just a theory," it usually means that it is a mere guess. In scientific terms, both a scientific theory and a scientific law have been proven and are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology. The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena. If you'd like to place a label on books stating that the Theory of Evolution is accepted as fact by the scientific community as a whole (which is what that term means), be my guest.

Let me rephrase your statement so that it is correct.

In scientific terms, both a scientific theory and a scientific law have been hypothesized, not proven, and are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events or attempt to explain past events. Both are used to attempt to advance technology. The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory attempts to explain a whole series of related phenomena. If you'd like to place a label on books stating that the Theory of Evolution is accepted as fact by the scientific community as a whole (which is what that term means), be my guest.

How about a sticker stating, as Robert suggest, that indicates that macro evolution is a hypothesis?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/11/2005 03:26:40 PM · #232

An hypothesis is an educated guess. It is NOT a theory. Scientific theories cannot be absolutely proven (as you suggest), but they CAN be disproven- in stark contrast to blind faith.

From Wikipedia:
Often the statement "Well, it's just a theory," is used to dismiss controversial theories such as evolution, but this is largely due to confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e.

1. it is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,

3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,

4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and

5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/11/2005 04:32:11 PM · #233

Originally posted by RonB:

Don't let RonB's disingenuous denial fool you. Here are some excerpts from a recent "American Prospect" article

"President Bush's re-election and the growing political strength of religious conservatives have done a lot to put evolution back on the radar. But in fact, this battle never ended -- and The American Prospect covered it back in 2002. ..... There are few issues where a knowledge of history matters more than the debate over the teaching of evolution. In a few breathless sentences, the story goes like this: Some religious believers have always had moral and theological problems with evolution, Protestant fundamentalists in America especially. And they haven't wanted their kids to hear about it. But these anti-evolutionists have themselves evolved over the years in response to a series of unfavorable court decisions. Because of the nature of the First Amendment, these dicta have increasingly forced Darwin's enemies into the awkward position of claiming that rather than being driven by religion, they have science on their side. ..... It's a tough act for anti-evolutionists to pull off, especially because they can count on the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and huge lists of Nobel laureates to shoot them down. But if you'd been slammed by the Supreme Court in 1968 (Epperson v. Arkansas) and then again in 1987 (Edwards v. Aguillard), you might try such a strategy, too. And, in fact, anti-evolutionists have gotten better at claiming to be scientific over the years. They've perfected a losing approach. .... In the late 1960s and early 1970s, however, we saw the official emergence of "creation science" or "scientific creationism," which centered on the attempt to show that geological studies proved the reality of Noah's flood. But few were fooled, and the Supreme Court nixed this supposed alternative to evolution in public-school science classes in 1987. .... The anti-evolutionists, however, saw a loophole: They still might be able to teach "scientific" criticisms of evolution, even if they couldn't positively advance their own views, which were clearly theological. Enter the "Intelligent Design" (ID) movement. ..... The ID movement has its home base at a Seattle think tank called the Discovery Institute. Mindful of legal precedents, Discovery does not officially advocate bringing up ID in classrooms (as has happened in Dover, Pennsylvania, to Discovery's chagrin). Rather, the institute wants students to learn about the "controversy" over evolution -- a controversy that is supposedly scientific in nature. ..... But the Discovery Institute made a key tactical error. Somehow, a document that seems to bare the true soul of the institute leaked onto the Web. You can read it here, with Discovery's gloss on it. Unfortunately, not even the most consummate rhetorician could explain away lines like, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Once it lets its guard down, anti-evolutionism hasn't changed a bit. ....

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/11/2005 05:10:32 PM · #234

And on the National Center for Science Education website, you can read about what's happening in school districts all over the country around this issue.

Message edited by author 2005-04-11 17:10:50.

MadMordegon

04/11/2005 08:13:34 PM · #235

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

And on the National Center for Science Education website, you can read about what's happening in school districts all over the country around this issue.

Wow, its blowing up. Thanks for the links.

People should watch the short documentary film "War in Dover" as in Dover PA. The best part is when they try and have proponents of "intelligent design" try and explain how its different than creationism.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

04/11/2005 09:33:40 PM · #236

Originally posted by milo655321:

Oh, and while we�re at it, please, please, please, for the love of Jiminy Cricket, learn how to spell �Satan.� It�s difficult to take you seriously when you don�t even know how to spell the name of your chief adversary. Haven�t you ever read the Bible?

