There is really nothing incompatible between belief in an almighty creator and acceptance of the scientific fact of evolution. There isn't even anything incompatible in asserting that the literal text of the Bible, re the antediluvian age, is true, but that so is the geological scientific history of the planet. A true almighty god could simply declare all inconsistencies between science and faith consistent, and they would be so, by application of supreme will. But, when a person of faith attempts to use science to "prove" the basis of faith, that's where the impossible paradox arises. Science is limited to what it can test, and god is untestable. God could permit His discovery today, and then change the rules of the universe tomorrow so that the test which discovered god, would no longer work. A scientist would be forced to conclude that the test was inconclusive as it is no longer repeatable -- and that would destroy the scientific proof. This paradox seems lost on those of faith. The reason why God "is" God is because He can not be limited by any scientific discovery into what He is. He can only be known via faith in His existence that cannot be scientifically confirmed. Otherwise, he's not God -- he's just a really smart guy with an enormous ego.
"Science is limited to what it can test, and god is untestable." First, the above statement is illogical, until such time that you know God could you know with full certainty that God is untestable. Perhaps there is a test, but we haven't found it yet, or there is a test but science is unwilling to apply that test. All we can really say honestly, is that the limit of science today has revealed no test to confirm or deny unequivocally the existence of God, or the relationship of what we can measure to the concept of God, or what we would need to see to be able to rule out God as present and fully participating behind the scenes. Secondly, what is that valid test that reveals observed biological changes are necessarily a product of non life initiated, ignorant, random, chance... A lack of real knowledge if these changes are in fact a product of non ID, or via ID, should not lead us to embrace either possibility. The work of science should be objective, and should remain neutral and detached from either conclusion, and work toward conclusion, not from conclusion. We should not fit and engineer our models and tests to verify our faith or personal beliefs, but rather the effort should be that a hard scientific line to demand certainty before we propagate into the minds of children that which we don't actually know to be true or false. The reality is that biological processes will go on by themselves with or without any man made theories, and if we began with a concept of ID rather than non-ID, those changes would go on as before, research would go on as before, and we would know no more or no less than we know right now of the processes themselves. So why the resistance to a concept of intelligent design as the instigator of life? Same reason the theists reject non ID, because of the conflict with personal belief systems of ID or non ID. Doesn't it make the most sense to take a fully neutral position on what we don't know? Take a position that something is giving rise to changes, could be ID, could be non-ID, but until we can rule out either case, don't teach anything in the school system that steers children in a direction that is currently unknown, but rather a conclusion of faith in non-ID or faith in ID, when the ramifications of a non ID world, or an ID world are so great for how people think about life and their place in it. Why not just remove the faith aspect from biology, and teach what we know, what we observe, not the faith of scientists, nor the faith of non scientists. Faith of scientists, belief systems of scientists are not science itself... My preference is to teach neither ID or non-ID, but rather teach what we actually know to children in the public schools, and let them develop their own belief systems on their own.... Quite honestly, theories are presented to children before they even truly understand what a theory actually is...or before that they have sufficient understanding to logically challenge a particular theory.
Santa Claus says you're wrong on that... he speaketh to thee via the well-known Santa Claus theory... thee can't disprove the theory... that's proof enough innit? only, he doesn't care whether you understand the proof or not, and whether you unravel his little Santa tricks one after the other, cause he's got plenty more in his bag... he invented science, just to let u know...
You don't even understand what you're quoting here. Although in many applications you can use pseudo-random number generators and the correlations are negligible if you're careful enough, the correlations are definitely there if you look for them. The warnings, How to distinguish the output of a pseudo-randomgenerator from a "true" random number is a very difficult problem, and Rigorous statistical analysis of the output is often needed to have confidence in the algorithm mean that 1. To a layman, you don't even know that you're using non-random numbers; 2. To an expert, they can find out with a reasonable confidence whether the pseudo-random numbers you're using are good enough. You want to apply this idea to biology? Then here it is: 1. To a layman who doesn't understand science (that's you, z10), you can't tell whether the processes are random or designed. I think this is fair. 2. To a scientist, they have statistical methods that can test to a reasonable degree of confidence whether any process is random. Just because you don't know how doesn't mean the scientists aren't doing it. So far, no evidence supporting a non-random super design have been found. Like I said, if such correlations are found, it would be a very big deal. Nobel Prize in biology would be almost a certainty.
