Re: Religion Instead of Science

<ianparker2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1117796768.391808.140010@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> II think there is confusion here. Intelligent Design is NOT biblical
> creationalism. The age of the iniverse is 13.7e9 years, the age of the
> Earth 4.5e9, life 3.8e9. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is
> randomness., the fact that every mutation is equally probable and there
> has been no process of selection.

ID may not come across as YEC, yet is it creationism, none the less.  it's
just a form of creationism that refuses to identify the "designer" for
*legal* reasons.  That's all, nothing more.
>
> Indeed it could be argued that ID is a mathematical concept. To
> understand ii you need first to understand randomness. This implies the
> teaching of proper statistics. From a religious point of view St James
> should not be neglected. Our social behaviour is im****tant.Lives have
> been wrecked by gambling. I think if people knew the odds they might
> gamble less.
>
> Indeed early mathematicians worked for the gamblers. The Earl of
> Yarbourough bet that hands would contain face cards (in fact including
> 10s) Bridge players talk of a Yarbourgh as containing no points. (10s
> are not points).
>
> As I said in earlier communications the consequences of randomness can
> be worked out ecperimentally on computers (DAs)

Matter does not intereact randomly, however.  Oxygen redily combines with
several other elements, like carbon hydrogen, iron.....

Does the computer simulation take that into account, or does it treat
everything like a whole bunch of marbles that occasionally stidk together
for some unknow reason?

Boikat
-- 
Jesus plus two planks of wood plus
big scarey redneck with a nailgun.
The Romans would indeed be proud."



>