Posted on 03/13/2004 11:53:26 AM PST by js1138
Judges:
6:36 And Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said,
6:37 Behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and if the dew be on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the earth beside, then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said.
6:38 And it was so: for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the fleece together, and wringed the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water.
6:39 And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew.
6:40 And God did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground.
Do YOU rob God; as he claims?
Look to your OWN souls. My Master will rate His servant; not you guys.
Testing for God is a big no-no. He should know that.
TRUSTING His word is considered by y'all as Blasphemy?
MY My my....
Hebrews 5:14
But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
Ok then, just HOW do YOU 'interpret' this??
You flunked that when you asserted that Jesus' words were intended only for Satan.
By stating that You flunked, you apply the very thing to me, that you have just accused me of!!
Matthew 4:6-7
6. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "`He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.' "
7. Jesus answered him, "It is also written: `Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' "
Okay. I can accept that. But let's say you're drafted (with mighty fine pay and the promise of extravagant riches upon the publication of verifiable results) to work up the tests, etc. used by those scientists who are plying the universe for signs of intelligent life "out there." What kind of experiments and tests would you propose? Or would you tell these guys they are anti-rational for assuming intelligence can be detected via scientific method?
The only thing that SETI searches look for is narrowband radio emissions. That's it. There is no discussion about decoding the signal and examining its contents. The mere existence of that sort of emission is taken as an indication of intelligent life.
That test is, of course, predicated on the assumption that there is no natural method by which such an emission can arise, which in turn is based on the fact that we don't know of any such natural method. But I can guarantee you that if such an emission is ever detected, there will be natural-emission models flying out of the woodwork, and many scientists will suddenly go on record saying that the test was illegitimate in the first place, and that of course we should have expected such signals all along, regardless of any alien intelligence.
The "intelligent design" inference of teleology is different from SETI, in that it refers to things that are previously known to exist, rather than the search for things that are unknown. It is not irrational to suggest that intelligent design can be proven to underly any given structure; it is simply that every general test thus far proposed has been irretrievably flawed.
Thank you for taking time to respond.
I would assume that the standard for recognizing intelligence "out there" entails at leat some form of organized data than can be apprehended by our senses, even if it is mere "narrowband radio emissions." Isn't that an awfully anthropocentric thing to do?
It is not irrational to suggest that intelligent design can be proven to underly any given structure; it is simply that every general test thus far proposed has been irretrievably flawed.
The reaction I am seeing from those who oppose any discussion of intelligent design in the classroom leads me to believe they would rather not see any more general tests either proposed or discussed, let alone have a chance to fail. Should they be allowed to speak, or should they be muzzled by the state?
Bad assumption. The game is to find ANY radio energy emanating from a fixed point on the sky, where the energy is confined to a narrow and fixed range of frequencies. No organization is required as a criterion for the search. Only energy.
The reaction I am seeing from those who oppose any discussion of intelligent design in the classroom leads me to believe they would rather not see any more general tests either proposed or discussed, let alone have a chance to fail.
The public school classroom is a grossly inappropriate forum for winnowing scientific truth. That is why we have universities, scientific conferences, professional societies and peer-reviewed journals. Nobody has yet proposed any general design test that survives even a cursory examination by educated people; what makes you think the failures are appropriate fare for impressionable children?
Jesus is talking to Satan, and quoting a scripture that applies to everyone, everywhere, not just to Satan.
Nothing in this sentence implies that God is making a general rule that applies to all mankind. On the other hand, the various prohibitions against putting god to the test, are clearly addressed to everyone. Go back and read them.
And all this time I thought the game was to find signs of intelligence out there. What would we conclude if ever such radio energy were to be found? It doesn't seem like anything special to seek out. But I am a simple layman.
At any rate, even a radio wave distinguishes itself from the rest of the universe by virtue of the fact it can be aprrehended by intelligence, defined, and even measured.
When we've launched objects into outer space in a direction that assures no return, and even when we've sent objects to other planets, we've also included some inscriptions/symbols to communicate who we are and where we live in the universe. This must have a good many scientists laughing.
Sigh. Please read again the second paragraph of my post #411. Here it is again:
That test is, of course, predicated on the assumption that there is no natural method by which such an emission can arise, which in turn is based on the fact that we don't know of any such natural method. But I can guarantee you that if such an emission is ever detected, there will be natural-emission models flying out of the woodwork, and many scientists will suddenly go on record saying that the test was illegitimate in the first place, and that of course we should have expected such signals all along, regardless of any alien intelligence.
When we've launched objects into outer space in a direction that assures no return, and even when we've sent objects to other planets, we've also included some inscriptions/symbols to communicate who we are and where we live in the universe. This must have a good many scientists laughing.
But that's why I said a general test. A space probe is a highly specific object; there are no natural space probes. To say that nobody has come up with a general test for whether an arbitrary object is natural or designed is not to say that nothing can be recognized as designed, or that communication is impossible in principle.
I have a hammer that has neither of the above. Should I assume, therefore, that it has no design or purpose?
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.