Proof in this case is somewhat circumstantial. All available evidence indicates that our Universe is 13.75 billion or so years old. There are many different measurements that have lead scientists to believe this,

Ok so far.

though, just as with Gary's simulator thought experiment, it is possible (though outside scientific consideration) that the Universe was created a fraction of a second ago with all the elements set up to make it appear it's age coincides with the best approximation of science.

Um ... sorry, I'll leave you out on your limb there. Think you might be a bit lonely.

Agreed and agreed, and yes, sometimes it's best to leve them to find their own answer or how someone else thinks.

Proof in this case is somewhat circumstantial. All available evidence indicates that our Universe is 13.75 billion or so years old. There are many different measurements that have lead scientists to believe this,

Ok so far.

though, just as with Gary's simulator thought experiment, it is possible (though outside scientific consideration) that the Universe was created a fraction of a second ago with all the elements set up to make it appear it's age coincides with the best approximation of science.

Um ... sorry, I'll leave you out on your limb there. Think you might be a bit lonely.

I wouldn't argue that the "simulator" view as a credible possibility, just that there are limits to what can be proved if supernatural entities are [ETA]not[/ETA] off the agenda.

[ETA] apologies, missed an important word.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Isn't that a random deviance from it is all designed?

The soul has freewill. The soul commands the body. We have freewill over what we have freewill over. You don't believe in the soul?

No, what makes you think we operate the same as the earth, lifespan, nor does the earth have a soul. We are made in His Image.

Then that is one really messed up god.

What is beauty? ;-]

*snip*
What is beauty? ;-]

It is in the eye of the beer holder. Again, perception is reality.

---

Janice

If you believe in chance. I do not.

Thus you reject the current best approximation science provides for the Universe in which we find ourselves. I suspect we are done.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

random mutations

Why is it called random? As I have said, remove chance and it's design.

It's "random", because some of those first cells of life on earth turned into what we evolved from, and the rest turned into everything else. Randomly.

Yes, what you call---Randomly.

I do not. If one random event fits into another which fits into another, ect, ect, ect, random isn't a word that we can use anymore.

Let's not beat around the bush.
A "random event" is an event with an outcome that "cannot be predicted in advance". Plain and simple.
If you can predict everything in advance, well, please prove it by going out and raking in some big lottery earnings and publicly announcing it, not only here but also on television. Then we will accept chance doesn't exist. (Call me "Thomas", ok? [smile]

On the other hand, despite knowing "Dull" will accuse me of "parsing words", if you wish to say, "We humans cannot predict some things in advance, simply because we lack certain pieces of information", well, you are welcome to do so, but don't count on everyone buying that approach. In the past 1-2 years, there was an article in Discover magazine about precisely the idea. I found it an unsatisfactory article. I do not recall what was said about attempts, if any, to test this hypothesis.

Why is only String Theory used in schools and called correct? The list of why's is very long if we say who is correct... Man?

No one has called String Theory correct. Not anyone that knows even a little about it. The TV character "Leonard" got it right, "It's just a beautiful internally consistent theory" that has not been proven yet by any means. Via Leonard, even non-science people will have some inkling of where things stand on string theory so far.

random mutations

Why is it called random? As I have said, remove chance and it's design.

So your God decides when each and every radioactive atom undergoes decay, what direction the decay products travel, when chemical bonds form and break, etc. That seems a bit much for me. It also removes free will as his decisions on the chemical bonds prevent you from doing anything except what he divines. So if you sin, it is God who made you sin as he controls your body.

The soul has freewill. The soul commands the body. We have freewill over what we have freewill over. You don't believe in the soul?

Gary believes his argument means, with no chance, God decides all, so you have no freewill. Re-read what he said. He said nothing one way or the other about belief in a soul.

quick note on evolution (darwin as prophet is not in the curriculum)

Although the scientific evidence that evolution has occurred many times over,
this neither proves nor disproves the "Divine" theory. It does however disprove the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

Weather it's being said out loud to the student matters not.

It's a game of chance. I do accept very large parts of Darwin as true and correct[the book he wrote]. It's what was done with his work after that I object to.

Social Darwinism and other misinterpretations to outright deliberate misconstruations have nothing to do with the part about random selection.

Actually, I don't think that we operate the same as the earth.

As to the made in his image view -- that is faith speaking.

No, what makes you think we operate the same as the earth, lifespan, nor does the earth have a soul. We are made in His Image.

