Acceptable Science

[climb8b]

I have recently read "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and i have read the science he trusts as real and true. Is this acceptable science or do some christians doubt it. i have summerised some of his scientific thinking below for clarification and of cource if you havent read the book you could still reply. i have written a short introduction to the topic and added some of my own thoughts after the facts.

Regards .

There is no conspiracy of scientists to cover up or protect a theory that doesn’t line up with the facts. Most scientists hope to make a fundamental discovery that shakes up their field of research; they will always revisit the facts and check them to make sure nothing was missed.

The way science uses the word hypothesis is the way most people use the word theory. And the way science uses the word theory is the way most people use the phrase established fact. Therefore the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution should read as the established fact of gravity and the established fact of evolution. All scientific theories are open to revision and much has been revised as scientists have discovered more and more about the world, this doesn’t change the fundamental theory of gravity or evolution but instead alters the explanation of the theory to reflect the facts more succinctly.

So what are these theories that christians and other religious organisations and individuals should accept:

• The universe came about in one significant event, this is demonstrated by the almost constant distribution of certain elements throughout the universe, if there were multiple events the distribution would not be so constant. Because of this “physicists are in agreement that the universe began as an infinitely dense, dimensionless point of energy”, which leads the physicist to a big bang theory or similar theory. This theory does not explain why the big bang happened and what existed before the big bang event.
• Our sun and other galaxies formed from the big bang event gradually, with our galaxy being formed around 5 billion years ago, some of the heavier elements formed into planets around the sun. These planets include earth, which became hospitable over a period of around 500 million years.
• Life on other planets and in other galaxies is possible.
• The earth is around 4.55 billion years old (+/- 1%), this is established by radioactive dating of rocks on earth.
• 150 million years after the earth became hospitable to life there is evidence of microbial life, these life forms probably used DNA, were self replicating, and capable of evolving into multiple different types.
• Transitional fossils exist that show the how life evolved from single cell organisms to plants, from sea creatures to land creatures, from land creatures to flying creatures.
• That an asteroid collision 65 million years ago caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.
• Homo sapiens are only one branch of hominids that inhabited the earth between 195 million and 13 thousand years ago.
• That no serious biologist doubts the theory of evolution posited by Darwin. If there was a better explanation that fits the facts it would have come to light by now.
• DNA as a replicator shows the interrelatedness of humans and apes. We share a massive amount of DNA with apes, and decreasing amounts of DNA with other species the further down the evolutionary tree you climb.

There is so little doubt over these facts, it shows that the religious texts and practices are well out of line with reality. I’m sure there are many more facts to be discovered in science and with these facts will come a greater understanding of ourselves, our planet and all the organisms we share the planet with.

The Genesis account of creation is therefore just poetic myth as far as I am concerned, it is an account written by ignorant stupid men (by today’s standard) to explain how and why they exist. There is no scientific justification to put the Genesis story on a solid scientific footing, Answer in Genesis and the Creation Museum are just products of complete head in the sand religiosity.

ID is a sinking ship: The human eye is not ideal and has been shown that many types of eye exist in many transitional and useful phases; the flagellum motor components have been shown to be useful for toxin injection, and protein secretion by other bacteria. ID is the biggest “god of the gaps” that exists today, what happens to faith when it rests on such a sinking ship?

 

[Merlin]

I disagree with some of the ideas presented.
Sometimes, a person would rather just go along with the group.

 

[rocklife]

the actual origin of earth is not that big a deal to me. Life and death and the answers of morality have really benefited me a lot more than discussing science over and over (been in school long time, I know what they say). I found hope in Jesus and answers in the Bible of sin and death. Him changing my life has given me enough testimony that I let Him take all credit, and I trust the creator with whatever happened when I wasn't born, I am not all-knowing, so I put my faith in one who is. so I don't believe my faith is in a sinking ship, we all die, I appreciate having peace and hope about that.

 

[climb8b]

I disagree with some of the ideas presented.
Sometimes, a person would rather just go along with the group.

What parts do you disagree with, the science quoted is generally accepted as fact, on what basis do you have to reject it.

If you reject science because it doesnt line up with the bible then you are rejecting reality for fantasy.

 

[climb8b]

the actual origin of earth is not that big a deal to me. Life and death and the answers of morality have really benefited me a lot more than discussing science over and over (been in school long time, I know what they say). I found hope in Jesus and answers in the Bible of sin and death. Him changing my life has given me enough testimony that I let Him take all credit, and I trust the creator with whatever happened when I wasn't born, I am not all-knowing, so I put my faith in one who is. so I don't believe my faith is in a sinking ship, we all die, I appreciate having peace and hope about that.

