To Good to be True? Intelligently Designed?

Acually Phat is right, he just used a funny way to put it the bible says2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Societyso yes there were human authors but some of them weren't even alive when what happened did. Take Adam and Eve for example moses wrote most of the old testiment but he wasn't in the garden with them God spoke to him and told him what to say sometimes the author didn't even know they were writing kinda like sleep walking only sleep writing

I know all scripture is God inspired. But I dont think they writers were inspired to write dramitic fiction. They just wrote what happened. Maybe God inspired them to do it, but I dont think He literally told them what to write.Judging from your post numbers you are fairly new. I like your name "TheTruth". I take it you are Creationist then? I would love to speak to you in Chat. Drop by sometime

---

Truth is still Truth, Whether One or a Thousand People believe it.

Or let me rephrase this in a way that I think Evo Fundamentalists might better understand, the structures of life is too complex/structured to have arisen through the chance occurances that lead to the events in the life of real human beings, and can be better accounted for by understanding that life was intelligently designed by (it's)/their author(s).

i don't know another way to seek you, but to reply to you. for the topic, there is a lot more evidence than the bible, if you just look around and see. (whats real)but for you Raphael, will you give an opinion here? :http://EvC Forum: Your spiritual/paranormal experience(s) -->EvC Forum: Your spiritual/paranormal experience(s)

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

LucyTheApe writes:

quote:

---

the structures of life is too complex/structured to have arisen through the chance occurances that lead to the events in the life of real human beings

---

Except that we can see the evolution happening right in front of our eyes. Why would you have us deny it?So far, every single example of "irreducible complexity" that has been proffered by those who claim that it's "too complex" has been shown to have evolved. In fact, one of the grand failures of Behe's claim is that his insistence that such structures had "never been examined" was an out and out lie. There were literally dozens of papers on the evolution of the blood clot cascade, the bacterial flagellum, etc.He simply didn't bother to look.So again I have to ask: Why would you have us deny what we can see happening right in front of our eyes?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I don't know what this discussion has to do with Bible Study and what the Bible really means.But would you please provide for me the quotation in context of this lie told by Doctor Behe? I don't want you to just show me the words "never been examined". I want to see the context.I read Darwin's Black Box but someone has my copy. So if your sample of this lie is in that book I would like you to show me the quotation.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That's the quote I think everyone's referring to. And of course, there are many papers detailing such things, like Rrhain said.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

I don't know what this discussion has to do with Bible Study and what the Bible really means.

---

It has to do with the difference between a piece of literature and a piece of science.Science does not claim that there is no such thing as design. On the contrary: The whole point of engineering is to design things. However, design has hallmarks and life does not show those signs.The Bible, since it is a piece of literature, does show design. To try and flip the argument onto science is an example of comparing apples and oranges.I agree, we should not be sidetracked on this issue, though. Your request for a source has been shown.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nice statement of faith there.Watch me do the same thing:Because Science is man's invention and the Bible is God's revelation, if there is a descrepancy between them the fault must be with man's invention because God knows all the facts.See, I also can make an assertive statement of faith.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Is this going to be a tag team effort?It sounds like there is still a question about which quote it is. You sound somewhat not completely sure. So I am not completely sure that this is the refered to quotation.Where's the confirmation of Rhain that this is the quote?Secondly, you or Rrhain need to provide evidence that Behe lied by showing me the date of the publication of his book as compared to publication dates of the said papers in those specific journals.Possible lying on Behe's part has to be demonstrated by showing that he probably knew that those papers were indeed previously published to his making that statement.Could you finish the job of proving Dr. Behe is a liar?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It has to do with the difference between a piece of literature and a piece of science.

---

​

Nice statement of faith there.

