Are any Bodybuilders Christians here

[rockinred]

Tock,

I might be different.. but when I said open your heart... I didn't mean start reading anything or conforming to any set of beliefs or religious system....

I wasn't fancy for the bible or anything like that either... I use to read a lot of psychology, philosophy, and cosmos books.... I have always been a little deep...

anyhow, my journey to becoming a believer from a nonbeliver started when I was in Haiti one night very cold, lonely, sad, and in a lot of pain.... I was by myself and would say from the inside of my inners... "if there is a God out there then why not just show me?" "I like good and if there really is a God then I will be with you, just show me"....I would also think that if there was a bad side, which i didn't think there was, in my heart I knew that I didn't want to be a part of it especially if there was a difference that i could see and choose... and I said it to myself and meant it with all my inside (heart). I said i just want to know because I don't understand things and religion was just silliness to me.. I never thought about the bible or koran or any other specific religion... I just wanted to know for sure the real truth..

so anyhow nothing happened on that night or a few others that was similar, but it was later that both the evil one showed his presence and the God did too... The study of the bible came later and it was more of a confirmation of beliefs that I never knew about but was shown to me when God showed me...

I have only shared that with a few... I know what I am saying can be written off as fanciful thoughts, but in reality I am a changed person in ways I didn't know was possible... I use to be a very violent ill tempered person amongst many other things... I am learning and struggling day in and day out.

The whole thing about opening your heart on what I said is a lot different then saying read a book such as the bible and just accepting it or anything else... that is the difference between intellectually approaching and just doing it from your heart....

Peace!

[rockinred]

I dont believe Oden created the universe, does that mean I have to present a alternative reason to the meaning of my existance independent of Oden, otherwise Im simple minded?

For atheist there is no more reason to believe in god than there is to believe in oden or a invisible pinc unicorn at the dark side of the moon. No offence meant, but thats just the way I see it.

Without proof there is no reason to believe, with proof belife isnt needed.



Emotions are just chemical and electric interactions within our brain which we can even manipulate by toying around with EM fields and chemicals. There are *********ary explanations to why we became emotional animals and they all seem reasonable. It seems like most of our emotions exist in one way or another among most pack animals aswell. Love when a wolf mother takes care of its cub, curiosity when the cub searches through its sourounding, fear when a mouse is caught by a fox, joy when a dog sees his owner after a long day alone etc. Animals communicate in different forms, humans have just taken it a step further.

Humans, emotions, animals etc are not by chance, its by natural selection.

Hey what's up Kärnfysikern, I was wondering if you were going to jump in here.... couldn't resist could ya? Me neither I tried to remain neutral...

When I said for peopel to chime in.... I meant to at least give there perspective of the complex matter of human origin... The reason I say that is because, if someone says... "i don't know what I believe, but I do know that what you believe is wrong", to me it is just simple minded to an extent... it means that one is actually afraid to make stance or choice on a very tough decision.

So we have discussed ev o lution on a previous thread, but I will have to say that it is mixed with fancy realities and ideologies too. The fact that our brain processes chemicals that cause us to react doesn't explain a whole lot other than that is what is going on inside... I might not dispute that that doesn't even occur... what I am saying is that it is the way our body and brain was created..

we also know many other things such as siimple things like hot air rises, etc.. that means we are learning how the creator made things to me... but even then we only tap the surface... think about the response on chemical balances in the brain... sounds cool, but doesn't really mean a whole lot unless we interpret it to mean more.

This might be a weak analogy, but I am not a mechanic right... well I can see and understand how a motor works... doesn't mean I can make one or stuff like that... It means I understand a little about the laws for that particular thing work or intended to work in order to function.

If a person is an athiest and then decides to embrace evo lution.. that is fine, but as we have discussed before, at least understand that a lot of what they believe is not quite as free minded as they might think... Ev o lution, is the same as most religious beliefs systems in the world... it has constantly changed, it has radicalists, and is based on believing what cannot be seen or proved too... I just think the followers accepted into this group is little more open ended where they will take anyone including people who have no idea about it, into their belief system.. think aobut it... how many professed athiest claim they believe in evol ution and have no clue what it even teaches??

anyhow, that is what i meant when I said give some answers to our existence... if the answer is I believe in ev o lution, then I say...ok!... but, if it is i don't know anything, I just know your belief system is a joke...then I still say ok, but where is the objective thought process? and where does the real joke lie?

[magic32]

For you magic,,,,,,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?V=yknwxfc820c

THIS REPLY MAY CATCH YOU OFF GUARD GOOSE, BUT THERE IS INDEED BIBLICAL VALIDITY FOR EVERYTHING IN THE ABOVE LINK, AND BECAUSE OF THAT (ALTHOUGH MY WORDS WOULD BE FAR LESS NEGATIVE), I AGREE WITH HIM!

THAT SAID, HE'S SPEAKING OF IS WHAT WE TRADITIONALLY CALL "EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE" SO WHETHER IN A HOME, MOVIE, CORPORATION, OR UNIVERSE THE PARENTS, SCREENWRITER, C.O., OR SUPREME BEING MAKES THE RULES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE OMNIPOTENT GOD OF THE BIBLE BEING ALL OF THE ABOVE IS WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO MAKE FORNICATION, LYING, STEALING, HOMOSEXUALITY, ETC., SINS. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT BECAUSE ONE DISAGREES OR DOES NOT UNDERSTAND A THING, PERSON OR DECISION DOESN'T MAKE IT WRONG...AN EXPANSION OF WHICH (AS ANY MILITARY OFFICER WILL TELL YOU) IS:

"COMPREHENSION IS NOT A PREREQUISITE OF OBEDIENCE."

ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT BOSS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO RULE WITH IMPUNITY, AND OR EXACT PUNISHMENT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?V=6mmskxxetcg

I FOUND THE SECOND LINK FAR MORE INTERESTING, AND THIS QUESTION IS ONE THAT EVERY BELIEVER OF ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY RELIGION SHOULD ASK HIMSELF. NOW CONJECTURALLY SPEAKING, YOU MAY BE ASKING ME THE POSITED QUESTION AND IF SO, I COULD EASILY METAPHYSICALLY ANSWER BY SAYING THAT MY INNER BEING/CONSCIENCE/SUPER EGO/SPIRIT AGREES WITH THIS BUT THAT WOULD BE FAR TOO SUBJECTIVE FOR VIGOROUS DEBATE. INSTEAD, EVEN THOUGH I WASN’T THERE, I DO IN FACT BELIEVE THE BIBLE AND THE EXTRA-BIBLICAL REPORTS OF CHRIST’S EXISTENCE, BEYOND TERRESTRIAL (DIVINE) TEACHINGS AND UNDERSTANDING, NUMEROUS INHUMAN (DEITY-LIKE) MIRACLES, CONSPICUOUSLY UNWORTHY OF DEATH CRUCIFIXION, RESURRECTION, AND ASCENSION. AND BECAUSE OF MY INDIVIDUAL BELIEF, PARTLY DUE TO UPBRINGING, BUT MOSTLY TO THE SHEER IMPOSSIBILITY OF A MORE PROBABLE EXPLANATION (AS INDICATED BY EARLIER BY ROCKINRED) OF THE WORLD/UNIVERSE AND THEIR RESPECTIVE GRANDEUR.


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

What's Right and Wrong frequently depends on your viewpoint.

THIS IS IN FACT THE CUSP OF THE MATTER.

HOWEVER, UNLIKE OUR ESTEEMED AUTHOR ABOVE, I HOLD A DIFFERING OPINION. WHAT’S RIGHT AND WRONG IS SOLELY DETERMINED BY THE GREATEST AUTHORITY AND THEREBY VARIES ALONG WITH AUTHORITY UNTIL A HIGHEST IS REACHED. VERY RIGHT IN INDIA, MAY BE VERY WRONG IN AMERICA AND VICE VERSA. IT MAY BE RIGHT IN YOUR EYES TO RACE (EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT) TO A MOVIE THEATER WHEN LATE, HOWEVER ROAD CONSTRAINTS BY WHICH SPEED LIMITS ARE DETERMINED, THE COP WITH THE RADAR GUN, AND MOREOVER STATE OF RESIDENCY HOLD THE AUTHORITY IN THE MATTER WHICH MAKES IT WRONG EVEN THOUGH THIS VERY SAME SCENARIO WOULD BE BOTH PARDONED AND ESCORTED IN CASES OF BIRTHING LABOR. SO THE QUESTION BECOMES…”WHAT OR WHO HOLDS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY WITH REGARD TO THE MORE EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS OF MORALITY & ETHICS?” THE AUTHOR WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL DOES, THEREBY CREATING A MOST CHAOTIC SOCIETY. NOTE: PEOPLE WHO ROUTINELY BOTH ASSERT AND ASCRIBE TO THIS PHILOSOPHY ARE TYPICALLY INCARCERATED BY THEIR SOCIETY. AH PUNISHMENT, WE MIGHT THEN CONCLUDE THE MATTER WITH THE SIMPLE QUESTION, “DOES THERE EXIST A HIGHEST MORAL AUTHORITY THAT CAN PUNISH US AFTER DEATH FOR OUR ACTIONS OR LACK THEREOF (BELIEF IN CHRIST) IN LIFE? HOW YOU ANSWER THIS ULTIMATELY DETERMINES YOUR BEHAVIOR, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY TO MOST YOUR FREEDOMS...WHICH AFTERALL IS WHAT'S REALLY AT STAKE IS IT NOT?

IF I DO BELIEVE OR EVEN SEEK TO, THEN I'LL OWE ALLEGIANCE AND SUBSEQUENTLY SERVITUDE, BUT IF I DON'T THEN I'M FREE TO DO AS I PLEASE SO WHY BOTHER? AN AVER THE MOST HONEST OF ATHEISTS WILL ADMIT, AND RIGHTFULLY SO ACCEPT FOR THE ETERNITY QUESTION, WHICH THEY THEN NECESSARILY DISMISS.

[Kärnfysikern]

Hey what's up Kärnfysikern, I was wondering if you were going to jump in here.... couldn't resist could ya? Me neither I tried to remain neutral...

Nah its to tempting to post No need to remain neutral aslong as everyone is civil

When I said for peopel to chime in.... I meant to at least give there perspective of the complex matter of human origin... The reason I say that is because, if someone says... "i don't know what I believe, but I do know that what you believe is wrong", to me it is just simple minded to an extent... it means that one is actually afraid to make stance or choice on a very tough decision.

But it could equaly well be a cautios stance admiting that we dont know for sure and it would be premature to take a definite stance. Im confident that we will show how life can come to existance naturally, but since no one has done it yet I cant say it with 100% certainity.

we also know many other things such as siimple things like hot air rises, etc.. that means we are learning how the creator made things to me... but even then we only tap the surface... think about the response on chemical balances in the brain... sounds cool, but doesn't really mean a whole lot unless we interpret it to mean more.