Answer of life death and morality are not based in the bible and not in the pure sciences either. While there is some merit in ingnoring science to bolster you faith, you risk placing you faith in a god of the gaps because you dont understand what science can and cannot answer.

Life and death and morality should be investigated through psychology and sociology.

 

[Jerrell]

I don't consider the begining to be very important. We cannot change or actually know all of what happened. But rather the End is more important.

Ec 7:8"Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof..."

We need to be more concerned about the Salvation of our kindred becuase we know not when the end shall come and when death shall strike each and every soul.

 

[climb8b]

I don't consider the begining to be very important. We cannot change or actually know all of what happened. But rather the End is more important.

Ec 7:8"Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof..."

We need to be more concerned about the Salvation of our kindred becuase we know not when the end shall come and when death shall strike each and every soul.

Do you consider reality to be more important than fantasy?

Do you consider truth to be more important than lies?

If you are living lies in a fantasy, would you see a problem with this.

I dont see the bible lineing up with reality on many aspects, and i dont consider the bible to be a basis for life choice, it is neither morally superior, historically accurate, or tolerant of other.

 

[salida]

climb8b-

I don't accept Darwinism because it is a farce because its scientifically impossible. I'm a scientist. Where did you read this from? They claim no "serious scientists" - ha - they mean no humanistic unrealistic scientist. All scientists have differences on how they view the world around them - it can be a biblical worldview, humanistic worldview and athiest worldview, etc. They base their science around how they look at the world. But the evidence points to intellectual design not darwinism when one looks at the facts not their scientific feelings.

I would go to www.reasons.org - it is a website on science and belief. A man with a PhD in Chemistry started it. Evolution is true if its microevolution and some macroevolution.

Science is in the Bible:

Bible before Science
He hangs the earth on nothing - Job 26:7
(Job was written at least 1000 years ago - some scholars think it could be even 3000 years ago)
Note: Man only knew this for 350 years
Earth is a sphere, Isaiah 40:22
Air has weight, Job 28:25
Gravity - Job 26:7, Job 38:31-33
Winds blow in cyclones, Eccl 1:6


I don't agree with all your above - some is true and some isn't. Yes, God could have created the universe starting out with a big bang.

There are no transitional fossils - that is farce. Also, you would see transition animals walking around today if there were such a thing but there isn't.

A humans DNA is closest to the ape - but we arn't apes. This is like saying most of it is pudding but there is a pinch of cyanide in it. The cyanide makes all the difference concerning the puddings characteristics. The same is with the DNA of an ape and a human.

 

[Jerrell]

Do you consider reality to be more important than fantasy?

Do you consider truth to be more important than lies?

If you are living lies in a fantasy, would you see a problem with this.

I dont see the bible lineing up with reality on many aspects, and i dont consider the bible to be a basis for life choice, it is neither morally superior, historically accurate, or tolerant of other.

The bible is one of the most accurate historical documents there are. Consider the fact that Nazareth is NEVER mentioned in any document outside of the Bible, yet truth be told, we can visit Nazareth today.

Now, the Bible, if inspired by God (which it was) would be the basis for Moral standards because God, the creato has the rights to tell his creation how to live. The Bible goes beyond relaity, and what we concieve it to be. The Bible just tells the truth, whether you like it or not.

Now is the bible tolerant? yes.


Ro 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

Ro 12:19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Ro 12:20Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

Ro 12:21Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.




Now The truth is Jesus, and Jesus is the Truth.

 

[Jerrell]

DNA Similarities do not show evolution....as a matter of fact we act more like elaphants than anything else, we just have simliar shapes to apes. That does not show a common Ancestor, but a common creator.

 

[prophecystudent]

First of all, the arguments presented in the OP are from one basic source. Darwinism is nothing more than a theory based on some observations and conclusions drawn that might seem to explain the origins. Note! It is a theory.

A theory is a PROPOSED answer to a set of observations. If the answer can be PROVEN, and reproduceable, then it may be changed to a law.

I see the law of gravity used a lot in such discussions. In the beginning, gravity was a theory. Thousands of experiments and scientific research proved the theory to be true, at which point it became a LAW OF PHYSICS.

Science is not conducted by a consensus of "scientists" it is done under controlled and repeateable conditions with the same outcome every time.

I note that the article used the big bang as "evidence" of evolution. I question the basis for the big bang on scientific issues.