Well Milo, it's kind of funny folks feel this way, with all the diferent meanings the same word has or the diferent words which mean the same thing. And btw, it's quite OK to modify photos as one sees fit but not words? The point is to communicate and I think I did that with understanding.
Oh,and if you really think grammer and spelling is that important, the past tense of "swim" is swam. You might want to go back and correct your errors. I could not care less if my spelling is politically correct.

Message edited by author 2005-04-11 21:35:38.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/11/2005 09:36:48 PM · #237

Originally posted by David Ey:

You might want to go back and correct your errors.

But only those which have to do with grammar.

04/11/2005 09:46:57 PM · #238

Originally posted by scalvert:

Let me stop here to explain that "empirical" means

"adj. 1.a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws. 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine."

Now note that empirical requires either observation, or experiment, or practical experience. Which of these does the "theory of evolution" lay claim to? Certainly not observation - no one saw evolution occur; certainly not experiment, otherwise we would be able to reproduce it; and certainly not by practical experience. No, the theory of evolution definitely does NOT have a "firm empirical basis".

Originally posted by scalvert:

..., i.e.

1. it is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified,...

Once again, I must point out that nothing of macro evolution has been experimentally verified.

Originally posted by scalvert:

...though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,[/quote}
Well, this part is true, the macro evolutionary "tree" has been reworked so long that it is now called a "bush".

[quote=scalvert]2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation,...

The problem is that each of those "strands", in order to be accepted as "evidence", require the prior acceptance of assumptions or of prior "strands of evidence" that were, in turn, accepted based on assumptions.

Originally posted by scalvert:

...ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,

probably,...good approximation,...not totally correct. Yep, that about sums it up.

Originally posted by scalvert:

3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,

Interesting that...especially in light of the fact that many critical real world tests HAVE proven it false. For example:

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man�until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig. This fossil was part of the evidence entered to substantiate evolution in the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial"

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link")

Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like.

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow

Originally posted by scalvert:

4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and

Yes, but only after another few thousand years go by without a single empirical specimen of macro evolution.

Originally posted by scalvert:

5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data

Actually it is not. Occam's Razor says that the most simplistic answer is usually the best one. And, an Intelligent Designer is far and away simpler than man evolving from a long line of ever simpler organisms that ultimately originated in a single dna strand that formed by chance from who knows how many proteins that also formed by chance in the primordial ooze. It is far and away a better explanation for modern machines ( not quite an INFINITE variety, but certainly a PLETHORA of them ) that there was/were intelligent designer(s), than to declare that they merely "formed" themselves over time. And before you go saying that that's because we can OBSERVE the designers at work - you will have to answer why, upon finding a sharpened flint in the same area as some old bones, it is "assumed" that it was "fashioned" by some prehistoric man, than assume that it "formed itself". Evolutionists would like to have it both ways - intelligent design when it suits their purposes and NOT when it doesn't.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/11/2005 10:00:26 PM · #239

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:
5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data

Actually it is not. Occam's Razor says that the most simplistic answer is usually the best one. And, an Intelligent Designer is far and away simpler than man evolving from a long line of ever simpler organisms that ultimately originated in a single dna strand that formed by chance from who knows how many proteins that also formed by chance in the primordial ooze.

Actually the known physical reactions which seem to lead (with appropriate supply of solar energy) inevitibly towards what we call life is far simpler -- sheer numbers have nothing to do with complexity -- than to have to postulate a completely new form of matter, which cannot be detected, yet is intelligent. Can't see it, can't prove it exists by any type of replicable scientific demonstration, yet it controls everything.

And that this undetectable entity would be concerned with us, out of the trillions of planets circling trillions of stars in billions of galaxies -- that such an entity could -- or would want to -- keep track of your personal supplications for everything from eternal grace to the home team covering the point spread, that seems complicated to me, even compared to organic chemistry. The idea reeks of hubris.

Message edited by author 2005-04-11 22:04:08.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/11/2005 10:12:43 PM · #240

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:
5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data

Actually it is not. Occam's Razor says that the most simplistic answer is usually the best one. And, an Intelligent Designer is far and away simpler than man evolving from a long line of ever simpler organisms that ultimately originated in a single dna strand that formed by chance from who knows how many proteins that also formed by chance in the primordial ooze.