This might be a weak analogy, but I am not a mechanic right... well I can see and understand how a motor works... doesn't mean I can make one or stuff like that... It means I understand a little about the laws for that particular thing work or intended to work in order to function.

But when it comes to life we are the mechanic. We can now modify life in plenty of ways and artificial life is around the corner. Artificial DNA has been synthesised out of chemical building blocks and artificial cells has been created. If we can create artificial life, isnt that proof that life can be created without divine intervention? What room is then left for god?
The only question left then is how it all came togheter on earth a couple of billion years ago. But we have seen time after time that anything that can be done in a lab built by man nature has done way before us.

If a person is an athiest and then decides to embrace evo lution.. that is fine, but as we have discussed before, at least understand that a lot of what they believe is not quite as free minded as they might think... Ev o lution, is the same as most religious beliefs systems in the world... it has constantly changed, it has radicalists, and is based on believing what cannot be seen or proved too... I just think the followers accepted into this group is little more open ended where they will take anyone including people who have no idea about it, into their belief system.. think aobut it... how many professed athiest claim they believe in evol ution and have no clue what it even teaches??

The problem here is that someone doesnt embrace evo lution(damn anoying that its a censored word!!) in the same was as someone embrace religion. evo lution isnt a belife system, it is a testable scientific theory that has passed all tests so far and gives accurate predictions. Its no more a belife system than quantum mechanics or theory of relativity.

Its only controversial because it goes against religion, or atleast some interpretations of certain religions. In scientific circles there are no controversy and that is a testiment on how firm the theory stands. The heliocentric view of the universe was controversial at first, not because the science was controversial, it was acctualy obviously right. No it was only controversial because the church belived the earth is the center of the solar system. Its exactly the same today with evo lution. The science is firm and the controversy is because of other reasons. There are plenty of religious spin doctors that are trying to bad mouth the science, but they dont stand up to scientific scrutiny.

I am by no means a expert in *********ary theory by the way and I dont know the details of the theory so lets not go into a who can link to what experts oppinion kind of discussion But as a scientist I have full confidence in the scientific method and it has validated ********* time and again.

Its not a show of weakness if a scientific theory changes, its just a sign that its beeing improved and better understood. A scientific theory not changing constantly would be more worrying unless its realy old and no question marks are left.

anyhow, that is what i meant when I said give some answers to our existence... if the answer is I believe in ev o lution, then I say...ok!... but, if it is i don't know anything, I just know your belief system is a joke...then I still say ok, but where is the objective thought process? and where does the real joke lie?

But why does someone has to have a belife system? Why isnt it enough to just settle for what is known an proven and not take a position of what is unknown? A belife system to me is accepting something without proof and I have never seen a reason to do that

If something isnt known my instincts just tells me to investigate it until it is known and so far nothing investigated thourougly enough has ever turned out to be unexplainable. My only faith I guess is that its a trend that will continue untill everything has been explained by science.

[rockinred]

[QUOTE=Kärnfysikern;4003539]

But when it comes to life we are the mechanic. We can now modify life in plenty of ways and artificial life is around the corner. Artificial DNA has been synthesised out of chemical building blocks and artificial cells has been created. If we can create artificial life, isnt that proof that life can be created without divine intervention? What room is then left for god?
The only question left then is how it all came togheter on earth a couple of billion years ago. But we have seen time after time that anything that can be done in a lab built by man nature has done way before us.

I would say manipulation as oppose to creation is a better word to describe our advancements in this area. you sound like an aspiring scientist and that can only be good, but don't you think you are overstating the scientific progress in this area? Even the fact that DNA is modified in this manner it is still millions of miles between actually creating it into an actual species... it is only modifications of an existing one.. far from creation imo.

Its only controversial because it goes against religion, or atleast some interpretations of certain religions. In scientific circles there are no controversy and that is a testiment on how firm the theory stands. The heliocentric view of the universe was controversial at first, not because the science was controversial, it was acctualy obviously right. No it was only controversial because the church belived the earth is the center of the solar system. Its exactly the same today with evo lution. The science is firm and the controversy is because of other reasons. There are plenty of religious spin doctors that are trying to bad mouth the science, but they dont stand up to scientific scrutiny..

I would say it is not controversial in the scientific field because it is embraced as fact by most... thus, everyone that is in that field does not question it.... The scientists in the field of Biology are a minority with a lot of influence on the world... therefore it is taught as fact.. Evo lution of the theory of Evo lution is also huge... There has been so many changes that were driven off of the falacies that have been pointed out by those who don't subscribe to it as well as those who do...

I am by no means a expert in *********ary theory by the way and I dont know the details of the theory so lets not go into a who can link to what experts oppinion kind of discussion But as a scientist I have full confidence in the scientific method and it has validated ********* time and again. .

I know you are a chemist as you have stated before... but, if this is not your area of expertise you feel pressured to remain in your tight knit group of believers... so no need to question biologists theories too much... you wouldn't like them testing you and your field of expertise... I understand, but for me it is not that I am afraid of the truth, if evo lution was, it is I need more solid answers to meaningful things.. There are many things like you have stated before that can be tested with science experimentation,(hot air rising or falling)... simple enough... but when you try to experiment with the origin, unfortunately faith and acceptance of many unknown is a baseline to process.. I understand science is trying to work backwords to the answer and that might be fair.. people adapt to environments no doubt... but science hasn't reached the final point or shoudl I say the final answer...

