real lifeQuote:.......and the likelihood that it COULD not, I happen to think that a supernatural explanation is at least a 50/50 proposition just coming out of the gate.
In addition, evidence that cannot be considered scientific can still be weighed and evaluated by each individual, but is generally non-repeatable and non-testable.
Things in this category would include one's own experience while following God, including answers to prayer, one's evaluation of how accurately the Bible describes one's own human nature, etc.
Does this negate the nature of faith? Not at all. Nothing is a 'sure thing'.
Unfortunately, the Bible is perhaps the poorest example for you to use as your banner, since almost everything thats representative of this entire discussion (as seen in the Bible) , can only be seen with "invisible inks", "code reading" or some other silliness . Nowhere in the Bible are there any discussions re the mechanisms and detailed occurences of any of your favorite subjects herein.
1You negate evolution because the "Bible says that the earth ws created in a several day period"--To the contrary , all evidence shows this to be wrong and hopelessly naive.
2 Baddy has announced that DNA was created by a "MIND" AND YOU HAPPILY JUMPT TO THE DEFENSE OF THAT STATEMENT. wE WISH TO EXAMINE EVEN THE MOST MINOR SCINTILLATION of that statement from its "nest of evidence" or assertion in the BIBLE. (Ill bet that the word DNA or RNA doesnt appear therin anywhere, and further , your assertions are merely wannabe "just so tales" the source of which, youve uncautiously overextended yourselves.
3. You dont accept any current theories of cosmology because they represent a different "take" on the origin story that you propound. Yet, the evidence of the origin of deep space light, the shape of the universe, the cosmic background radiation and its doppler shift, strongly "Suggest by evidence" available through standard physics that on e or another of the models is much closer to reality than is the story of a friendly giant who got lonely and wanted to make him some firmament.
Your argument of your position on DNA is entirely from ignorance with a little bit of Evangelical arrogance thrown in.Thats ok becaue if I was required to only accept one story of the origin of a particular rock seres, Id probably have to fight every other theory even in the light of strong evidence.
AS you may have realized, many of these foundation discussions were not originally turned into a debate of "C vE' or "DNA" , except by overzealous members who are impolitic in the way that they pose questions.
"DNA WAS CRETED BY A MIND" was such a dumb thread title, it has brought out little except to show that your beliefs are grounded in a second rate simplistic myth and that the scientific theory(depite your attempts to show otherwise) is strongly grounded in research that attempts to mirror what the fossil record shows of the occurence of Archeozans and cyanobacter , etc. and how it developed in all aspects (including heredity)
Thin sections of cyano bacters had been run by Hazen and others and determined that these eobacters were, indeed protists . While later thin sections had shown that the euK's hadnt evolved until the VENDEAN.
The important fact is that all these events occur in a nice time sequencethat is easily interpretable by geochronology, strati=chronology and remnant magnetism.
IN OTHER WORDS_ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AGREES WITH THE PARADE OF EVENTS THAT SCIENCE HAS NICELY DISCOVERED [and predicted]WHILE NONE OF IT SO FAR, HAS REFUTED THE "NATURALISTIC BASIS"
You have, conveniently, dismissed all the underpinning scientific data and discoveries to assert your points. While you continue to dismiss all this evidence , you compound your ignorance by claiming that none exists. This is disengenuous, fraudulent, and flat illogical. Id think that you would want to know about your "God's" ability since there are many more Christians who follow a specific revelation and who, at the same time, can see that the world was not "poofed" (to use ros' patented statement).YOU , in other words , fall into a very small minority of folks who are based more about CONTROL than about scientific objectivity
I can see that you and (probably) baddy, fall within that special realm of Christianity which is the "UNABASHED EVANGELICAL".This school of reasoning (if you can call it that) accepts unquestioningly, the revealed "truth" of scripture and sets its credo based upon these writings. However, where you confuse me is that , many places in your beliefs you extend your beliefs by some means that cannot be even inferentially tied to scripture (Your DNA belief is just one, youre explanation for evolution "macro v micro" is another).
Whenever you have to stretch a sources meanings so trhat you derive something from it that wasnt even there in the first place, you are engaging in embellishing your myths, not grounding them in reality.
I can see that your very arguments have gotten rather fractious in the last year or so, so Ive dropped my politeness with you because youve gotten a bit pathetic in your arguments and disregard for meaning in several of your resources.
You should accept that the recent quotes of several scientists engaged in abiogenesis research have presented a satifactory summary of what they feel was the probable direction that the origin of life had taken. Nowhere did that include some poofistic component (except in your mind) .
If Ize you, I d back off that point because, the more you assert your "viewpont", the more intractably ignorant you appear.
)