---

Nice try, but science doesn't require faith. In fact, the entire point behind science is that you should not have faith. You should be able to test it out for yourself and see if you come up with the same thing. And if you don't, then we need to do even more investigation to find out why my results don't match yours.Science is what happens despite you, not because of you.Literature, on the other hand, is all about the person who wrote it. I'm currently in a play, As Bees in Honey Drown, about an author who gets conned and in the process, he finds he can no longer write. He talks about the "arrogance" of the creative process, putting pen to paper out of your own self and thinking that it will be worthy.Literature is what happens because of you, not despite you.

quote:

---

Because Science is man's invention and the Bible is God's revelation, if there is a descrepancy between them the fault must be with man's invention because God knows all the facts.

---

But science is a process and a self-correcting one at that. A book is just a book. It doesn't tell you how to interpret it (and it must be interpreted) and there is nothing in the method of interpretation that will let you know if you've made an error.Besides, who said god has all the facts? God? Well, isn't that convenient? Does the phrase "circular argument" mean anything to you?Hint: Science doesn't claim to have all the facts. Science is a process, not a result.

quote:

---

See, I also can make an assertive statement of faith.

---

Except you're still comparing apples and oranges. Some arguments cannot be reversed.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill writes:

quote:

---

Is this going to be a tag team effort?

---

Does it matter? Why is it important who the person is who gives you the quote you are sneeringly insinuating doesn't exist?

quote:

---

It sounds like there is still a question about which quote it is.

---

Not at all. Are you saying Behe was being vague when he said, "No papers are to be found"?

quote:

---

Secondly, you or Rrhain need to provide evidence that Behe lied by showing me the date of the publication of his book as compared to publication dates of the said papers in those specific journals.

---

You mean you didn't bother to look it up? We are not here to do your homework for you.Darwin's Black Box was published in 1996. Why don't you do your own homework and start looking up the publication dates regarding molecular biology from before that? Here's a hint: Mycoplasma genitalium was completely sequenced in 1995.Here's another quote of Behe's: Remember, this was from 1996.David Ussery did a PubMed search for articles regarding this and guess what he found:

YEAR	"Molecular Evolution"	"Irreducible complexity"	[b]"Intelligent Design" and evolution	evolution and "complex biochemical system"
1980	10	0	0	0
1981	13	0	0	0
1982	12	0	0	0
1983	8	0	0	1
1984	14	0	0	1
1985	24	0	0	2
1986	32	0	0	3
1987	43	0	0	3
1988	36	0	0	2
1989	40	1	0	0
1990	52	0	0	5
1991	39	1	0	1
1992	45	0	0	1
1993	56	1	0	2
1994	114	0	0	1
1995	322	0	0	2
Total	860	3	0	24

So in direct contrast to Behe's claim, there were literally hundreds of articles to be found on molecular evolution.When Ussery debated Behe, Behe weaseled out by saying he used a different database and that since his book was written mostly during 1995, he shouldn't be expected to know about the articles published then.Want to know what happened after he published his books? The number of articles on molecular evolution exploded. From 1996 to 2000, there were 6695 articles published.Behe's book has not been altered to reflect this reality.

quote:

---

Could you finish the job of proving Dr. Behe is a liar?