Its not a show of weakness if a scientific theory changes, its just a sign that its beeing improved and better understood. A scientific theory not changing constantly would be more worrying unless its realy old and no question marks are left..

Well you have to think about what is said here... You can't put a clause in there just in case you are wrong.. come on now, ev olution is being taught and embraced in many school systems... nothing is concrete, but how is this fair.. I will show you all these major things,, but, big BUT, I might be wrong... anyone can operate under these conditions... but and another big,big, BUT,BUT... You can't claim authority on the manner, like science does.

But why does someone has to have a belife system? Why isnt it enough to just settle for what is known an proven and not take a position of what is unknown? A belife system to me is accepting something without proof and I have never seen a reason to do that .

Probably the majority in the world need a belief system.. I will say, many do settle for what is known... nothing wrong with that... we as humans can also share our convictions with eachother too.. that is all we are doing.. no one is saying you have to subscribe to a belief system or else you go to jail... I only said if you want to discredit one, then share a better one.... that's it.

If something isnt known my instincts just tells me to investigate it until it is known and so far nothing investigated thourougly enough has ever turned out to be unexplainable. My only faith I guess is that its a trend that will continue untill everything has been explained by science.

That is fair enough, and the only question I have is what if Science cannot explain it.. do you believe Science is infallable? I know you don't because it is an experimentation is how described it, but what if explaining the unexplainable cannot be done by science? What if there is answers and science doesn't have it? where does that leave you? That leaves your trust in science only and you are not giving yourself more credit...

[Kärnfysikern]

edit, alll the ********* is evo lution, Im to lazy to fix it!

I would say manipulation as oppose to creation is a better word to describe our advancements in this area. you sound like an aspiring scientist and that can only be good, but don't you think you are overstating the scientific progress in this area? Even the fact that DNA is modified in this manner it is still millions of miles between actually creating it into an actual species... it is only modifications of an existing one.. far from creation imo.

I think creation is better word than manipulating since we are talking about creating totaly synthetic DNA from scratch, not modification of already existing DNA. Its a first step to life created in the lab from non living chemicals without beeing part of biological reproduction.

I would say it is not controversial in the scientific field because it is embraced as fact by most... thus, everyone that is in that field does not question it.... The scientists in the field of Biology are a minority with a lot of influence on the world... therefore it is taught as fact.. Evo lution of the theory of Evo lution is also huge...

But that just isnt how science works. A theory is never accepted by simply embracing it. If there was glaring flaws in *********ary theory it would be visible to everyone studying it, from undergrads to professors, and it would be highlighted, published, examined etc. You cant not possibly miss a obvious flaw in a commonly accepted scientific theory. All the claims put forth by the I.D crowd for instance has been thouroughly debunked, but they have done a great job of making non scientists belive there are obvious flaws.

There has been so many changes that were driven off of the falacies that have been pointed out by those who don't subscribe to it as well as those who do...

But that is how science do work! Flaws are found and corrected continously in all fields of science. The need to change details in a theory does not invalidate the theory itself, it just highlights parts of it are not well understood. All the basics of *********, natural selection, mutation, adaption,
speciation etc has been proven.

I know you are a chemist as you have stated before... but, if this is not your area of expertise you feel pressured to remain in your tight knit group of believers... so no need to question biologists theories too much... you wouldn't like them testing you and your field of expertise... I understand, but for me it is not that I am afraid of the truth, if evo lution was, it is I need more solid answers to meaningful things.. There are many things like you have stated before that can be tested with science experimentation,(hot air rising or falling)... simple enough... but when you try to experiment with the origin, unfortunately faith and acceptance of many unknown is a baseline to process.. I understand science is trying to work backwords to the answer and that might be fair.. people adapt to environments no doubt... but science hasn't reached the final point or shoudl I say the final answer...

A physicist acctualy I cant say I feel any pressure either way. I wouldnt mind biologist getting into my field(nuclear) and debating me, especialy not when it would be so easy to show that they are wrong

Nothing to me is sacred in science, finding flaws in current theories are usualy how progress is made.

What solid answere are you missing in ********* by the way? It seems like your objection to ********* is in many ways philosophical and not scientific. I.e ********* gives a mechanism and a "how", but it doesnt provide a "why" or a reason.

Well you have to think about what is said here... You can't put a clause in there just in case you are wrong.. come on now, ev olution is being taught and embraced in many school systems... nothing is concrete, but how is this fair.. I will show you all these major things,, but, big BUT, I might be wrong... anyone can operate under these conditions... but and another big,big, BUT,BUT... You can't claim authority on the manner, like science does.

Your missreading what I wrote a bit. All scientific theories are constantly changing, but the basic foundation stays the same. The theories changes within the framework determined by the basic principles of the theory. The basic principles put forth by darwin is still there today, but the details have changed. At the basic level science is thought to kids in school or even undergraduate classes at universities there is no doubt that its correct. Get into the details and current research however and things change.

But you will never show natural selection as beeing wrong no more than you will show newtons laws of motion beeing wrong simply because those basic principles has been tested time and again countless times and has never been proven wrong.

That is fair enough, and the only question I have is what if Science cannot explain it.. do you believe Science is infallable? I know you don't because it is an experimentation is how described it, but what if explaining the unexplainable cannot be done by science? What if there is answers and science doesn't have it? where does that leave you? That leaves your trust in science only and you are not giving yourself more credit...

