The Real 'Expelled'

[e lansing]

God came down to Earth and met with some scientists. The scientists argued that they could create life as he. God said 'I'll take that bet."

The scientists said , "Your on."

So God picked up a handful of dirt and blew into it and out came a man. It was the scientists turn. They picked up a handfull of dirt and began heading toward their Lab.

God said, "Wait a minute."

The scientists stopped and said, "What?"

God replied, "Get your own dirt."

[e lansing]

INTERVENE IS NOT WHAT I HAD IN MIND, MORE LIKE SUSTAINING, HIS PRESENTS FILLS THE EARTH AND THE UNIVERSE

There's no need for God to "sustain" the natural world in any kind of supernatural way to keep things running. For example, gravity and inertia manage to maintain stable orbits for Jupiter's moons just fine.

So are you saying that where gravity exists God could not! can you prove this? do you have a testable hypothesis? YOU ARE MR INCREDITABLE! e lansing

I WOULD AGREE THAT YOU HAVE A CLOSED MIND, BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU SEEM TO ONLY BELIEVE WHAT SCIENCE DECLARES AS TRUE REALITY.

Education is valuable and has a measurable benefit on an individual and societal level, I'm sorry you're having such a problem accepting this fact.

I have no issue with the fact that there is true value in a good education, the issue is that the public education infrenges on my right to express I.D through sensorship and biased. In what other branches of science do they exclude in advance any set of possible out comes of scientific investigations? e lansing

SO BECAUSE YOU ARE A PROFESSIONAL YOU KNOW ALL THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR SKILL, YOU ARE god OF YOUR SKILL!

No, a professional will simply know more about their particular profession than a non-professional on average. If you want to tile your floor who would you go to for advice, the guy who's never tiled before or someone who does it for a living? If you choose the later does that mean you are proclaiming the professional tiler to be a god of tiling? Tone down the ridiculous a couple of notches.

Why would any body who has no experince in tiling a floor offer his advice? Are implying that evolutionist are professional and are the only ones who can offer there theory? And all others are none preofessionals and therefore should not offer theories? Therefore the world should only listen to all the evolutionist because they are professionals and are truely all MR INCREDITBLES! HOW RIDICULOUS IS THAT? e lansing

I GEUSS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A HUGE PRIDE PROBLEM IN ORDER TO BE A PROFESSIONAL, IS THAT WHAT YOUR SAYING?

There's nothing wrong with taking pride in your work: if you do an awesome job you should be proud of it.

The evolution theory is so AWESOME that they have a testable hypothesis to disprove I.D and prove how all life begain! how? They are increditabl professionals! e lansing

WOW! I DO NOT HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, [FUNNY HOW YOU LIKE TO LUMP IT ALL TOGETHER], IT'S WITH HOW THEY TEACH EVOLUTION.

And you got your ideas about how evolution is taught from where exactly? The latest Discovery Institute blog post?

Do have a problem with that? May be you do since your are MR INCREDITABLE PROFESSIONAL!

e lansing

TEACHING ONE TO BE A FRAMER IS ONE THING, HOW YOU TEACH IS ANOTHER. THERE ARE MORE THEN ONE WAY TO BUILD A HOUSE.

There aren't very many ways to build houses and stay within code. Who do you think teaches people to be framers? Professionals or those with zero experience in framing? Of course you'd want to get someone with a lot of experience and education in construction to teach other framers their trade, yet on the topic of evolution you're suggesting we toss out 99.99% of professionals in the relevant fields and instead let people with no experience or higher education on the issue "vote" on what should be taught. Sense: it's what this doesn't make.

NOT AT THE MOMENT, WHAT I DO SEE IS A LOT OF HOLES IN EVOLUTION THEORY

Really? You can't think of a single blessed testable hypothesis for Intelligent Design and yet you think it should be taught in science classes? Have you met the scientific method? I think you two should get to know each other a little better.

My testable hypothesis is the human body, mind and spirit! The body and all of its complexities are testable and measureable, are they not? These complexities of the human body and its cells lead me to conclude that there must be a I.Der. The complexities of our planet lead me to the same conclusions. Its funny that the longer evolutionist study the human body and mind it comtinues to create more questions that leave them with more questions then anwers. A demenstration of at leased one highly probable thread of events that could lead from non life to life. Whats the probablity of this happening? IM SURE MR INCREDITABLE PROFESSIONAL KNOWS! AN YET THEY STILL WANT TO TEACH EVOLUTION AS FACT!

