Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
Instead of wasting so much verbiage in invective, why don't you just refute my statements since you CLAIM to know that they are wrong???????????
Please do pass this on to Luis! His work is absolutely fascinating and I believe his efforts will benefit all of us! I also find his writing style easy to follow.
I'm particularly fond of this one: Syntactic Autonomy: Or Why There is no Autonomy Without Symbols and how Self-Organizing Systems Systems Might Evolve Them
Have you read the book of Job? FAITH is what He is looking for.
BTW, He is your God too -- you just haven't realized it yet. I denied it for years. Dug into Particle physics, Molecular Biology, etc. The more I learned, the more it became obvious.
Hang in there. It'll come.
You don't seem to understand. Many of us have indeed weighed the "evidence" on both sides of the issue -- regardless of religious dogma. Based upon this evidence, the argument for Creationism is overwhelming, while the argument for evolutionism is quite the opposite.
I think that if god created this, it is wonderful to discover how and why it works the way it does. God gave us a mind to think with, and a curiosity to discover it, if he meant us to be without this knowledge that we are gaining, then he could have made us robots.
True. His "creation" doesn't detract one bit from our drive to explore and pursue satisfaction upon further discovery. However our world certainly appears though it was designed, does it not?
If one accepts the premise of God or Creator of all that exist, is it not possible "normal" geographical timelines could be manipulated by a power great enough to design the infinitessimal itself in infinitessimal detail?
My friend, it is an Evolutionist remains inside the box, and outside the realm of real possibility, and thus probability.
The ability of agent/environment couplings to select appropriate attractor states to cope with an environment takes us closer to agent's that can select behavior alternatives. Note, however, that selected self-organization requires that both self-organization and a selective process be specified (4). Not merely state-determined, rule-following, self-organization which would amount to agents with no real alternatives. This notion of selected self-organization leads us now to think of what kinds of selection processes are possible, and more importantly for the present work, does this choice of alternative classifications/behaviors exist in or require some kind of autonomy or closure?
Right where they have always been. That life requires a CREATOR.
Like the science book my kids former private school had that showed a divided tongue, with different types of "taste" buds (sweet, sour, etc) for each section.
That's what happens with science. They present things as fact until they are proven to be wrong, which is a constant condition.
God's Word is unchanging. Heisenberg also figured out that there are limits to what we can know.
It's incredible that you have it backwards and can't see it.
I study Molecular Biology, Particle Physics and other higher-echelon fields of study in the physical sciences. It has only strengthened my faith. My faith, which is an implicit trust in our Creator, may seem a folly to you. However, I will live my lifetime in this faith. You, perhaps, may not. When we die, contrary to what you have mentioned above, I believe that I will go to Heaven to be with God. I will die happy. You, should you stay on this path, will live a seemingly happy and fulfilling life. When you die, you have no expectation to go to Heaven, because you do not believe in a Creator.
If you are right, that is wonderful! We both died happy! I chose to serve my Creator by loving others and doing my best to make the lives of those less fortunate than I am more meaningful -- and that makes me happy.
If *I* am right, what then happens to you? In my scenario, there is a ZERO percent chance of sorrow. In your scenario, there is a 50% chance of sorrow.
I have seen enough of creation to convince me that mankinds attempts to mimic the Creator are folly.
TO come to your other topic: You suggest above that "it will finally be proven" that Creation is a myth. That, my friend, is an IMPOSSIBILITY. It was, is, and always will be impossible to prove that there is no Creator. So, MY world will not "fall" down around me, as you say. You, and ONLY you, have the chance to be proven wrong in this life. When you ARE proven wrong, which is a CERTAINTY when you get to the molecular level, and truly UNDERSTAND what goes on inside a cell, your world will NOT fall down around you EITHER. It will most likely be the single-most euphoric condition you will ever experience. It is UPLIFTING.
I've been there, pal. I denied it JUST LIKE YOU. I thought I knew it all -- even ridiculing my family.
Please, do some serious research at the molecular level, and don't take my word for it or anyone elses -- let it be through your own effort. All of the FACTS are there today. This is not like relativity, where we test observations to see if they fit the theory. This is KNOWABLE facts that are 100% observable -- TODAY! The tide is turning, and it is ALL because of the study of the cell with today's technology.
I bid you well. Don't close your eyes on this. If you are SERIOUS, have the strength to do some serious research. You will be amazed at what you find.
Yeah, and every scientific experiment ever done was designed, therefore no scientific experiment can tell us anything about the natural world.
If you follow your logic, you'd destroy the very basis of any kind of rational inquiry into the natural world. To be willing to destroy that pillar of modern civilization in order to protect one's religious belief is evil.
That's what happens with science. They present things as fact until they are proven to be wrong, which is a constant condition.Yes, and the Holy Qur'an is inscribed on gold tablets in heaven, and was recited by the angel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad (dpp), who wrote it all down. Thus the Holy Qur'an is the unchanging word of Allah (xyz), unlike your science books, which you weak kaffir rewrite every time some new fact comes along to beguile your minds. You materialist scientists are weak like women!God's Word is unchanging. Heisenberg also figured out that there are limits to what we can know.
OK, in all seriousness, if you're so afraid of having to revise your understanding of things in light of new data, why don't you just get an old copy of a science book, and never read anything newer? Then you'll have the comfort of an unchanging science. I'm sure it would be very comfortable.
Please, do some serious research at the molecular level, and don't take my word for it or anyone elses -- let it be through your own effort. All of the FACTS are there today. This is not like relativity, where we test observations to see if they fit the theory. This is KNOWABLE facts that are 100% observable -- TODAY! The tide is turning, and it is ALL because of the study of the cell with today's technology.That reminds me: Kenneth Miller has written a wonderful critique of Behe's favorite icon of irreducible complexity, the flagellum. Briefly:
The great irony of the flagellum's increasing acceptance as an icon of anti-evolution is that fact that research had demolished its status as an example of irreducible complexity almost at the very moment it was first proclaimed. The purpose of this article is to explore the arguments by which the flagellum's notoriety has been achieved, and to review the research developments that have now undermined they very foundations of those arguments.
What's ironic about this is, a theory is an explanation for the facts. So, the stickers are warning the students that "evolution is not a fact; it's an explanation for the facts." Oh-kaaaaaaayyyyy. And knowing this distinction will save the students' souls because...?
Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle placed the odds of unguided abiogenesis at 10^40000 to 1. (That's 40,000 zeros.)
This short script provides a better picture of the odds:
#!/usr/bin/perlThe output is here.
print "1 in 10";
for ($i=1; $i < 40000; $i++) {
print "0";
}
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.