Science is infallable in the sense that it always arrives to the correct answere, but not always at its first try or even tenth try but the scientific method removes all wrong ideas until the correct ones remain no matter how long it takes.

Since nothing has ever been found to be unexplainable I dont se why anything should turn out to be unexplainable in the future either
I cant prove it of course, but I se no reason why it shouldnt.

We also have to keep in mind that science cant answer some questions because some questions arent scientific. Science cant answer the question "what is the meaning of life". I have no problem with religion stepping in there. Science can not confirm onr deny that there is some kind of purpose to everything. Science can only explain how nature works it cant explain why it works.

The conflict betwen religion and science only comes into the picture when religion imposes on scientific question. The church tried during the dark ages to explain how the universe ticks, it failed of course but in the process hampered science by banning the heliocentric view of the universe and killing scientists.

Today religion is repeating its misstake when it puts itself up against biology, this time without murder luckily. To a scientist ********* is as much a fact as the earth revolving around the sun. Both has been observed!

Purpose and meaning, that is religions domain. The workings of nature is science domain. How we came to be is a scientific question, why we came to be is a religious one.

I really never understood why american christians oppose *********. Is there anything in the bible that positively exclude that god create all species by *********?

[boots555]

The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. By William A. Dembski. Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. xvii + 243.

On July 22, 1985, the New Jersey Supreme Court suggested that county clerk Nicholas Caputo institute new procedures for determining the places of candidates' names on county election ballots, since out of the last 41 drawings conducted by Caputo Democratic candidates had won the coveted top line on the ballot an astonishing 40 times. Observing that the odds against such results are 50 billion to 1, the Court remarked that few reasonable persons would think that blind chance was responsible for the results of Caputo's drawings.

We all recognize the wisdom of the Court's recommendation. But why? We are tempted to say that the results of Caputo's drawings were simply too improbable to be attributed to chance. But that answer cannot be the whole story, since any result of a random drawing is as equally improbable as any other. What is it in addition to the improbability of the result that warrants our intuitive inference to design rather than chance?

This is the question which mathematician and philosopher William Dembski seeks to answer. The solution—which Dembski develops with great precision and detail—may be roughly summarized by saying that chance is ruled out when the highly improbable event conforms to a discernible pattern which is given independently of the event itself. A pattern is given independently of an event if we can formulate this pattern without any information concerning the event itself. Dembski calls a probability conjoined with such a pattern a "specified" probability and formulates the Law of Small Probability: specified events of small probability do not occur by chance.

In the Caputo case, knowing that Caputo was a Democrat and that he had control over the drawings, we can formulate various cheating patterns which would emerge if Caputo were rigging the drawings. Inquiring what pattern characterized the actual series of drawings, we find—lo and behold!—that the actual pattern of drawings is included in the set of pre–formulated cheating patterns. Therefore, we know that the pattern was not due to chance, but to design.

On the basis of his analysis, Dembski outlines a ten–step Generic Chance Elimination Argument:

One learns that some event has occurred.

Examining the circumstances under which the event occurred, one finds that the event could only have been produced by a certain chance process (or processes).

One identifies a pattern which characterizes the event.

One calculates the probability of the event given the chance hypothesis.

One determines what probabilistic resources were available for producing the event via the chance hypothesis.

On the basis of the probabilistic resources, one calculates the probability of the event's occurring by chance once out of all the available opportunities to occur.

One finds that the above probability is sufficiently small.

One identifies a body of information which is independent of the event's occurrence.

One determines that one can formulate the pattern referred to in step (3) on the basis of this body of independent information.

One is warranted in inferring that the event did not occur by chance.

This is a simplification of Dembski's analysis, which he develops and defends with painstaking rigor and detail.

Dembski's analysis will be of interest to all persons who are concerned with detecting design, including forensic scientists, detectives, insurance fraud investigators, exposers of scientific data falsification, cryptographers, and SETI investigators. Intriguingly, it will also be of interest to natural theologians. For in contemporary cosmology the heated debate surrounding the fine–tuning of the universe and the so–called Anthropic Principle will be greatly clarified by Dembski's Law of Small Probability.

[boots555]

Consider the application of the above Generic Chance Elimination Argument to the fine–tuning of the universe:

One learns that the physical constants and quantities given in the Big Bang possess certain values.

Examining the circumstances under which the Big Bang occurred, one finds that there is no Theory of Everything which would render physically necessary the values of all the constants and quantities, so they must be attributed to sheer accident.

One discovers that the values of the constants and quantities are incomprehensibly fine–tuned for the existence of intelligent, carbon–based life.

The probability of each value and of all the values together occurring by chance is vanishingly small.

There is only one universe; it is illicit in the absence of evidence to multiply one's probabilistic resources (i.e., postulate a World Ensemble of universes) simply to avert the design inference.

Given that the universe has occurred only once, the probability of the constants and quantities' all having the values they do remains vanishingly small.

This probability is well within the bounds needed to eliminate chance.

One has physical information concerning the necessary conditions for intelligent, carbon–based life (e.g., certain temperature range, existence of certain elements, certain gravitational and electro–magnetic forces, etc.).

This information about the finely–tuned conditions requisite for a life– permitting universe is independent of the pattern discerned in step (3).

One is warranted in inferring that the physical constants and quantities given in the Big Bang are not the result of chance.

One is thus justified in inferring that the initial conditions of the universe are due to design.