The Bible teaches me that God is the same today, yesterday, and forever and He never changes. It also teaches that we were created in His image. Just as He never changes neither has His human creation, God did not monkey around when created mankind! We are wonderfully made!

e lansing

MR Lurker, after all of this, we ultimitly end up with where each of has place our faith. You have place your faith in what you have learnd from your education and therefore you hold to your positions just as i have. We speak from oue positions revealing where we have placed our faith. I'm not sure if you have placed your faith in Jesus or not, i hope you have. if not i hope our ramblings might cause a stir for the things of God. At any rate God is working in your life, even if you disagree. Your alright Mr Luker, regardless of what others say! thanks for the heads up on these boards, I'm new here and don't know my way around. it only allowed me to block text so few times

AS CHRISTIANS WE DON'T LOSE OUR SALVATION BECAUSE WE SIN, WE ARE SINNERS BY NATURE, AND WE ARE FORGVEN FROM OUR CRIMES/SINS AGAINST GOD BY HIS GRACE AND MERCY IF WE SO CHOSE TO RECEIVE IT BY PUTTING OUR FAITH IN HIM. THE SIN THAT COST US OUR SALVATION IS THE SIN OF TURNING FROM OR REJECTING JESUS AS SAVIOUR.

Therefore saying that someone cannot commit a sin while still being a Christian would be wrong, correct?

Are you saying that a person who kills can be a christian, i say not! Christians are not Christian because they said a prayer or claim to be one. If they are Christian they can prove it by how they live!

e lansing

All right, now for some off-topic business, you need to stop with the all caps thing. I'm right here, there's no need to shout. Also, your posts are almost impossible to decipher because you're mixing in your text with mine. You need to use html tags. Any time you want to "quote" me you need to type [ followed by quote and another ] above it and [ followed by /quote and ] below it. The result will look like. . .

. . .this

Lurker

[Guest]

.... The Bible teaches me that God is the same today, yesterday, and forever and He never changes. It also teaches that we were created in His image. Just as He never changes neither has His human creation, God did not monkey around when created mankind! We are wonderfully made! ....

Really? Human beings "never change"? Exactly how far are you willing to take this claim? ....

Believer's Claim

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Genesis 2:7

God's Truth

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."

1 Corinthians 15:45

Trust Him

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

John 3:36

Really

"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

John 5:28-29

Trust

"That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."

John 5:23-24

And Be Blessed Beloved

"In thee, O LORD, do I put my trust; let me never be ashamed: deliver me in thy righteousness.

Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me.

For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me.

Pull me out of the net that they have laid privily for me: for thou art my strength.

Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth.

I have hated them that regard lying vanities: but I trust in the LORD."

Psalms 31:1-6

Love, Joe

"Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;" Isaiah 44:24-25

[e lansing]

.... The Bible teaches me that God is the same today, yesterday, and forever and He never changes. It also teaches that we were created in His image. Just as He never changes neither has His human creation, God did not monkey around when created mankind! We are wonderfully made! ....

Really? Human beings "never change"? Exactly how far are you willing to take this claim? ....

Believer's Claim

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Genesis 2:7

God's Truth

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."

1 Corinthians 15:45

Trust Him

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

John 3:36

Really

"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

John 5:28-29

Trust

"That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."

John 5:23-24

And Be Blessed Beloved

"In thee, O LORD, do I put my trust; let me never be ashamed: deliver me in thy righteousness.

Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me.

For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me.

Pull me out of the net that they have laid privily for me: for thou art my strength.

Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth.

I have hated them that regard lying vanities: but I trust in the LORD."

Psalms 31:1-6

Love, Joe

"Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;" Isaiah 44:24-25

amen!

[e lansing]

So are you saying that where gravity exists God could not!

No more than saying that a computer that doesn't need to be constantly attended by an IT guy negates the existence of Steve Jobs.

Understanding that computers will and do need work is understandable since they are man made, however, claiming to understand if God does or does not exist in gravity is a huge leap. i believe that God exists everywhere is base on His Word, your idea id based upon, what, mans ieda?

I have no issue with the fact that there is true value in a good education, the issue is that the public education infrenges on my right to express I.D through sensorship and biased. In what other branches of science do they exclude in advance any set of possible out comes of scientific investigations?

