I spoke the truth, and have backed it up. I feel no ill will to you ID. None at all.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

For God's 'sake!!!!! Read the title of your thread. Stuff the link. Evidence of God from Science!!!!

Where in the science which has already proven that "the great flood" was due to natural geological events...Where is the evidence of God in that science?

---

I spoke the truth, and have backed it up. I feel no ill will to you ID. None at all.

Steve

No, you believe a lie and passed it on. I feel no ill will toward you either.

"Albert Einstein" wrote:

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.

A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem.

All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

For God's 'sake!!!!! Read the title of your thread. Stuff the link. Evidence of God from Science!!!!

Where in the science which has already proven that "the great flood" was due to natural geological events...Where is the evidence of God in that science?

For God's sake I do post at this site.

In other words, you are refusing to believe the lie that's inherent in the teaching of your faith & because of those teachings you see everyone else except yourself as either liars or blindly believing the lies they hear & see.

---

For God's 'sake!!!!! Read the title of your thread. Stuff the link. Evidence of God from Science!!!!

Where in the science which has already proven that "the great flood" was due to natural geological events...Where is the evidence of God in that science?

For God's sake I do post at this site.

answer the question!

---

I'll answer it for you.

Should it be actually proven by science that god exists & all scientists agree with those findings, I will attend church once again...& this is what I will say...

"Father, forgive me for letting my distrust of those who corrupted the rock on which you built your church"

"Father, forgive me for rebelling against those that were supposed to teach but used their interpretatations to punish us children, for what does a child know".

However, I cannot see this ever happening can you?

---

"Guy" wrote:

BTW, I can't argue with Gary Charpentier's last post.

I didn't red x it. [smile]

Yes, the bible cannot be faulted for the historical references. However, the bible in itself is not valid proof that god exists.

Take modern society with all it's technological advancements. Now move forward a century or 2 after the current civilisation ends & an archaeological dig finds remnants of that civilisation - all they find is scraps of metals & plastic, but within that dig they find a Linux manual - Will that become a new bible?

---

"Guy" wrote:

BTW, I can't argue with Gary Charpentier's last post.

I didn't red x it. [smile]

you answered that quick enough...still waiting for your answer to the question put to you.

---

I'll answer it for you.

Should it be actually proven by science that god exists & all scientists agree with those findings, I will attend church once again...& this is what I will say...

"Father, forgive me for letting my distrust of those who corrupted the rock on which you built your church"

"Father, forgive me for rebelling against those that were supposed to teach but used their interpretatations to punish us children, for what does a child know".

However, I cannot see this ever happening can you?

As to proof of God, Dr. Morowitz said that the probability of life happening by chance is 1/10236. 1/10236 takes into account all the atoms in the universe, and the chance that just the right ones came together at just the right time just once, to form a protein molecule. If you get to 1/1050, the event could not have happened even once in 15 billion-years.

See ya in Church Sunday.

Only the one scientist? If you go back & read my post, I said accepted by all scientists.

---

This is the first time I've ever read the word apologetics in this forum. Must be the turning of the tide... or jet lag.

---

me@rescam.org

In:
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=68322&nowrap=true#1241406
The question:

I'll ask this once, and only once, what does the last 5 posts here have to do with the topic of this thread?

You might want to think this over VERY carefully before you answer.

Is asked, with a request not to give a knee jerk reaction (paraphrase).
So my answer is
Gary lays out a philosophy - God Loves us, and made beer to prove his love.
I could take this to bits, and do a textual analysis on each word, but that would be nonsensical, and far from the context of the current debate. For in reality it is simply one person's view of the proof that God exists.
The remaining comments are reactions to this statement, drawing associations with their own life experiences to come to a slightly divergent conclusion. Without squabbling, bickering, or back bighting.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

ID, I read and saw a bunch of statements and the spelling of statement is different than the spelling of evidence. I personally believe that those words are not synonyms.

Now we have something to talk about....

...thank you.

ID, no you don't, you have previously stated that you do not care what I think. To me this shows that you are not stable enough to remember what you have posted!