For the big bang to have happened, an incredible amount of hydrogen had to be brought together and compressed so densely that a thermonuclear reaction took place, which would have been the big bang.

One basic LAW OF PHYSICS is that gas particles in a vacuum will disperse until they are uniformly distributed throughout the space allocated for them. In the case of the universe, that is a pretty big space, hundreds of billions of light years across.

Now, for all those hydrogen atoms to be pulled together in one place there had to be a magnetic source to attract them, and that magnetic source would have had to be unimaginably huge to attract the lightest known elements hundreds of billions of light years across the universe to one place.

Now come the questions.

What is the law of physics that explains the springing into existence of something from nothing? ie. where did the hydrogen come from? There is no law of physics that allows that to happen.

Now, even if the hydrogen somehow sprang into existence from nothing, where did that incredibly huge magnetic force that attracted all that hydrogen, all that distance, to one place, come from? What created it?

As I recall from earlier studies, the probability of a single amino acid springing into existence from the primeval slime (assuming there was some) is 1, followed by 29000 zeros. That is only one amino acid and many more are required to establish a living organism capable of reproduction.

Such miniscule probabilities are usually considered by scientists to be impossibilities.

I forget for the moment how many amino acids would be required, but I seem to recall it was more than 20. IF I remember my probablity, that means that the probability of random creation of a very simple life form would be 1, followed by 29000X29000x29000x29000, etc etc until you have multiplied 29000 times itself for each of the required amino acids. that would be (29000) raised to the TWENTIETH POWER.

I am not sure computers in this day are capable of calculating it.

In any case, mathematics and probability would seem to rule out Darwin's theory.

In any event, I believe that God created everything there is, just as the bible states. I am less concerned about how He did it.

Fred

 

[Skaloop]

First of all, the arguments presented in the OP are from one basic source. Darwinism is nothing more than a theory based on some observations and conclusions drawn that might seem to explain the origins. Note! It is a theory.

A theory is a PROPOSED answer to a set of observations. If the answer can be PROVEN, and reproduceable, then it may be changed to a law.

I see the law of gravity used a lot in such discussions. In the beginning, gravity was a theory. Thousands of experiments and scientific research proved the theory to be true, at which point it became a LAW OF PHYSICS.

Science is not conducted by a consensus of "scientists" it is done under controlled and repeateable conditions with the same outcome every time.

I note that the article used the big bang as "evidence" of evolution. I question the basis for the big bang on scientific issues.

For the big bang to have happened, an incredible amount of hydrogen had to be brought together and compressed so densely that a thermonuclear reaction took place, which would have been the big bang.

One basic LAW OF PHYSICS is that gas particles in a vacuum will disperse until they are uniformly distributed throughout the space allocated for them. In the case of the universe, that is a pretty big space, hundreds of billions of light years across.

Now, for all those hydrogen atoms to be pulled together in one place there had to be a magnetic source to attract them, and that magnetic source would have had to be unimaginably huge to attract the lightest known elements hundreds of billions of light years across the universe to one place.

Now come the questions.

What is the law of physics that explains the springing into existence of something from nothing? ie. where did the hydrogen come from? There is no law of physics that allows that to happen.

Now, even if the hydrogen somehow sprang into existence from nothing, where did that incredibly huge magnetic force that attracted all that hydrogen, all that distance, to one place, come from? What created it?

As I recall from earlier studies, the probability of a single amino acid springing into existence from the primeval slime (assuming there was some) is 1, followed by 29000 zeros. That is only one amino acid and many more are required to establish a living organism capable of reproduction.

Such miniscule probabilities are usually considered by scientists to be impossibilities.

I forget for the moment how many amino acids would be required, but I seem to recall it was more than 20. IF I remember my probablity, that means that the probability of random creation of a very simple life form would be 1, followed by 29000X29000x29000x29000, etc etc until you have multiplied 29000 times itself for each of the required amino acids. that would be (29000) raised to the TWENTIETH POWER.

I am not sure computers in this day are capable of calculating it.

In any case, mathematics and probability would seem to rule out Darwin's theory.

In any event, I believe that God created everything there is, just as the bible states. I am less concerned about how He did it.

Fred

Dude, you are so [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ing wrong it's not even funny; it's sad.

 

[Gukkor]

I have recently read "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and i have read the science he trusts as real and true. Is this acceptable science or do some christians doubt it. i have summerised some of his scientific thinking below for clarification and of cource if you havent read the book you could still reply. i have written a short introduction to the topic and added some of my own thoughts after the facts.