You, as a student, have the right to express interest in Intelligent Design philosophy, you have the right to research it, you even have the right to ask your teacher about it and your teacher has the right to give you a basic definition about what it is. Your teacher, however, does not have the right to teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory because it is not part of any public school curriculum and because ID violates the most basic premise of the scientific method in that it cannot produce any testable hypothesis'. All other branches of science follow this basic format in that they do not teach pseudosciece - geology does not pander to the flat earthers, cosmology does not teach geocentrism, ect.

Why would any body who has no experince in tiling a floor offer his advice?

Why would anyone who has no experience in biology offer their advice?

Are implying that evolutionist are professional and are the only ones who can offer there theory?

Not at all, I'm saying that those who have a professional level of education and experience in biology are the most qualified individuals to judge scientific theories such as evolution in stead of, as you suggested, the general public.

The evolution theory is so AWESOME that they have a testable hypothesis to disprove I.D and prove how all life begain! how? They are increditabl professionals!

It is not the job of a scientific theory to disprove all over theories, nor does evolution claim to explain how life began. Scientific theories need to provide testable hypothesis' and predictions that support THEIR OWN claims.

Do have a problem with that? May be you do since your are MR INCREDITABLE PROFESSIONAL!

e lansing

Blogs pale in comparison with first hand experience.

My testable hypothesis is the human body, mind and spirit! The body and all of its complexities are testable and measureable, are they not? These complexities of the human body and its cells lead me to conclude that there must be a I.Der.

That's not a testable hypothesis, that's an argument from incredulity largely due, in my opinion, to you not really understanding the process' involved.

The Bible teaches me that God is the same today, yesterday, and forever and He never changes. It also teaches that we were created in His image. Just as He never changes neither has His human creation, God did not monkey around when created mankind! We are wonderfully made!

Really? Human beings "never change"? Exactly how far are you willing to take this claim?

Lurker

[e lansing]

So are you saying that where gravity exists God could not!

No more than saying that a computer that doesn't need to be constantly attended by an IT guy negates the existence of Steve Jobs.

Understanding that computers will and do need work is understandable since they are man made, however, claiming to understand if God does or does not exist in gravity is a huge leap. i believe that God exists everywhere is base on His Word, your idea id based upon, what, mans ieda?

I have no issue with the fact that there is true value in a good education, the issue is that the public education infrenges on my right to express I.D through sensorship and biased. In what other branches of science do they exclude in advance any set of possible out comes of scientific investigations?

You, as a student, have the right to express interest in Intelligent Design philosophy, you have the right to research it, you even have the right to ask your teacher about it and your teacher has the right to give you a basic definition about what it is. Your teacher, however, does not have the right to teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory because it is not part of any public school curriculum and because ID violates the most basic premise of the scientific method in that it cannot produce any testable hypothesis'. All other branches of science follow this basic format in that they do not teach pseudosciece - geology does not pander to the flat earthers, cosmology does not teach geocentrism, ect.

Well i think we will continue to go round and round! I can admit that evoultionist and all other types of science have a great understanding of how things work, great! In terms of how life started, evolutionist, not so great. Therefore why dont they acknowledge that I.D could be possible? Insted the only other possibilities for how life got started are the one's that they deem possible alternitives. So they continue to pump out there cool-aid as fact.

e lansing

Why would any body who has no experince in tiling a floor offer his advice?

Why would anyone who has no experience in biology offer their advice?

Why would someone claim to know that God does not exist in gravity, who does not know Him?

e lansing

Are implying that evolutionist are professional and are the only ones who can offer there theory?

Not at all, I'm saying that those who have a professional level of education and experience in biology are the most qualified individuals to judge scientific theories such as evolution in stead of, as you suggested, the general public.

Would it be unprofessional to understand other theories such as I.D and offer them as possibilities when some of there own theories lack answers?

e lansing

The evolution theory is so AWESOME that they have a testable hypothesis to disprove I.D and prove how all life begain! how? They are increditabl professionals!

It is not the job of a scientific theory to disprove all over theories, nor does evolution claim to explain how life began. Scientific theories need to provide testable hypothesis' and predictions that support THEIR OWN claims.

Yet they are unwilling to acknowledge I.D as a possibilitiy, when they come up short for answers for how life starts. The human life cycle is it not predicable? Is the cell to sophisticated to provide any testable hypothesis?

e lansing

Do have a problem with that? May be you do since your are MR INCREDITABLE PROFESSIONAL!

e lansing

Blogs pale in comparison with first hand experience.