Actually the known physical reactions which seem to lead (with appropriate supply of solar energy) inevitibly towards what we call life is far simpler -- sheer numbers have nothing to do with complexity -- than to have to postulate a completely new form of matter, which cannot be detected, yet is intelligent. Can't see it, can't prove it exists by any type of replicable scientific demonstration, yet it controls everything.

And that this undetectable entity would be concerned with us, out of the trillions of planets circling trillions of stars in billions of galaxies -- that such an entity could -- or would want to -- keep track of your personal supplications for everything from eternal grace to the home team covering the point spread, that seems complicated to me, even compared to organic chemistry. The idea reeks of hubris.

General, to be completely fair we ought to separate out matters of fundamental belief from essentially doctrinal considerations. To beleive in a Creator is not neccessarily to believe that He is involved with the day-to-day micromanagement of His creation. So for the purposes of this argument (creationism versus evolution) dragging in such issues as "personal supplications for everything from eternal grace to the home team covering the point spread" is just throwing down a red herring, don't you think?

RonB, out of pure curiosity I'd be interested to know how you would explain the incredible (and even pointless) diversity of His creation? How do you account for such weirdnesses as the duck-billed platypus? And countless other strange creatures great and small? Why do you not find it reasonable to assume that there might be, say, a middle ground between these two extremes, that perhaps the Creator laid down the foundations, the mechanism as it were, of life & evolution and then proceeded to let nature (His nature, to be sure) run her course?

Robt.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/11/2005 10:22:18 PM · #241

Originally posted by bear_music:

It seems a completely fair assumption, given a Creator of the Judeo-Christian type. Number one, the principles of omnipresence and omnipotence make it "not a problem" for God to be everywhere, listing to us all, at once, 24/7, right? Secondly, one of the primary injuctions is to not take the Lord's name in vain, yet I hear people encouraged to pray for everything they want all the time -- the more prayer the better.

Day One: An old man pleads, "Dear God, Please God, let me win the Lottery."
Day Two: "Please God, let me win the Lottery."
Day Three: "Please God, let me win the Lottery."
Day Four: "This is God. You gotta help me out -- at least buy a ticket!"

04/11/2005 10:23:04 PM · #242

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:
5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data

Actually it is not. Occam's Razor says that the most simplistic answer is usually the best one. And, an Intelligent Designer is far and away simpler than man evolving from a long line of ever simpler organisms that ultimately originated in a single dna strand that formed by chance from who knows how many proteins that also formed by chance in the primordial ooze.

Actually the known physical reactions which seem to lead (with appropriate supply of solar energy) inevitibly towards what we call life is far simpler -- sheer numbers have nothing to do with complexity -- than to have to postulate a completely new form of matter, which cannot be detected, yet is intelligent. Can't see it, can't prove it exists by any type of replicable scientific demonstration, yet it controls everything.

I have highlighted the IFFY parts of your quote to show that even YOU don't REALLY believe it fully, otherwise you would just come out and state it as fact - the kinds that are taught in our government schools. FWIW, God is not some "form of matter". "Matter" is something that He created. God CAN be detected, but only by those who believe; God is not just "intelligent", He is Omniscient. As for proof, none needed. Scientists can't see black holes either, and can't prove they exist by any type of replicable scientific demonstration, yet they certainly continue to believe in them. Why? By the empirical evidence that shows that SOMETHING MUST exist as cause to the effect that they can see.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

And that this undetectable entity would be concerned with us, out of the trillions of planets circling trillions of stars in billions of galaxies -- that such an entity could -- or would want to -- keep track of your personal supplications for everything from eternal grace to the home team covering the point spread, that seems complicated to me, even compared to organic chemistry. The idea reeks of hubris.

No, it would only be hubris if one thought that he or she could actually exercise some control over God, not that he or she lives by grace tempered with mercy, but that somehow, in spite of their inadequacy, God loves him/her so much that He WANTS to grant every wish and WANTS to heal every hurt, but is wise enough NOT to. Rather like the best kind of earthly parent.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/11/2005 10:29:13 PM · #243

I accept a universe governed by physical laws, which no matter how complex, can eventually have their cause/effect relationship detected, deduced, elucidated, and replicated.