Dembski emphasizes that in attributing an event to design, he is not characterizing it as a product of intelligence. For he defines "design" to mean "neither regularity nor chance," that is to say, if something is not explicable in terms of natural law or chance, then by definition it is due to "design." To say that something is due to "design" is just to say that it exhibits a certain kind of pattern. Nevertheless, Dembski thinks that proving that something is due to neither regularity nor chance is the logical pre–requisite for proving that it is due to intelligence. He makes the move from "design" to a bona fide designer or intelligent agent by means of a three–step schema of actualization–exclusion–specification; that is to say, one finds that a certain possibility has been actualized (and therefore presumably requires a cause), one excludes accounts of the event based on natural law explanations (thereby showing that the event is physically contingent), and finally one specifies that contingency so as to show that it conforms to an independently given pattern (thereby distinguishing choice from mere chance as the cause of the event). Since the hallmark of intelligent agency is choice, one has thus shown that the best explanation for the occurrence of the event is an intelligent agent. Obviously, this three–step schema simply retraces the steps of Dembski's design inference, so that it turns out that one is getting to genuine design (a previsioned product of intelligent agency) after all. Thus, if the initial conditions of the universe are due to "design," as argued above, then the inference to a Cosmic Designer is warranted.

[rockinred]

Kärnfysikern,

as it was last time, I enjoy discussing this with you and you have open good points...

[I think creation is better word than manipulating since we are talking about creating totaly synthetic DNA from scratch, not modification of already existing DNA. Its a first step to life created in the lab from non living chemicals without beeing part of biological reproduction.

well the mapping system and everything is in place for the dna.. in fact the premise and foundation is all complete.. nothing special except the study of the marvels... i think i will be more excited if the idea of some new race is built..which I doubt.

[But that just isnt how science works. A theory is never accepted by simply embracing it. If there was glaring flaws in *********ary theory it would be visible to everyone studying it, from undergrads to professors, and it would be highlighted, published, examined etc. You cant not possibly miss a obvious flaw in a commonly accepted scientific theory. All the claims put forth by the I.D crowd for instance has been thouroughly debunked, but they have done a great job of making non scientists belive there are obvious flaws.

Many of the flaws have been pointed out and maybe the groundwork for what the starting point is not re-established, but many of the core beliefs that are taught widely have changed dramatically... if they had been published and examined as you stated above then what need is there for a change....

[What solid answere are you missing in ********* by the way? It seems like your objection to ********* is in many ways philosophical and not scientific. I.e ********* gives a mechanism and a "how", but it doesnt provide a "why" or a reason.

the answer lies more in getting to know the creator...even with the study of how things work it does not disprove it was made... that is all science has to offer to me.. the study of how it works.. which in itself is a testimony to a creator.

[Your missreading what I wrote a bit. All scientific theories are constantly changing, but the basic foundation stays the same. The theories changes within the framework determined by the basic principles of the theory. The basic principles put forth by darwin is still there today, but the details have changed. At the basic level science is thought to kids in school or even undergraduate classes at universities there is no doubt that its correct. Get into the details and current research however and things change.

I just know that it is taught as an authoritative fact in western civilizations throughout the world ... as an adult i feel betrayed by that because everything leads me to believe it is more subjective... that is all i am saying.

[But you will never show natural selection as beeing wrong no more than you will show newtons laws of motion beeing wrong simply because those basic principles has been tested time and again countless times and has never been proven wrong.


Science is infallable in the sense that it always arrives to the correct answere, but not always at its first try or even tenth try but the scientific method removes all wrong ideas until the correct ones remain no matter how long it takes

well it does only take in variables that are known.. which means you know your brain processes things a certain way.. well let's observe those processes and chemical balances to explain why we have emotions... in other words, it simplifies and discredits what the actual end product of what the creator intended it to be... it only sees the surface and no more... it is not impressive to me as the ending result of the whole body as a whole and how the interaction brings the emotions and feelings is what causes me to explore deeper...

also, when you are talking about the explanation of the origin of human species Evo lutionists started with a theory that there was no creation and worked backwards toward that theory... what if the initial assumption is wrong? in the mean time science is dragging millions of kids along with the experiment... which might be based on a wrong assumption initially...

[We also have to keep in mind that science cant answer some questions because some questions arent scientific. Science cant answer the question "what is the meaning of life". I have no problem with religion stepping in there. Science can not confirm onr deny that there is some kind of purpose to everything. Science can only explain how nature works it cant explain why it works.

The conflict betwen religion and science only comes into the picture when religion imposes on scientific question. The church tried during the dark ages to explain how the universe ticks, it failed of course but in the process hampered science by banning the heliocentric view of the universe and killing scientists.

Today religion is repeating its misstake when it puts itself up against biology, this time without murder luckily. To a scientist ********* is as much a fact as the earth revolving around the sun. Both has been observed!

I agree and don't take the approach of going against everything in science.. back in the middle ages, science/politics/religion were all intertwined, not like nowadays so it is a little different to compare.. also, i and many on here have posted many opinions against how organized religion has slandered many people and topics throughout time.. in fact Jesus' main ministry pointed that out also..

[I really never understood why american christians oppose *********. Is there anything in the bible that positively exclude that god create all species by *********?

I will say that my reservations or I should say my defensive position on evolu tion would be due to the fact that it is widely pushed as a belief system that is proof that there is a not a god in exisistence... I don't know how it is taught abroad as my education is limited only here in the states...