Whats the difference if you get your info from a book or a blog? unless you are the one who is making all the discoveries, and if you are, well then your are MR INCREDITABLE!

e lansing

My testable hypothesis is the human body, mind and spirit! The body and all of its complexities are testable and measureable, are they not? These complexities of the human body and its cells lead me to conclude that there must be a I.Der.

That's not a testable hypothesis, that's an argument from incredulity largely due, in my opinion, to you not really understanding the process' involved.

Perhaps! however, the complexities of the cell and answers to how life starts leave large voids in evolutions theories.

e lansing

The Bible teaches me that God is the same today, yesterday, and forever and He never changes. It also teaches that we were created in His image. Just as He never changes neither has His human creation, God did not monkey around when created mankind! We are wonderfully made!

Really? Human beings "never change"? Exactly how far are you willing to take this claim?

As far as you like! there are no fossiles to prove otherwise.

e lansing

Lurker

[e lansing]

Understanding that computers will and do need work is understandable since they are man made, however, claiming to understand if God does or does not exist in gravity is a huge leap. i believe that God exists everywhere is base on His Word, your idea id based upon, what, mans ieda?

Stop. Go back to my post and re-read what I wrote. This has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, it has to do with whether or not He needs to constantly intervene in creation in order to keep the universe running. No, God does not exist "in" gravity - gravity is a physical force as a function of mass in space-time. This is based on relativity which, in turn, offers an incredibly consistent explanation of reality.

Ya, but can you prove that God does not exist in gravity? if not this is just a difference of opinion. e lansing

Well i think we will continue to go round and round! I can admit that evoultionist and all other types of science have a great understanding of how things work, great! In terms of how life started, evolutionist, not so great.

Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, it explains the diversity of life. If you want to advance ID as a superior theory to abiogenesis be my guest.

You mean to tell me that evolutionist do not try to explain life? e lansing

Therefore why dont they acknowledge that I.D could be possible? Insted the only other possibilities for how life got started are the one's that they deem possible alternitives. So they continue to pump out there cool-aid as fact.

ID isn't acknowledged as a valid scientific theory because none of its proponents can figure out how to test any of its hypothesis'. Is it possible? Sure. But science can't study and describe ideas that don't present a hypothesis that can be tested. Lot's of things are possible, science is the process by which we narrow the possible down to the probable.

If you think its possible care to elaborate? If evolutionist could help proponents of I.D., this would be a scientific gesture, all in the name of truth! if a group of people were stranded on a island and everybody had an idea as to how to get home and then upon debate only 2or3 ideas emerge they build all three and everybody would help each other because at the end everybody wants to get back home. but what if some said, i will not help because i dont agree with any of there ideas and were offended because there idea was not used, now its personal. they could build there own, but why? they want to go to the same place as the rest of us, the land of truth. I'm sure proponents of I.D. could use all the help they could get. e lansing

Why would someone claim to know that God does not exist in gravity, who does not know Him?

?

Would it be unprofessional to understand other theories such as I.D and offer them as possibilities when some of there own theories lack answers?

Only if I.D. can offer better answers than what we have, which so far it can't.

We just agree to disagree if it's just about opinions e lansing

The human life cycle is it not predicable? Is the cell to sophisticated to provide any testable hypothesis?

Yes, the human life cycle is generally predictable. . .but so what? You need to provide a prediction from Intelligent Design that explains something. Sure, cells are sophisticated. . .but so what? Evolution already has tests and predictions about cell complexity, what hypothesis about cell complexity does Intelligent Design make that can be tested?

I.D can only be accepted on certain terms, terms of a testable hypothesis, hum. Logic is unacceptable! what about faith, the Bible says its a substance, this substance is why i belive that I.D is very possible! i am having a hard time wondering why human existence can not provide prediction or a testable hypothesis. the fact that we can invent complex things like computers, airplanes, ect. from intelligence comes intelligence! we as the human kind are so superior to all other forms of life and nothing come's close. because there is so much design in the human body and so much design on earth and in the universe the idea of a designer seems so possible. e lansing

Whats the difference if you get your info from a book or a blog? unless you are the one who is making all the discoveries, and if you are, well then your are MR INCREDITABLE!

"Discoveries"? We're talking about how the educational system works, not discoveries. Speaking of which, when you notice a red line under a word it means you're spelling it wrong ("Increditable", what is that? Some sort of new-fangled incredible table?).

well you are MR INCREDIBLE PROFESSIONAL! YOU STILL HAVE NOT TOLD ME WHATS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN READING A BOOK OR A BLOG.