---

No, you believe a lie and passed it on. I feel no ill will toward you either.

"Albert Einstein" wrote:

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

Thanks for this one ID, I think that about sums up what some of us have been trying to say about "absolutes". Where there is certainty there isn't reality.

---

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

Seems to me Wesley Ringer did a pretty good job making the case the bible is a pretty accurate accounting of our oldest recorded history.

Baloney. There are older accountings than the bible that are verifiable by reference to other, similarly old, accountings. The Code of Hammurabi is older by more than 300 years than any of the proposed Old Testament writings, there are older documents than this that are part of the archaeological record. Much of the old testament is not verifiable by correlation to external contemporaneous sources, and much of the new testament suffers from this failure to correlate. Seems to me all Wesley did in the linked page is show that much of the bible stayed relatively unchanged over time, not that it is "true".

---

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

Is this the Dr Morowitz you're quoting?
If it is he doesn't seem to agree with you.

--------------------------------------------

Q: Doctor Morowitz, do you know how life was first formed on this planet?

A: We do not know in any precise way how life was formed. However, it is a very active field of research. There are a number of studies going on, and we are developing and continuing to develop within science a body of knowledge that is beginning to provide some enlightenment on this issue.

Q: Now, you have been explaining why the creation science dual model approach to the teaching of origins of life on this planet is unscientific. Is there any other aspect of the creation science treatment of the origins of life on this planet that is similarly unscientific?

A: Well, I find the use of probabilistic arguments to be somewhat deceptive.

Q: Would you explain what you mean?

A: In general in the creation science literature, they start out by assuming, by making statements about the complexity of living systems. These will generally be fairly accurate statements about the complexity of living systems.

They then proceed on the basis of probabilistic calculations to ask, what is the probability that such a complex system will come about by random. When you do that, you get a vanishingly small probability, and they then assert that therefore life by natural processes is impossible.

A: (Continuing) But the fact of the matter is, we do not know the processes by which life has come about in detail. To do the probabilistic calculations, we would have to know all the kinetic and mechanistic details by which the processes have come about, and, therefore, we would then be able to do the calculations. We are simply lacking the information to do the calculations now, so to present them on the basis of the random model is somewhat deceptive.

Q: Is it also in your view unscientific?

A: Since deception is unscientific, the answer to that is yes.
---------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs call Doctor Harold Morowitz

I doubt he disagrees with his own odds. [smile]

There is no deception in the math. We know what we know and we know no more then that. If this is all we know then we apply math to the odds of what we know to be true so far. This does not mean that we will not know more later. When we know more later we apply that to the math of odds too. This will either up the odds or lower the odds but the odds is all we have by what we know. This is not deceptive. This is pure science just as E=mc2.

He does not disagree with the odds. He disagrees with the way they have come to them odds. Which is deceptive in and of itself. We know what we know and we know no more then that so far.

What is also deceptive is the use of the words 'creation science'. Done so to confuse the issue to start out with. In the context here we are not talking about the Bible's account, we are talking about science and it's lack of being able to tell us how life evolved in the 'thoughts' of 'Neo-Darwinism', without the guiding Hand of a Designer. The use of the words 'creation science' would make people believe that we are talking of the Bible itself and of itself. The Bible just tells us God was the one who Created, not the how it was done. Neo-Darwinism tells us that God is not the Creator and He is not needed for the Creation, even though they do not have all the facts and never will have all the facts. If we teach Neo-Darwinism then why not Intelligent Design. Neo-Darwinism does not have all the answers. Intelligent Design has been called "The God of the Gaps" but in fact all the answers we seek will not 'ever' be found. We will always be left with odds of chance happening because of this very fact.

Because we will never have all the answers odds are what we are indeed left with. This is not deceptive, this is science. Pure mathmatical science.

I would ask you to bother to read the thread first before you post.

ID, I wasted a bit of time looking up Wesley Ringer and came up with nothing other than he is the compiler of the statements which you refer to facts. I am not saying that the author is not a noted or competent academic or philosopher but he does not Google well. Since you use him and his work to be the starting point of this thread I think we are entitled to know who he is.

---