Fine tuning in the universe and now biology how interesting

I recommend discussion stick to the issues and avoid ad hominen statements and attacks, which do absolutely nothing to advance useful discourse

Fine words & yet you still thought fit to post:-

"Many people will learn on Judgement Day just how dangerous the opposite position was"

Strongly implying that there is one & one only conclusion to be drawn on the matter. To you there is no doubt & those who still harbour them deserve to suffer for it.

Is that about it?

You do understand I hope that devoting thousands of hours to the study of scripture informs you only about what the authors believed?

That can be challenging when certain members insist that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old. I'm not sure if it's possible to put a playing card between that & the belief that the world is flat?

   Do you gloss over the reasons for my respond in post #100? It was your assertion that having ones mind settled on Biblical truth rather than being in a constant state of flux on the issue is a mark on mental laziness. It was not to point out that I read, it was to show the folly of your assertion.

   And yes, Stephen, I do stand by the Scripture’s warning of judgement to come. 

This is what I was responding to so maybe you'd expand on what you mean by 'a spiritual decision'? I understand  how a person can reach a decision by a process of careful consideration & thoughtfulness but what is a spiritual decision?

Please note that if my comments suddenly became a little acerbic, it was only as a reaction to your rather threatening comment about Judgment Day.

* Please don't forget to reply to tbwp10 because his posts are more on-topic.

   I have to assume you realize that there is no such thing as “advancing useful discourse” on this topic. No minds will be converted to the other side through conversations such as these, if that is your definition of “useful discourse”. My fondest goal is that those such as Stephen will eventually come to the conscious realization that they cling to a Godless existence simply because they want to, not because actual facts compel them to. If any changing of positions ever occur, it will be after that.

   You love the flat earth analogy, even though it argues against the infallibility of scientists and proves the scriptural assertion that there is such a thing as “science, falsely so-called”.

I have nothing new to add (well, maybe a few things), other than to re-emphasize:

(1) You are correct that any possible arrangement of matter will happen in a sufficiently large universe with sufficient time

(2) However,  we have no way of proving that our's is such a universe

(3) We cannot simply assume that our universe meets these criteria because life exists since that begs the question, especially when to date we still have no successful naturalistic hypothesis to explain the origin of life

(4) The conditions on earth and in our solar system are actually quite unique, we can rule out about 90% of galaxies in our observable universe off the bat (too much radiation, insufficient concentration of heavy elements, etc.).  "For all we know..." is speculation and there is a growing consensus among scientists that life is extemely rare (possibly a single occurrence) and that our universe is not teeming with life because everything we know about physico-chemical processes tells us otherwise (i.e., life is not an inevitable result of natural processes).

(5) We use statistical probability arguments all the time in science to evaluate hypotheses, theories, models, etc., so we can't simply ignore that.  And as I said, origin of life scientists today recognize that random ("shake-the-dice") chance is neither a solution nor an answer, and tantamount to invoking miracles and magical solutions.  There is also not an equal probability that all chemical reactions occur and, in fact, the rare pro-abiogenesis reaction event that assembles a tiny organic precursor subcomponent is then immediately subject to the far more highly probable (and actual, that we routinely observe) degradative, decomposition reactions that break down and disassemble it.

(5) Your statement assumes without demonstrating that early earth conditions were suitable for "kick-starting life" when the evidence we do have (and small window of time available for life to originate by abiogenesis) weighs heavily against this.

*Bottom line: when it comes to the origin of life on earth, probability arguments are a fair point and it is simply stating a fact and the honest truth that we (science) have no *real*/feasible natural explanation for the origin of life.

Yeah, have to agree with Stephen on this one.  Way over the top kjav, uncalled for, unnecessary, and counterproductive and just all around useless.  I would think an intelligent creator would want us to use our minds ("come let us reason together"), so maybe stick to backing up your claims with reason

    In response to post#110

   And so to believe in the Big Bang (or some derivative)and reject Scripture, or to do the opposite, is not a logical decision, It is a matter of the heart, it is spiritual. I will accept the Word of God without hard proof, and go on from there, or I will reject it. I will accept the declarations of scientists without hard proof, and go on from there, or I will reject it. I will look at the Grand Canyon and chose to see it as the result of a massive amount of water and a little time (post flood) or I will look at the Grand Canyon and chose to see it as the result of a little amount of water and a massive amount of time, all based on what I’ve already accepted.