Perhaps! however, the complexities of the cell and answers to how life starts leave large voids in evolutions theories.

And you think this because. . .why? The anti-evolutionist crowd told you so? Have you done any research on what the mainstream scientific theories for various cell structures actually are? If not how do you know of these "large voids"?

Whatever! the voids are there, i know it and you know it

E LANSING

As far as you like! there are no fossiles to prove otherwise.

What, exactly, do you mean by "change"? Have humans changed their general appearance? Ability to digest different types of food? Immunity to diseases? Ability to breathe at varying altitudes?

homosapiens! God created Adam the first homosapien and we remain the same. we did not start out one thing and became another.

The teaches that God uses the foolish things of this world to confound the wise and it also teaches that the cross of Christ is foolishness to those that are parishing. Do you think that those who believe the Bible literally are foolish? to deny the Bible is to deny God! It's His HIStory book that was produced by the substance of faith! E LANSING

Lurker

Edited January 5, 2010 by e lansing

[e lansing]

Ya, but can you prove that God does not exist in gravity? if not this is just a difference of opinion.

Yes. Gravity is a force, therefore it has no mass, therefore there is no place "in" gravity for God to be hiding "in" it. Feel free to rephrase your question at your leisure.

My God is Spirit and He is everywhere all the time. He has no beginning and no end! e lansing

You mean to tell me that evolutionist do not try to explain life?

Do you understand the difference between the theory of evolution and your flippant use of the term "evolutionists"? The theory of evolution does not seek to explain the origin of life any more than the theory of plate tectonics seeks to explain the origin of earth.

[i]b][/b] The point is that regardless how flippant i use the term evolutionist still try to explain away life from a I.D stand point and and referr to there own therories as probable. Or should i say more problematic.  e lansing[/i]

If you think its possible care to elaborate?

All things are possible, not everything is probable. It's certainly possible that God created the earth with a deceptive history and life on it with deceptive indications of sharing common ancestry, but this would necessitate a deceptive god and would run the risk of opening the door to last-thursdayism.

Wow! if we believe what we read then i belive that you have more faith in what you read them i do. To believe what you just wrote, why is I.D so hard to believe?  :blink: e lansing

If evolutionist could help proponents of I.D., this would be a scientific gesture, all in the name of truth! if a group of people were stranded on a island and everybody had an idea as to how to get home and then upon debate only 2or3 ideas emerge they build all three and everybody would help each other because at the end everybody wants to get back home. but what if some said, i will not help because i dont agree with any of there ideas and were offended because there idea was not used, now its personal. they could build there own, but why? they want to go to the same place as the rest of us, the land of truth. I'm sure proponents of I.D. could use all the help they could get. e lansing

If this were an accurate metaphor the theory of evolution crowd would have already built a raft and tested it by sailing around the island while the I.D. proponents sit on the beach criticizing it for not being an ocean liner.

I think that evolutionist have a raft called evolution and it floats but it cannott carry a single person home! If you want to be proud of that, it your right! elansing

We just agree to disagree if it's just about opinions e lansing

Except, unfortunately, for the fact that it isn't just about opinions.

I's still opinions none the less! You believe what you want and so do i. :thumbsup: e lansing

I.D can only be accepted on certain terms, terms of a testable hypothesis, hum. Logic is unacceptable! what about faith, the Bible says its a substance, this substance is why i belive that I.D is very possible!

I.D. can only be accepted AS SCIENCE on certain terms (just like, you know, every other scientific theory), terms that include producing a testable hypothesis. Logic is certainly acceptable, if ID wants to remain where it is, as a philosophy or, in your case, as a religion. However, if you want ID declared "scientific" you have to play by the rules of science.

Not trying to get I.D declared scientific, just the respect of a possibility! :blink:  e lansing

i am having a hard time wondering why human existence can not provide prediction or a testable hypothesis. the fact that we can invent complex things like computers, airplanes, ect. from intelligence comes intelligence! we as the human kind are so superior to all other forms of life and nothing come's close. because there is so much design in the human body and so much design on earth and in the universe the idea of a designer seems so possible.

How is human existence an indication of intelligent design via instantaneous creation over evolution via common ancestry? What observable evidence does I.D. explain better than evolutionary theory?