---

You mean you can't do it for yourself? You are incapable of using a search engine? You don't know about PubMed? In ten seconds, I found the following:Gillespie JH.
Molecular Evolution and Polymorphism in a Random Environment.
Genetics. 1979 Nov;93(3):737-754.
PMID: 17248978 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]And here are a couple of good ones:Kimura M, Ota T.
On some principles governing molecular evolution.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1974 Jul;71(7):2848-52.
PMID: 4527913 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]172:LinksWilson AC, Maxson LR, Sarich VM.
Two types of molecular evolution. Evidence from studies of interspecific hybridization.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1974 Jul;71(7):2843-7.
PMID: 4212492 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Note the dates on these. Two were published twenty years before Behe wrote his book. One of the ones I've referenced shows that there are multiple methods of molecular evolution. The idea that the concept of molecular evolution was originated with Behe or that it was only because he popularized the subject that people started investigating it is risible.When was the last time you were in a science library?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Rrhain, Nice try yourself. But I don't think it is quite nice enough.The scientific method presupposes some truths. Those truths which it presupposes cannot themselves be proved by the scientific method because it presupposes them. Those truths must be arrived at by some other means. And having been stood upon by either a kind of "faith" or "trust" or however you'd like to call it, they become the presuppositional basis upon which scientific method is based.You have a rational belief in mathematics and logic. That is a kind of "faith" or sorts or trust. Science cannot prove them because science presupposes them.The belief, the "faith" if you will that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself.So your science requires a faith of sorts. Those are rational beliefs which themselves cannot be proven by the scientific method. Otherwise you would have a problem with circular logic. Can you test for yourself to see if you come up with the same thing 400 million years of natural selection?Can you test for yourself to see if you come up with the same things the theorized "Big Bang" event? I partly get your drift. However you are making a dichotomy which doesn't quite fit. There is "scientific liturature".There are indications to me in the Bible that the liturature is divinely inspired. That is one of the reasons in instills faith in some of us. Of course it tells us quite plainly that it intends to instill faith in us. It makes no pretense to be a scientific method.There are a few exceptional cases which remind me of science method. For example Gideon's fleece test. Your dichotomy is weak. There is such a thing as scientific liturature. I think you are probably depending on some right now in this discussion.I'll consider your other comments a bit latter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Responded to the wrong post. Want to make sure that the references are correct. See below.Edited by Rrhain, : Responded to the wrong post.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

The scientific method presupposes some truths.

---

It would help if you would state what they are. I am not necessarily denying them, but I cannot make any statements about that which you are not defining.

quote:

---

You have a rational belief in mathematics and logic. That is a kind of "faith" or sorts or trust.

---

Not quite. It isn't belief. It's functionality.Note: While logic and mathematics are certainly related, they are not the same thing. As we well know, you can come up with different types of mathematics by changing your axioms. Deny the Fifth Postulate, and you wind up with non-Euclidean geometry. However, the logic remains the same.

quote:

---

The belief, the "faith" if you will that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself.

---

And isn't it lovely that nobody tries to claim it does! You're arguing a non sequitur.

quote:

---

So your science requires a faith of sorts.

---

But you haven't defined what that "faith" is. Assertion is not justification.Back to the original statement since none of this has anything to do with it:Science is about things that happen despite you. Literature, on the other hand, is all tied up in you.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You should be able to test it out for yourself and see if you come up with the same thing. And if you don't, then we need to do even more investigation to find out why my results don't match yours.

---

​

Can you test for yourself to see if you come up with the same thing 400 million years of natural selection?

---

Why would you expect to come up with "the same thing"? That isn't how evolution works. You are confusing getting a specific outcome with getting any outcome.If I shuffle cards and deal a hand of bridge, you're not going to get the same hand this time as you are next time. But, nobody ever said you were. However, you're going to get a hand of bridge. Do not confuse the specific outcome (AJ9 S, KQ52 H, 108765 D, 4 C) with the existence of an outcome.What you can test for yourself is that life will not remain static. I have repeatedly given an example of an experiment you can do quite quickly in the privacy of your own biology lab using materials that are easily acquired from a biological supply house. It can be done by high school students. Note, the experiment does not indicate how the bacteria and phage evolve...only that they will. And they do.

quote:

---

Can you test for yourself to see if you come up with the same things the theorized "Big Bang" event?

---

Yes. The field you are thinking of is called "quantum cosmology." The COBE and IMAP experiments were tests of it.

quote:

---

However you are making a dichotomy which doesn't quite fit. There is "scientific liturature".

---

Three problems.First: Are you seriously claiming the Bible is "scientific literature"? Please.Second: "Scientific literature" is not science. Science is a method.Third: You are equivocating on the word "literature." There is the definition that means "text written down" and then there is the definition that means "story."

quote:

---

There are indications to me in the Bible that the liturature is divinely inspired.

---

But that's because you've already determined that its story is true. The vast majority of the world disagrees with you. If it were accurate, if it were amenable to the process of science, then it would be replicable. Since it is not, it is clearly not of the same type.

quote:

---

There is such a thing as scientific liturature.

---

Indeed, and it is not the same thing as "literature" as I used it. I will thank you not to engage in equivocation.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.