I do say that I actually agree that many of the creators works are evident through an evo lution process and i am very open to that idea... but i am also skeptic to use that term to loosely because of the way it is taught around here...

I am thinking really hard and objectively, but I really don't see how science will ever be able to prove there is no need for a creator... even if you are able to clone a human being.. that is still very, very primitive compared to the Earth and all the creations... Unless somehow there can be a way to go back to that time.. which is all lost.. the only hope is to build upon what is being worked on now or wait to see if the creator intervenes with the current state of the Earth....

[Tock]

My gosh, all this shouting . . .

…”WHAT OR WHO HOLDS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY WITH REGARD TO THE MORE EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS OF MORALITY & ETHICS?” THE AUTHOR WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL DOES

Of course. Why should anyone in their right mind let a religious leader determine what is right and wrong? You might say, "No, Tock, it won't be a leader that makes those decisions, because it's all laid out for us in the pages of the Bible." I would reply, "Someone will have to read those words and tell everyone else what they mean, and I'd prefer that Someone be me, and not you." And then we'd argue over who gets to interpret the Word Of God, and what it means, and everything would get very messy and ugly.

So. Instead of all that, let's just keep everything nice and secular. When it's time to figure out if homosexuality or Sabbath breaking or adultery or jaywalking or breakdancing or stamp collecting is moral or not, since I am not a member of your religious cult, we aren't going to use your religious definitions of morality.
How about that?

[Tock]

THIS IS IN FACT THE CUSP OF THE MATTER.

WTF do you mean, "This is the Cusp of the matter?"
I thought you were a native english speaker . . .



Here's a definition of CUSP from Wiktionary:
=============================
Noun
Singular
cusp
Plural
cusps

cusp (plural cusps)

1. A sharp point or pointed end.
2. (figuratively) An important moment when a decision is made that will determine future events.
3. (geometry) A point of a curve where it has two tangents.
4. (astrology) A boundary between zodiacal signs and houses.
5. (dentistry) Any of the pointed parts of a canine tooth or molar.

[Kärnfysikern]

Examining the circumstances under which the Big Bang occurred, one finds that there is no Theory of Everything which would render physically necessary the values of all the constants and quantities, so they must be attributed to sheer accident.

Wrong, there is nothing indicating there isnt a theory of everything. What predictions that theory when constructed will give regarding fundamental constants remains to be seen.

One discovers that the values of the constants and quantities are incomprehensibly fine–tuned for the existence of intelligent, carbon–based life.

That is looking at it from the wrong perspective, if the constants had been any other way perhaps silicon based life would be sitting here in awe of how "fine tuned" the constants are for silion based life.

The probability of each value and of all the values together occurring by chance is vanishingly small..

Impossible to know since you do not know what processes are involved in determining the constants and the probabilities connected to each process.

There is only one universe; it is illicit in the absence of evidence to multiply one's probabilistic resources (i.e., postulate a World Ensemble of universes) simply to avert the design inference.

That is making a statement about something unknown. There is no way of knowing if there is more than one universe, all we know is that within the visible universe and that the curvature hints that the universe is infinite.

Given that the universe has occurred only once, the probability of the constants and quantities' all having the values they do remains vanishingly small.

Do you have any proof that there hasnt been any universe before us?

This probability is well within the bounds needed to eliminate chance.

So why doesn dembski calculate a probability then to demonstrate this without alot of handwaving? Put a number to it.

One has physical information concerning the necessary conditions for intelligent, carbon–based life (e.g., certain temperature range, existence of certain elements, certain gravitational and electro–magnetic forces, etc.).

What is special about carbon based life?

This information about the finely–tuned conditions requisite for a life– permitting universe is independent of the pattern discerned in step (3).

One is warranted in inferring that the physical constants and quantities given in the Big Bang are not the result of chance.

One is thus justified in inferring that the initial conditions of the universe are due to design.

Dembski should really leave physics to physicists, what he is doing here is like a lottery winner stating. "The probability of me winning the lottery is so small that some intelligente force must have been behind it". Its like me stepping out in the street and seeing a car with the license plate "kgh 471" and stating "my god, what is the probability that of the 5 million lisence plates in sweden I would se just this one today, incredible it must be god".

There is nothing excluding that there might be billions of billions of dead universes around us with the constants not so "fine tuned", there might have been a gazillion big bangs before the one that created this universe, there might be a specific physical reason for the constants beeing the way they are. None of those possibilities can be excluded at this point in time.

Dembski makes a fool out of himself when he in the book you quote on page 214 simply discard inflation.

[Kärnfysikern]

Kärnfysikern,

as it was last time, I enjoy discussing this with you and you have open good points...

Thanks mate, its always fun to discuss these topics

well the mapping system and everything is in place for the dna.. in fact the premise and foundation is all complete.. nothing special except the study of the marvels... i think i will be more excited if the idea of some new race is built..which I doubt.

Ahh now I see your point. So if a biologist where to find out a new way to encode information in other structures than DNA and then make life out of that it would be more impressive? I agree that would be one hell of a feat.

But my point was more along the line that if we in a lab can create a DNA based life form out of basic chemicals its a strong indication that it can happen spontaniously in nature aswell. Nothing supernatural is required to create DNA based life if we humans can do it aswell.

Many of the flaws have been pointed out and maybe the groundwork for what the starting point is not re-established, but many of the core beliefs that are taught widely have changed dramatically... if they had been published and examined as you stated above then what need is there for a change....