Here is a rule that does not change: The world is uncaused by anything, save the choices you have made as a free consciousness. You have concocted the thought and then immersed yourself in that which reflects back to you what you have already decided to believe. What exists is THOUGHT, streaming forth from mind, creating or outpicturing that which has been held within the mind. This explains the seeming existence of, for example, bodies. Self-awareness is everything for it is the Self that you most long to realize. You remain as God created you, unchanged, unchanging, and unchangeable. You cannot "discover" anything. You can be "healed" so you can remember. The body-mind that you identify with is an outpicturing of a decision to perceive oneself as separate from God. The "physical" body becomes only a symbol of what the mind has decided to believe. Likewise, anything you can see through the eyes of the flesh is a symbol. The most common theme is "separation". Here then is a paradox. The very body you use to "discover" God is an expression of your belief you are separate from God. The body can then be used to limit remembrance. One must question then, how serious is anyone about "finding" God? Your "faith" is evidenced by the mere symbol you identify with. Your body is the "substance" of your "hope" that you are separate. In other words, your body-mind is the result of faith. The question is, where do you want to place your faith now? The evolution of bodies is faith in...(fill in the blank). Hint: Can what God created as unchangeable change? Peace, Jesus
ok... so, u can't prove design, right? but u can't disprove Santa Claus either, right? otherwise, we wldn't be having this stupid thread, right? so why don't we just teach Santa Claus, then explain 'falsifiability' to kids and why unfalsifiable theories are useless but Santa Claus is still a good trick to lure their parents into buying them toys, and then move on to teaching them proper science, i.e. evolution etc... and let the IDists rant as they please what, we're already doing that??????????? really?
On your first point, and according to your own statements of required principles of falsification, as logically defined by Karl Popper, God is scientifically untestable, because there is no test that can possibly be constructed that cannot be overcome by the will of an almighty creator -- otherwise he is not almighty. So, it is your statement which is illogical, not mine. On your second point, the valid "scientific" test that reveals observed biological changes are necessarily a product of non-life initiated, ignorant, random, chance, must be first parsed to remove the statement "non-life initiated," because the theory of evolution does NOT include an explanation of how life began (abiogenesis). Having removed this element from your test we are left with a required test which shows observed biological changes are the product of random chance. Such a test is simple. If a bacteria strain, enclosed in a sterile test environment contains an error in DNA replication between successive generations, and if there is no apparent interaction with any outside force, then for scientific purposes, the DNA change is the product of random chance, because there is no other measurable explanation. Note: the actual reason for the replication error may be one of radioactive decay, molecular degradation, fluid turbulence, gamma ray strike, or a host of other possibilities, all of which boils down to the term "random chance." To call this "random chance" "intelligently designed" is to impute purpose to the single thing that science has scientifically confirmed as without purpose: random chance. See James Bond's last post above describing the difficulty of statistically confirming true random behavior for more info on this subject.
I dont think you know what you are talking about. Here is the first link to Catholic Chruch and evolution on yahoo. the Catholic Position What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief. Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5). The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6). Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that manâs body developed from previous biological forms, under Godâs guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matterâ[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution. The Time Question Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite ageâthat it has not existed from all eternityâbut it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago. Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universeâs age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159). The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283). It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the accountâa chronological reading and a topical reading. ... http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp By the way while I most frequently attend Catholic Church, I do attend others. But I find that if I am going to be a believer I have to believe Jesus when he said I can have eternal life if I eat his body and drink is blood. Not as a mere symbol. John 6:53 and on. Also suppoted by Corinthians, you must partake worthily and discern the body. However while I believe in Communion it does not mean I agree with everything the Church says, although I do find them well researched on almost all issues.
now, if i were to string together all of zizzz's ET posts from the beginning, add pi, then reproject every sequence of 3 adjacent letters modulo 26 as follows, guaranteed the resulting sequence is gonna be as random as it gets if you don't know there is a code, and even if u do, good luck to break it and lets not even talk about making predictions... http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=520801#post520801 oh the verbiage is not yours +31 415 92653589 79 323 84626 =ri xij egxglfon pb qqw gsaty rix ije gxg lfo npb qqw gsa [ty v v Y X L G F E A [?zizzz plse... otherwise i'll ask Santa again therefore for all intents & purposes for you its totally random... doesn't mean there is no zizzz, simply that zizzz is completely irrelevant when it comes to the sequence of info i am feeding you... doesn't mean zizzz is composing from a 26 letters alphabet, he cld be using kanas for all u know, but unless you get over my dead body, all u'll ever get to see is the compactified sequence i am feeding you... thats the world you live in, all thats all you'll ever get to know see, u just got a glimpse that there may well be a creator to the sequence after all! unfortunately since zizzz doesn't know exactly how i am messing around with his prose, he can't communicate with u... isn't that ironic! now if thats any consolation, on his brane zizzz doesn't even know whether u actually exist, he only suspects that u may, and he is also receiving a mysterious sequence of letters: S.A.N.T.A.C.L.A.U.S.....
so in your opinion they will not be willing to go into 20th century reality. they will continue to stick their head in the sand and continue to be totally irrelevant? as far as eating jesus and drinking his blood its just grape juice jem. aren't you a little old to still believe in superstition?