Posted on 09/10/2009 8:45:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
It's a good thing I don't need ElectricStrawberry to validate me....
It's all hat, no *cowboy*. No cowboy. Get it right next time.
You posted to the wrong person.
You posted to the wrong person.
Uh, who has proven it's "sheer happenstance" ? Or that it has "no purpose, no design, no intelligence" ?
That may be the argument of some atheists, but certainly not of a rational being. I learned "you can't prove a negative" a long time ago.
Besides, everything in our universe works so neatly, I find it hard to believe it wasn't designed.
Ya think?
I fully understand, but you've mistaken what my point is. Take what you've said here and look at it from the opposite perspective. That is in effect my point. If you are willing to got down that path without question, then there is nothing that cannot be so explained. There is no number of times that the penny can land face up and not be called a natural occurance.
Indeed, I could make a statistical calculation of probability that might show a one in a billion chance of occurance within the entire known universe, during the universes entire life, yet it IS POSSIBLE and all the proof that is required is that its in front of you. And if it happens again within 5 minutes, that too is possible.
You state that my problem is that I've started at the end with a known product. Fair enough, I get that argument. My point is that you have started at the end with a "known" process which can never be mathmatically eliminated. If I argued that the pyramids were natural occurances using the same logic, people would laugh at me.
Do you at least concur that using an assumption simply because it can never be statistically eliminated is a trap of its own? Because that is my point.
Please cite chapter and verse in the Bible where it says God wrote the Bible. God is often quoted, certainly. But nowhere does it claim the compilation of books we know as the Bible was written and translated by God.
I would think you'd know enough of Bible history (the book itself) to know that.
Where he doesn't do so well is on the ones he puts out. Some of those are fairly frothing dogma.
“Care to tell me the function of the auricularis muscles?”
They provide support for the pre-obscuqlrius rementa and post motor articularius labilzing levititium.
Truly not the same question. My question did not assume an occurrence, it dealt with how you would qualify that occurrence.
I don't believe in space aliens, but if someone were trying to convince me, a fair question would be, "What would you say if a saucer came down right here and a four legged, three eyed creature stepped out and dissolved this tree with a ray gun?" The answer to that question shows whether any occurrence, however fantastic, could change me assumptions.
I think there are traps of assumption on both sides of the ID debate and I posed my question to shed light on one of them (the other seems very clear). One need not agree that ID does exist, to acknowledge that there is some level of improbability that would shake their belief in hapinstance. Or as it has turned out, to conclude that statistics are in fact meaningless and it is the inability to disprove the occurrence which they have hung their hat on.
Does it not seem odd to you that when I asked the question concerning finding an "Arch de Triumph" on Mars, that people immediately started posting natural stone cutouts to demonstrate that such a thing could be a natural occurence? Why not just say,"Yea, that would be too much of a statistical stretch for me to accept, I'd have to go with intelligence being involved." ?
Where is God in your ID equation?
Actually, it's "All hat, and no cattle."
It's a Texas thing.
Pathetic pigeon hole? I think not. I'm free to open up the discussion. It was merely to see if there were any level of complexity that everyone would agree could not be accepted as natural. This is otherwise known as a common point of reference.
My point was to show that many people are resistant to even acknowledge that, thus further argument is pointless.
Its unfortunate that you think that I "twisted" my original question. I assure you that I never changed my intent, however I acknowledge that I did clarify the question when people took off on tangents.
Is a grain of sand beyond the 'natural' and must have been designed by the ID?
[[Why are you worshipping the ID and not God?]]
Why are hell bent on posting ignorant statements?
It's not an ignorant statement. I see all these posts supporting that it is the Intelligent Designer that is responsible for the evolution of man. Since you are a support of the role of the ID in the evolution of man, you CANNOT be a worshipper of God.
I would think you'd know enough of Bible history (the book itself) to know that.
I no longer play that game with people who clearly don't believe what it says. I often get asked where the bible says sola scripura. It says all I need to know about someone when they ask that question.
[[Everyone isn’t required to accept every word of Behe’s testimony before they can object to those misrepresenting Behe’s testimony. The point is that Behe did not testify that ‘ID is no different than astrology’.
Is that difficult for you to understand?]]
Yes it is too difficult for him to understand- it conflicts with his ‘Behe, Demski are the end-all be-all’s of ID’ lie, and it grates agaisnt his blatant misrepresentaiton of what Behe actually said- The courts bias and blatant agenda are all that matter- TRUTH are of no consequences to hte anti-ID crowd and judges- they allow an IMPOSSIBLE hypothesis of macroevolution into testimony, don’t ask for ANY scientific evidence to support it, call it ‘science’ and dissallow any competing hypothesis, and simply throw it out and rule agaisnt it callign it ‘psuedoscience’, when the plain fact is that it’s easier to falsify ID than it is to falsify macroevolution who simply keep coming up with more and more biologically impossible scenarios to ‘explain away biological brick-walls’ present in Macroevolution
Translation: I have no answer to your question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.