Im not completely sure about the circumstances in this case. Could you give me a example of a core belife changing dramaticaly?

the answer lies more in getting to know the creator...even with the study of how things work it does not disprove it was made... that is all science has to offer to me.. the study of how it works.. which in itself is a testimony to a creator.

We agree completely that science tells how it works and cant disprove anything is made. What is does rule out however is many belifes in different religions. No body belives in Thor anymore because we know lightning is just electricity, no body belives in a sun god because we know the sun is a big nuclear reactor. Earlier plauges, earthquakes etc could be attributed to the wrath of god, today we know they are entirely natural.

God still has a place in giving a meaning to it all, but he is no longer needed as the explanation for how things came to be. Only the why.

I just know that it is taught as an authoritative fact in western civilizations throughout the world ... as an adult i feel betrayed by that because everything leads me to believe it is more subjective... that is all i am saying.

I think the problem here is that it is to easy to sway or raise doubt in a layman, im not saying you havent studied the issue more thoroughly than I have because you probably have. But I see this all the time when it comes to other areas, like nuclear energy.

If you put a seasoned person from greenpeace, not one of the fanatics but a polished representative, in the same room as a layman and let them talk nuclear power for a couple of hours the layman will come out beliving nuclear power is the worst thing in existance and that there is scientific proof for saying so. The layman might then proceed to read om various "watchdog" sites for nuclear energy and become more convinced by seeing plenty of references to big wigs with nice titles. It all looks very credible.

But in reality there is no doubt whatsoever that what greenpeace is saying is plain wrong, there is no scientific foundation for their claims. It is exceedingly hard to se this though if your not a expert.

The objections raised by the inteligente design proponents are of the same kind as the objections raised by greenpeace.
Please please spend some time reading on http://www.talkorigins.org/ and compare the quality of arguments and evidence presented there with the ones by anti ********* sites. Perhaps it wont change your mind, but it will give a very good insight into how the biologists think.

well it does only take in variables that are known.. which means you know your brain processes things a certain way.. well let's observe those processes and chemical balances to explain why we have emotions... in other words, it simplifies and discredits what the actual end product of what the creator intended it to be... it only sees the surface and no more... it is not impressive to me as the ending result of the whole body as a whole and how the interaction brings the emotions and feelings is what causes me to explore deeper...

This is probably a matter of oppinion rather than a matter of science. Im at awe of how chemical reactions can produce emotions or how fusion can power stars etc. Im stunned by how incredibly fascinating the universe is and all the processes taking place. To me the fact that there are simple and comprehensible laws that controlls the behavior of the universe and gives rise to such different things as stars and bacteria is beautifull and almost spiritual. What you consider to be the surface is to me something incredibly deep and meaningfull.

also, when you are talking about the explanation of the origin of human species Evo lutionists started with a theory that there was no creation and worked backwards toward that theory... what if the initial assumption is wrong? in the mean time science is dragging millions of kids along with the experiment... which might be based on a wrong assumption initially...

All theories must start with some kind of assumption, then nature is examined to se if the assumption is consistent with the fact. The assumption that species evolve is strongly supported by evidence. There is realy no room for the assumption to have been wrong since there is so much evidence showing its right. There are genetic evidence, fossils, observations of speciation etc.

Bascily the only other option is that god has created all life forms in a way such that he mimics what it would look like if ********* was at play.

I agree and don't take the approach of going against everything in science.. back in the middle ages, science/politics/religion were all intertwined, not like nowadays so it is a little different to compare.. also, i and many on here have posted many opinions against how organized religion has slandered many people and topics throughout time.. in fact Jesus' main ministry pointed that out also..

I think the comparison is interesting though. In most european countries religion has no influence of politics and here there is no ********* debate whatsoever. In america religion has alot of influence over politics and there there is a raging debate.

I will say that my reservations or I should say my defensive position on evolu tion would be due to the fact that it is widely pushed as a belief system that is proof that there is a not a god in exisistence... I don't know how it is taught abroad as my education is limited only here in the states...

When I was in high school ********* was hardly touched upon at all. A science teacher that explicitly states that ********* proves the non existance of god is a poor teacher because saying such a thing is a lie. What ********* does is that it shows how spieces came to be, nothing more and nothing less. It gives no meaning, it doesnt disprove god and it really isnt in conflict with religion unless someone wants to interpret genesis litterally and I guess only the young earth creationists does that?

Thats why I dont understand the whole controversy, there is no conflict betwen ********* and religion. I dont belive in god, but if I did I would think its alot more impressive if god created spieces through ********* rather than snapping his fingers and there they are.

I am thinking really hard and objectively, but I really don't see how science will ever be able to prove there is no need for a creator... even if you are able to clone a human being.. that is still very, very primitive compared to the Earth and all the creations... Unless somehow there can be a way to go back to that time.. which is all lost.. the only hope is to build upon what is being worked on now or wait to see if the creator intervenes with the current state of the Earth....

Science can never disprove the idea of a creator no, but science can present a picture of how it all came to existance without the need for a supernatural intervention. Maby god works through the forces of nature, setting it all up at the begining and letting it play out in the way it has, maby its all nature and chanse. Science can only tell us how the forces of nature works, not why. Going beyond the how is the domain of religion and the two should not be mixed.

[Flagg]

How about a thread on if there are any Body Building Scientists here! You in Johan?

[Kärnfysikern]

How about a thread on if there are any Body Building Scientists here! You in Johan?

Sure thing