Regards .

There is no conspiracy of scientists to cover up or protect a theory that doesn’t line up with the facts. Most scientists hope to make a fundamental discovery that shakes up their field of research; they will always revisit the facts and check them to make sure nothing was missed.

The way science uses the word hypothesis is the way most people use the word theory. And the way science uses the word theory is the way most people use the phrase established fact. Therefore the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution should read as the established fact of gravity and the established fact of evolution. All scientific theories are open to revision and much has been revised as scientists have discovered more and more about the world, this doesn’t change the fundamental theory of gravity or evolution but instead alters the explanation of the theory to reflect the facts more succinctly.

So what are these theories that christians and other religious organisations and individuals should accept:

• The universe came about in one significant event, this is demonstrated by the almost constant distribution of certain elements throughout the universe, if there were multiple events the distribution would not be so constant. Because of this “physicists are in agreement that the universe began as an infinitely dense, dimensionless point of energy”, which leads the physicist to a big bang theory or similar theory. This theory does not explain why the big bang happened and what existed before the big bang event.
• Our sun and other galaxies formed from the big bang event gradually, with our galaxy being formed around 5 billion years ago, some of the heavier elements formed into planets around the sun. These planets include earth, which became hospitable over a period of around 500 million years.
• Life on other planets and in other galaxies is possible.
• The earth is around 4.55 billion years old (+/- 1%), this is established by radioactive dating of rocks on earth.
• 150 million years after the earth became hospitable to life there is evidence of microbial life, these life forms probably used DNA, were self replicating, and capable of evolving into multiple different types.
• Transitional fossils exist that show the how life evolved from single cell organisms to plants, from sea creatures to land creatures, from land creatures to flying creatures.
• That an asteroid collision 65 million years ago caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.
• Homo sapiens are only one branch of hominids that inhabited the earth between 195 million and 13 thousand years ago.
• That no serious biologist doubts the theory of evolution posited by Darwin. If there was a better explanation that fits the facts it would have come to light by now.
• DNA as a replicator shows the interrelatedness of humans and apes. We share a massive amount of DNA with apes, and decreasing amounts of DNA with other species the further down the evolutionary tree you climb.

There is so little doubt over these facts, it shows that the religious texts and practices are well out of line with reality. I’m sure there are many more facts to be discovered in science and with these facts will come a greater understanding of ourselves, our planet and all the organisms we share the planet with.

The Genesis account of creation is therefore just poetic myth as far as I am concerned, it is an account written by ignorant stupid men (by today’s standard) to explain how and why they exist. There is no scientific justification to put the Genesis story on a solid scientific footing, Answer in Genesis and the Creation Museum are just products of complete head in the sand religiosity.

ID is a sinking ship: The human eye is not ideal and has been shown that many types of eye exist in many transitional and useful phases; the flagellum motor components have been shown to be useful for toxin injection, and protein secretion by other bacteria. ID is the biggest “god of the gaps” that exists today, what happens to faith when it rests on such a sinking ship?

And if a Christian agrees with all of those scientific theories, what then? Would you still show him disdain?

 

[ebia]

DNA Similarities do not show evolution....as a matter of fact we act more like elaphants than anything else, we just have simliar shapes to apes. That does not show a common Ancestor, but a common creator.

Where did you get this inaccurate information from?

 

[ebia]

I have recently read "The Language of God" by Francis Collins and i have read the science he trusts as real and true. Is this acceptable science or do some christians doubt it. i have summerised some of his scientific thinking below for clarification and of cource if you havent read the book you could still reply. i have written a short introduction to the topic and added some of my own thoughts after the facts.

Regards

There is no conspiracy of scientists to cover up or protect a theory that doesn’t line up with the facts. Most scientists hope to make a fundamental discovery that shakes up their field of research; they will always revisit the facts and check them to make sure nothing was missed.

Good so far.

The way science uses the word hypothesis is the way most people use the word theory. And the way science uses the word theory is the way most people use the phrase established fact. Therefore the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution should read as the established fact of gravity and the established fact of evolution. All scientific theories are open to revision and much has been revised as scientists have discovered more and more about the world, this doesn’t change the fundamental theory of gravity or evolution but instead alters the explanation of the theory to reflect the facts more succinctly.

Reasonably good explanation

So what are these theories that christians and other religious organisations and individuals should accept

Not just should but mostly do.

