Jose - thanks for your miracle about the amazing poncho...... if only God could use his/her/its power for good (eg preventing the holocaust) instead of pointlessness.

Yeah ID really rational and logical.

Wow... so much to respond to :)

David Latimer...thanx your words are appreciated.

Scout,
there is nothing special about me, rather the opposite is true.
I can only conclude that God had a reason for touching me in that way.

Deuc,
I appreciate that you have given the matter some thought.
It was like this. Yes, I had a cast, it was removed in PNG without verifying that it had healed apart from the normal time estimate. (the local Hospital was not exactly firing on all 4) I had to return to Australia the next day anyway...
I'd prayed for healing, my answer was 'no' (now I guess it was "not yet".)

I gave the pertinent facts, but let me expand a bit, I was not 'prayed for' individually, a pastor was praying for those who asked, I didn't ask. What hit me was something quite unexpected and I didn't even know what had happened until I checked my arm. (elbow fracture, could not use tricep action)

But having said this, Please...... I didn't share that experience to 'prove' anything. I shared it to 'show' something. What I was showing, is this:

1/Something can happen. (Christs miracles)
2/It can be "reported" to others. (one step removed from the event)
3/The truthfulness of such an event will not change peoples minds if they are already made up. (Pharisees, Saducees,Deuc ? :)

The various reactions are totally in harmony with the reactions Jesus encountered and which Paul predicted.

"Greeks seek wisdom, Jews seek signs"

I used myself as an example, because I can relate it from personal experience, rather than hearsay, and it just confirms that people (who have no desire to follow Christ ?) will find 'something' to justify rejecting it.

Mahatma... chapter and verse pls (incorrect wrong etc)

By this time one may justifiably wonder "What the heck has this to do with the TOPIC" ?

Well, I suggest that "Creation" is something not provable to the unwilling mind, hence I've suggested 2 things

1/ Don't teach 'origins' in Science
2/ Do teach ID/CREATION/ORIGINS in philosophy classes.

Deuc,
in the following paragraph that started and finished,
"1212, you're largely talking about abiogenesis, which is different to evolution and not a requirement for it… …efficient cycle now may not have been any of those previously."

The basis of why people call evolution more scientific than ID is that you can supposably test where it came from and where it was going. In other words you supposably have tests. Science isn’t science unless you can test. Hence abiogenesis is essential for evolution because it is supposably what gives evolution scientific grounding. You can test where it came from and you can test where it is going.

Therefore if abiogenesis cannot be shown to be a part of evolution nor alluded to, then evolution is no more scientific than ID which has a designer as its beginning.
FOR EVOLUTION TO BE CONSIDERED MORE SCIENTIFIC THAN ID, ABIOGENESIS MUST BE A CONSIDERATION otherwise
EVOLUTION IS AS SCIENTIFIC AS ID or EVOLUTION IS AS UNSCIENTIFIC AS ID.

Secondly these supposed "simple replicating sequences" are completely unsubstantiated and untestable. Hence the only hypothesis alluded is as testable as the beginnings of ID. Hence EVOLUTION IS NOT completely scientific.

Third The Fundamental Difference Between ID and Evolution
ID does not believe that long chains of mutations can occur producing a new organism. Why? Science has never shown to have organsims produce continuous mutations in order to produce a completely different organism. This is not testable, and will never be testable. Hence ID may not be testable according to some however evolution it seems must be as unscientific / untestable as ID.

EVOLUTION IS NO MORE and NO LESS SCIENTIFIC THAN ID.

THIS IS THE ONE THING THAT MAKES EVOLUTION USELESS AS BEING THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE OF STUDY. BOTH ID and EVOLUTION should be studied.

in short deuc the real reason behind avoiding chemical evolution (into life essential molecules) is that it CANNOT BE PROVEN to be true. Chemical evolution leads to evolution according to the overall "grand master" theory. Again the ability to test where it has come from and where it goes is what supposably makes evolution a science.

CAN'T TEST --- CAN'T BE SCIENTIFIC according to many evolutionary scientists. ABIOGENESIS cannot be tested, it is often guessed at and even its guesses fail miserably. Why guessed? Because the scientists who perform these experiments are actually guessing from supposed rock analyses within our crust. However different rocks that are 4.6byo have different compositions, and what is in the lithosphere doesn't even show what was in the atmosphere and hydrosphere. Hence the chemicals that they list are short, too reducing, inadequate and changing them would only make their poor results even poorer.

If you were a LARGE VARIETY of different chemicals (land) at the bottom of urey and miller styled experiments you would find the chemicals produced would be nothing short of irrelevent and useless to life.

Chemical evolution will NEVER be proven, cause the reactants and chemicals involved can NEVER be synthesised in the one environment. It is literally impossible. Look at chemical reactivities of different funcional groups under UV and electrical storms and heat and you will see that what I am saying is very true.

HENCE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION HAS NO GENUINE BEGINNING that could ever possibly work. Hence evolution from beginning to its ending does not and will not ever work.

By the way deuc I happen to be more of a chemist than a biologist which is why I concentrate on abiogenesis.

Therefore to study evolution without any alternatives to supposed origins is egocentrical - SOMETHING IS GOING TO CHANGE SOMEWHERE.

I normally avoid scoffing at other people's beliefs out of basic politeness, but this from the miracle of the poncho had me choking in my gin and tonic...

>>The stars on the garment Mary is wearing are in a pattern. NASA checked it out. The pattern matches exactly the stars in the sky on that very day in that vey year- only they are in reverse (the perspective is from above, not below)<<

Where exactly in the universe would a pattern of stars that we see from earth be visible as an exact reversal/mirror image/whatever?

Sorry, this is a nonsense, and has no place in a serious forum.

SBS Sunday 30 Oct 8.30pm. Documentary titled ‘Time Trip’ came up with the hypothetical conclusion that we are far more likely to be living our present lives as part of a computer simulation than we are likely to be ‘the real thing’.
This conclusion is reached by extrapolating computing power several hundred years to the point where every piece of particle matter/energy in the known universe can be replicated digitally & ‘posted’ as replicated past situations (for experimental purposes – time travel into the past, which is theoretically impossible to this day. Side note - time travel into the future happens all the time in real life). There would be no limit to the number of these ‘situations’ operating concurrently & therefore we are much more likely to be one of the participants in a simulation than what we think we are. It ultimately implies the obvious – we are god & we have a predetermined life.
The argument is compelling, but unfortunately falls in to a screaming heap when one considers that if we are to survive as a race for that long (year 2500?) we will have realised a much greater ethical existence at a point well before this technology comes into possibility.
Either that, or we will have created such a mess (through warfare etc) that technological advancement will have stalled.
The point is that when looking for the truth thru science or religion, or, as in this case, making predictions, all human factors must be taken into account. Yes, ID should be brought into the education system. It is not Science & should be classed appropriately.