Evolution can't even prove commom ancestry, probability does not equate realitiy!  :blink:  e lansing

well you are MR INCREDIBLE PROFESSIONAL! YOU STILL HAVE NOT TOLD ME WHATS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN READING A BOOK OR A BLOG.

Books are usually made out of paper, blogs are online journals on which people electronically post things.

Well MR I.P my point it that it come back down to where have we put our faith, it's quite clear where you have placed your faith :blink:  e lansing

Whatever! the voids are there, i

That's not exactly an unstoppable steamroller of logic. . .if the voids "are there" one would think you would be able to describe what they are and explain how ID provides an explanation for them

Scientific method can only test existing data- it cannot draw conclusions about origins. Regardless of what probables they come up with. Until they can come up with, find or see one species into a complete new one, there macro-evolution is flawed.

Is it true in science that everything tends toward randomness[ie; entrophy]? Then why would nature organize itsef?

What is the driving force behind natural selection?

"six feet of D.N.A coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillon cells contains a four -letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which all our bodies are made...No hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means" [Stroble, p 282]

"the basic flaw of all evolutionary veiws is the origin of the information in living things. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter]...The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]" [Gitt, p, 124]

"the coding system used for all living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather then [lucky] chance" [Gitt,p.95]

A way to prove I.D is by disproving evolution :thumbsup: e lansing[/html]

Lurker

Edited January 6, 2010 by e lansing

[e lansing]

Do you understand that "evolutionists" include many of the leading proponents of ID such as Michael Behe? With this new tidbit of knowledge do you understand how little sense the above statement makes? I.D. is a philosophy of science, not a scientific theory.

Whats the difference between probabilities and philosphies? Both require faith and a choice to believe or not to believe.

That would really depend on how strict of an interpretation of "ID" you're using. I certainly have no problem with the concept that God supernaturally created the universe, I simply see the universe as so amazingly made that from the initial point of creation God used natural process' to carry His creation through to it's current state. For instance, having created a universe mostly of helium and hydrogen he didn't need to supernaturally intercede to form stars, stars formed as a consequence of natural laws like gravity.

I believe that God is the Great Architect, Builder and material supplier of the universe and all living things. Does God have to miraculously act to keep His creation going, no, however its in the fact of Him just being who He is, fills the earth with His presents and keeps all of creation going. Does God need to act in order for a apple seed to become a apple tree? no, but He design the seed and the environment in which that seed could grow.

That's something it already has. Science is about accumulating probabilities, not excluding possibilities beyond consideration.

It seems to have been excluded to the point of equating proponets of I.D as being flat earthers, dumb, unintelligent. This does not seem respectful on any level.

Correct, science in fact can't prove anything. Science is just a process through which we've found that we can make extremely accurate and useful conclusions and predictions about the natural world based on evidence. As such all scientific theories and laws are open-ended - if new evidence comes to light that runs counter to any theory it must be either revised or replaced.

Are you slamming proponets of I'D for a lack of evidence? Intelligence comes from intelligence! The design of the universe, earth, and every living thing reveals order and design. Does adaptation prove evolution? I think it proves intelligence.

It's weird that you think calling me an incredible professional is somehow derogatory.

I think it evolutionary!

You are assuming that no data about origins still exists, we can certainly form tests about origins by looking at what the basic building blocks of life are built from and then see if we can observe them forming naturally in a way that would facilitate the chemical origin of life.

Has this been done? By who and where? If so, it still does not answer the question of how this happen in the first place.

The ability of an organism to survive and reproduce in a given environment.

And this proves what? Evolution? I think it proves itelligence

I've read Stroble, I'm not impressed. Different theories about chemical evolution are certainly not comprehensive, but they certainly go some ways in explaining how organic molecules came together to form the first simple strands of RNA.

Unfortunately Gitt doesn't seem to realize that DNA is not a coding system for SEMANTIC information; its built from nucleotides not letters.

Gitt also is ignoring obvious mistakes and/or records of past problems with our genomes such as ERV's.

I can admitt that i do not have the education in terms of science or evolution process, however at any rate it still come back to faith. The difference is that you will be respected by people of the same faith for where you have placed your faith and me, disrespected. But when i die i will be accepted, and this is really all that matters

Science does not "prove" things,

Why do so many believe evol is true if it were not taught as such?

e lansing

Edited January 9, 2010 by e lansing

[MorningGlory]

Is it just me or are the responses to Lurker's posts all scrambled and signed 'Lurker'?

Edited: I see that problem has been fixed. Okay....never mind.