You seem to believe in a unverse with two sets of physical laws, one set like mine, and one set which you can't detect, test, replicate, or even describe, but must accept exists "on faith."

Message edited by author 2005-04-11 22:29:57.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/11/2005 10:33:26 PM · #244

Originally posted by GeneralE:

That's what faith IS, though; if it's proveable, faith doesn't enter the equation at all. I see no purpose to to trying to deny the validity of faith, frankly; I envy those who have it, in direct proportion to how strong it is. But I guess that's irrelevant to this slang-fest...

Robt.

MadMordegon

04/11/2005 10:36:01 PM · #245

Originally posted by GeneralE:

LOL very well said General.

"keep track of your personal supplications for everything from eternal grace to the home team covering the point spread"

ROFL

The true irony is that because we are this smart, we can choose to break from instinct and nature to the point where we are on the path to our own and every other life on earths, extinction.

04/11/2005 10:50:39 PM · #246

Originally posted by bear_music:

RonB, out of pure curiosity I'd be interested to know how you would explain the incredible (and even pointless) diversity of His creation? How do you account for such weirdnesses as the duck-billed platypus? And countless other strange creatures great and small? Why do you not find it reasonable to assume that there might be, say, a middle ground between these two extremes, that perhaps the Creator laid down the foundations, the mechanism as it were, of life & evolution and then proceeded to let nature (His nature, to be sure) run her course?

Robt.

The reason for the diversity you see is twofold:
1) Created by God, for his own pleasure ( some, like the platypus I believe, because he has a terrific sense of humor )

Collosians 1:13-17 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

2) So that his greatest creation, man, would look around him and know that He existed.

Romans 1:19-22 Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

Why do I believe that He is involved? a) Personal experiences and those I've known of firsthand from others, and can attest to; b)

John 5:17 Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working."

Ephesians 3:20 Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

04/11/2005 10:53:39 PM · #247

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:
5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data

Actually it is not. Occam's Razor says that the most simplistic answer is usually the best one. And, an Intelligent Designer is far and away simpler than man evolving from a long line of ever simpler organisms that ultimately originated in a single dna strand that formed by chance from who knows how many proteins that also formed by chance in the primordial ooze.

Actually the known physical reactions which seem to lead (with appropriate supply of solar energy) inevitibly towards what we call life is far simpler -- sheer numbers have nothing to do with complexity -- than to have to postulate a completely new form of matter, which cannot be detected, yet is intelligent. Can't see it, can't prove it exists by any type of replicable scientific demonstration, yet it controls everything.

And that this undetectable entity would be concerned with us, out of the trillions of planets circling trillions of stars in billions of galaxies -- that such an entity could -- or would want to -- keep track of your personal supplications for everything from eternal grace to the home team covering the point spread, that seems complicated to me, even compared to organic chemistry. The idea reeks of hubris.

LOL very well said General.

"keep track of your personal supplications for everything from eternal grace to the home team covering the point spread"

ROFL

The true irony is that because we are this smart, we can choose to break from instinct and nature to the point where we are on the path to our own and every other life on earths, extinction.

MadMordegon I believe as you that mankind has the intelligence to change things. Only I believe it is mankind that will save the earth, if we have time. It won't be us that destroys it.

04/11/2005 10:57:09 PM · #248

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

"keep track of your personal supplications for everything from eternal grace to the home team covering the point spread"

ROFL

The true irony is that because we are this smart, we can choose to break from instinct and nature to the point where we are on the path to our own and every other life on earths, extinction.

If you ROFL at that, here's an even better one.
Since God created TIME, and He, Himself exists OUTSIDE of TIME, I can, and do pray for events AFTER they have already occurred ( as long as I don't already know the outcome ). The way I see it, since God is omniscient, He knows BEFORE the event that I will pray about it AFTER the event, so he can consider my post-event prayers ahead of time, and honor them if He so desires. I find that extremely enlightening.

MadMordegon

04/11/2005 11:00:15 PM · #249

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I accept a universe governed by physical laws, which no matter how complex, can eventually have their cause/effect relationship detected, deduced, elucidated, and replicated.

I also share this way of thinking, to a degree. Most things outside this world and what we can't view or anylize from it, we will probably never know because our race wont be around long enough to explore that far.

It seems the more advanced humanity's technology gets, the more out of touch with reality and nature humanity gets, physically and mentally.