:

• The universe came about in one significant event, this is demonstrated by the almost constant distribution of certain elements throughout the universe, if there were multiple events the distribution would not be so constant. Because of this “physicists are in agreement that the universe began as an infinitely dense, dimensionless point of energy”, which leads the physicist to a big bang theory or similar theory. This theory does not explain why the big bang happened and what existed before the big bang event.
• Our sun and other galaxies formed from the big bang event gradually, with our galaxy being formed around 5 billion years ago, some of the heavier elements formed into planets around the sun. These planets include earth, which became hospitable over a period of around 500 million years.
• Life on other planets and in other galaxies is possible.
• The earth is around 4.55 billion years old (+/- 1%), this is established by radioactive dating of rocks on earth.
• 150 million years after the earth became hospitable to life there is evidence of microbial life, these life forms probably used DNA, were self replicating, and capable of evolving into multiple different types.
• Transitional fossils exist that show the how life evolved from single cell organisms to plants, from sea creatures to land creatures, from land creatures to flying creatures.
• That an asteroid collision 65 million years ago caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.
• Homo sapiens are only one branch of hominids that inhabited the earth between 195 million and 13 thousand years ago.
• That no serious biologist doubts the theory of evolution posited by Darwin. If there was a better explanation that fits the facts it would have come to light by now.
• DNA as a replicator shows the interrelatedness of humans and apes. We share a massive amount of DNA with apes, and decreasing amounts of DNA with other species the further down the evolutionary tree you climb.

Basicly all sound. One could get picky over one or two details but, fundamentally the above isn't a problem for most Christians outside the US.

There is so little doubt over these facts, it shows that the religious texts and practices are well out of line with reality.

Not at all. Genesis isn't a science or a history book. It's a book about God, creation, us, and the relationships between those. About what is glorious in creation, what is broken, and (the start of) what God is doing to mend that.

I’m sure there are many more facts to be discovered in science and with these facts will come a greater understanding of ourselves, our planet and all the organisms we share the planet with.

Undoubtably.

The Genesis account of creation is therefore just poetic myth as far as I am concerned,

That would be fine if you missed out the word "just". Genesis is one of the 'truest' books ever written - but it's not science and it's not history (at least in the modernist sense).

it is an account written by ignorant stupid men (by today’s standard) to explain how and why they exist.

Ignorant of science - no doubt. But clearly less ignorant on other matters. Stupid? - how incredibly pompus to think so.

There is no scientific justification to put the Genesis story on a solid scientific footing,

There's no theological justification either. It ain't meant to be science.

Answer in Genesis and the Creation Museum are just products of complete head in the sand religiosity.

Yep.

ID is a sinking ship: The human eye is not ideal and has been shown that many types of eye exist in many transitional and useful phases; the flagellum motor components have been shown to be useful for toxin injection, and protein secretion by other bacteria. ID is the biggest “god of the gaps” that exists today, what happens to faith when it rests on such a sinking ship?

Yep.

 

[Key]

Dude, you are so [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ing wrong it's not even funny; it's sad.

Ok, lets have a look, maybe you might have a point, but what exatly did he say was wrong.. l

First of all, the arguments presented in the OP are from one basic source. Darwinism is nothing more than a theory based on some observations and conclusions drawn that might seem to explain the origins. Note! It is a theory.

This is correct.

A theory is a PROPOSED answer to a set of observations. If the answer can be PROVEN, and reproduceable, then it may be changed to a law.

Not quite correct, as a Theory never becomes a law, it either goes Hypothesis -> Law, or Hypothesis -> Theory.

Each is a different thing, and has different aspects to them, so a Theory can not become a law.

However, the point that a Theory is a "Proposed Explanation" of the Evidence that is present, is truth. So no fault there.

I see the law of gravity used a lot in such discussions. In the beginning, gravity was a theory. Thousands of experiments and scientific research proved the theory to be true, at which point it became a LAW OF PHYSICS.

Ok this is kinda off, there is the Theory of Universal Gravitation, and the Law of Gravity.

Each are separate things.

Science is not conducted by a consensus of "scientists" it is done under controlled and repeateable conditions with the same outcome every time.

Yes, to an extent. This is the way "science" is supposed to be done.

I note that the article used the big bang as "evidence" of evolution. I question the basis for the big bang on scientific issues.

For the big bang to have happened, an incredible amount of hydrogen had to be brought together and compressed so densely that a thermonuclear reaction took place, which would have been the big bang.

That is one Theory. The other is a big ball of mass, and there are others, each has it's own flaws and issues.