And there you go -- you don't believe in chance. It is, as you are saying, a belief.

A colleague of mine said many many years ago, that if the only tool you have is a hammer, the world looks very nailish.

It seems to apply here. If your *belief* system is Intelligent Design, then all you see is filtered through that belief system. It is a belief system (faith) and as such, no argument will shake you from that. Fair enough. Of course, the reverse is also true. Those who hold to a belief system that does not adhere to your belief system will not be influenced by any efforts on your part to convert them.

It is an interesting exercise in exposition though.

Hawkings, yes. If you believe in chance. I do not.

Why is only String Theory used in schools and called correct? The list of why's is very long if we say who is correct... Man?

No one has called String Theory correct. Not anyone that knows even a little about it.

@I.D.

Hence why it's called String "THEORY".

---

#resist

*snip*
What is beauty? ;-]

It is in the eye of the beer holder. Again, perception is reality.

Ahhh, the old beer glasses trick.

God does not make junk.

There you go, world looking very nailish indeed.

God does not make junk.

If you believe in chance. I do not.

Thus you reject the current best approximation science provides for the Universe in which we find ourselves. I suspect we are done.

Not at all. Hawkings thinks that just 5 balls need to be removed for gravity to ACT over TIME to form what we see.

Who removed 5 atoms?

Soooooo, what if an odd number of H atoms where made and along with that a few atoms of (Li).

Would not either or account?

Proof in this case is somewhat circumstantial. All available evidence indicates that our Universe is 13.75 billion or so years old. There are many different measurements that have lead scientists to believe this,

Ok so far.

though, just as with Gary's simulator thought experiment, it is possible (though outside scientific consideration) that the Universe was created a fraction of a second ago with all the elements set up to make it appear it's age coincides with the best approximation of science.

Um ... sorry, I'll leave you out on your limb there. Think you might be a bit lonely.

It's Gary's limb.
Gary stated a hypothetical situation.
Bobby simply said something along the lines of, "Now, if instead, reality really fits Gary's hypothetical situation, then ...".
And I do not think Gary nor Bobby believes the hypothesis, but they are saying we have no way of testing it, to prove or refute it.

Who removed 5 atoms?

What direct evidence do you have that suggests there is a "who"? If you have no evidence, then that is "faith" and should not be taught in public schools.

*snip*
What is beauty? ;-]

It is in the eye of the beer holder. Again, perception is reality.

Ahhh, the old beer glasses trick.

God does not make junk.

Appendix, anyone?

*snip*
What is beauty? ;-]

It is in the eye of the beer holder. Again, perception is reality.

Ahhh, the old beer glasses trick.

God does not make junk.

And man created God in his own image.

---

Janice

random mutations

Why is it called random? As I have said, remove chance and it's design.

It's "random", because some of those first cells of life on earth turned into what we evolved from, and the rest turned into everything else. Randomly.

Yes, what you call---Randomly.

I do not. If one random event fits into another which fits into another, ect, ect, ect, random isn't a word that we can use anymore.

Let's not beat around the bush.
A "random event" is an event with an outcome that "cannot be predicted in advance". Plain and simple.
If you can predict everything in advance, well, please prove it by going out and raking in some big lottery earnings and publicly announcing it, not only here but also on television. Then we will accept chance doesn't exist. (Call me "Thomas", ok? [smile]

On the other hand, despite knowing "Dull" will accuse me of "parsing words", if you wish to say, "We humans cannot predict some things in advance, simply because we lack certain pieces of information", well, you are welcome to do so, but don't count on everyone buying that approach. In the past 1-2 years, there was an article in Discover magazine about precisely the idea. I found it an unsatisfactory article. I do not recall what was said about attempts, if any, to test this hypothesis.

I posted about daisyworld.

Evolution without Natural Selection: Further ... - Mathematics
Department of Mathematics, King's College,. Strand, London WC2R 2LS, England. Journal of Theoretical Biology 166 (1994)
www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/staff/pt_saunders/gaiajtb.pdf

Emergent patterns in space and time from daisyworld
4Department of Mathematics, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1910/161.full.

Philosophical implications of the Gaia Theory
Using sunlight and water and nutrient minerals to grow and change. ... Lovelock offered The Daisyworld model as mathematical evidence to refute most of these ...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net/gaia/esp_gaia07.htm

I go pop-ups but nevertheless If I have to do homework to keep up with you I dang well expect the same from you!