   I wouldn’t call it useless because I’m looking at this as a spiritual issue, which it is. It is not one that will be proven scientifically either way, and both positions need to be accepted by faith. I believe that the fact of a judgement to come is very reasonable based on the idea of a Creator God.

Careful now that you're not in "danger" yourself for adding things into Scripture that aren't actually there, or that the Bible doesn't directly speak to, or that Christians have genuine disagreements about over how to properly interpret, and/or on things that the Bible takes no position on, or by erecting dare I say additional requirements, "legalistic" stumbling blocks and hoops for people to jump through to become "a Christian." 

If you're speaking of things like the Big Bang, then, no, that is not a faith position but a model based firmly on observable facts.  If you're speaking of whether the Big Bang origin of the universe was naturally or supernaturally caused, then, yes, that is a faith issue.

   What are you talking about?

Well, here's an example.  There's no "scriptural assertion" that there is such a thing as "science, falsely so-called."  You made that up (or got it from someone who did), so you have just falsely attributed Scriptural authority to something that actually isn't in Scripture.  So, with all due respect, what are you talking about? 

   1Timothy 6:20KJV   Oh, Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust; avoiding profane and vain babblings, and opposition of science, falsely so called:

   21.  Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

   I’m talking about that.

And here's another example.  An example of anachronising (erroneously reading your modern day understanding of a word back into a text where it doesn't belong with the result that you miss the mark horribly); and an example of why it doesn't count for much if a person says they believe in the Bible but then horribly misunderstands it to say something that it doesn't actually say.

The word translated "science" in this verse is NOT a reference to modern science, scientific practices, or scientific ways of thinking in ANY way, shape, or form.  Science didn't even exist at the time that Paul wrote this.  Our word for "science" ultimately derives from the Latin word "scientia" which means "knowledge."  Parts of the KJV translation were based on the Latin Vulgate, which is where the word rendered as "science" in this verse originates from. 

The Latin Vulgate is itself a translation from New Testament Greek manuscripts and not anywhere close to being an original manuscript.  The word rendered "science" in the KJV that comes from the Latin "scientia" is itself a translation of the Greek word "gnoseos," which means "knowledge."  The actual Greek reads: "Antitheseis [opposing arguments] tes pseudonymou [falsely called] gnoseos [knowledge]."  

"Gnoseos" is NOT remotely a reference to science even in the slightest way, and if anything is a reference to the proto-Gnostic heresies Paul combatted at the time that developed into the full-blown Gnosticism of the 2nd century--that claimed to have a corner on "knowledge," but not knowledge of any rational kind, but a mystical "knowledge" that believed the material world was evil and therefore Christ could not have been part of the physical realm and so they only emphasized and believed in a spiritualized, mystical "heavenly" Christ and rejected the humanity of Christ.

*This is an example of why it's so, so very important to know the context and correct meaning of words.  Failure to do so leads to all kinds of faulty anachronisms that are the source of countless false teachings and silly pronouncements like the anti-idolatry reference in Jeremiah 10 that so many erroneously anachronize as a pronouncement against the practice of decorating Christmas trees, when it is nothing of the sort but an erroneous misreading of our modern understanding back into the text where it doesn't belong.

In order to avoid this confusion and potential for anachronising (and because "gnoseos" = "knowledge" is the translation from the actual Greek), no modern day translation renders this "science," including the NKJV, but correctly as "knowledge."

*Which brings us full circle: there is NO "scriptural assertion" against "science, falsely so-called."

*Even YECs like Ken Ham acknowledge this is not actually a reference to "science" but to proto-Gnostic "knowledge" heresis in Paul's day.

   It doesn’t mean “science” because the Greek word means knowledge and that’s not science and blah, blah, blah... I’d say that’s the biggest load of crap I’ve ever heard when it comes to Bible translation except I’ve heard it before.