One basic LAW OF PHYSICS is that gas particles in a vacuum will disperse until they are uniformly distributed throughout the space allocated for them. In the case of the universe, that is a pretty big space, hundreds of billions of light years across.

Yes, Gas particles will expand to fill a void. That is a proven fact.

Now, for all those hydrogen atoms to be pulled together in one place there had to be a magnetic source to attract them, and that magnetic source would have had to be unimaginably huge to attract the lightest known elements hundreds of billions of light years across the universe to one place.

If that theory is the one proposed, yes, there would have to have been an amazing attracting force to keep the hydrogen atoms from spreading to fill the void, but as it stands, we have no idea how that could have come to be. At least, with out breaking some of the known behavioral patterns of matter.

So far Skaloop, I do not see much in the way of "You are so (exploitative) wrong", that has been said so far.

What is the law of physics that explains the springing into existence of something from nothing? ie. where did the hydrogen come from? There is no law of physics that allows that to happen.

There is a fun theory about this, involving matter and anti-matter.

But that does not change the behavioral patterns of matter in any way, nor does it explain how the "event" started in the first place.

Now, even if the hydrogen somehow sprang into existence from nothing, where did that incredibly huge magnetic force that attracted all that hydrogen, all that distance, to one place, come from? What created it?

That was one of the faults of that theory, as it was proposed, I guess they want people to take on faith that there was "something", however, this is a viable question, and one I myself would like an answer to, again, I see no logical fault, or issue with this question.

As I recall from earlier studies, the probability of a single amino acid springing into existence from the primeval slime (assuming there was some) is 1, followed by 29000 zeros. That is only one amino acid and many more are required to establish a living organism capable of reproduction.

Umm, Amino Acids are easy to make, Electrical charge into Methane and some other gases, can do it.

However, getting the combination right, and even the right amout of charge, are issues, and having the correct mixture of gases is also an issue, to have all them at the same time is a probity issue, that boggles the mind.

However, what is also not explained by this, is that when doing this, equally so, Tar is produced, and tar destroys amino acids, so even if the amino acids formed, they would be encased in tar, which would destroy them.

Which lowers the probity of simple polymers getting into water to start the first steps of life, or even the development of protocells.

Such miniscule probabilities are usually considered by scientists to be impossibilities.

Yes, it enters the realm if Impossible at the this point of improbability.

Again, Skloop, please tell me where he is providing such "wrongness"..

I have seen some issues, but, so far, nothing worthy of your response.

I forget for the moment how many amino acids would be required, but I seem to recall it was more than 20. IF I remember my probablity, that means that the probability of random creation of a very simple life form would be 1, followed by 29000X29000x29000x29000, etc etc until you have multiplied 29000 times itself for each of the required amino acids. that would be (29000) raised to the TWENTIETH POWER.

Something like that.. I forget at this moment, but I could look it up.

It sounds about right, it was quite an insane number.

I am not sure computers in this day are capable of calculating it.

They are. It just takes some time.

In any case, mathematics and probability would seem to rule out Darwin's theory.

Umm, not really, Darwin never talked about the Big Bang, or Spontaneous Generation,

Theory of Spontaneous Generation has been debunked.

Funny how some Theories never die, like Spontaneous Generation.

Here is a Link that might explain it more

This however is a bit off, so I can see where Skaloop would have taken this badly. But still, Skaloop, your response was a bit harsh.

In any event, I believe that God created everything there is, just as the bible states. I am less concerned about how He did it.

Fred

God Bless ya !

Anyway, well, If I am incorrect in my assessment Skaloop, can you please find where

God Bless

Key

 

[Merlin]

What parts do you disagree with, the science quoted is generally accepted as fact, on what basis do you have to reject it.

If you reject science because it doesnt line up with the bible then you are rejecting reality for fantasy.

I disagree with many of the aspects which could be grouped into Evolution.

 

[Skaloop]

I disagree with many of the aspects which could be grouped into Evolution.

So you reject one aspect of science while accepting the rest? Where do you draw the line? Because evolution has as much going for it (or more) than gravity, germs, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, you name it.

 

[Merlin]

That I reject a conclusion drawn, does not mean I reject science.

 

[Key]

So you reject one aspect of science while accepting the rest? Where do you draw the line? Because evolution has as much going for it (or more) than gravity, germs, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, you name it.

Um no it doesn't.

I'll give you Germs, sure, but even that to an extent, and then only to aspects of the Evolution Theory, but the others, not so much.

God Bless

Key