It all Started by Chance?

[Mike Flynn]

Mike Flynn: Just to point out, atheists do not believe life came about through purely "random chance" as there is nothing random about chemical reaction.

Thats not true actually, the formation of chemical bonds takes place on the quantum level. And intrinsic to quantum is random chance. This would factor in in many different ways including the proximity of the particles, their position, momentum, etc. Just look at the formation of snow crystals...a beautiful display of random chance and ordered structure all rolled into one. So if atheists don't believe there is anything 'random' in chemical reactions, then I guess the atheists are wrong. But somehow I doubt that this is generally true.

As far as the random chance that somewhere in this vast universe, that is rather old (to ours and even lifes standards), that somehow, somewhere, a planet would form that could substain life. The Odds are Not astronomical. They odds are only astronomical that it would be this planet, just like the odds are very Low (edit, I wrote high, but i ment low or small ) that it would be you who won the lottery. However, the odds that someone somewhere will win the lottery is pretty good.

Well, you are quibbling about the word 'astronomical', which in this sense I mean 'enormous'. So when I say 'astronomically small' I mean 'enormously small'. To most one in a billion chance would be considered astronomically small. And that would be a relatively high estimate of the chances of life forming on earth. But why quibble about a word?

And by the way, computing the odds of life forming on a planet is HIGHLY speculative, especially since evolutionary biologists have no clear forumlation of the entire process, including environmental conditions, etc. I have seen estimates that in our galaxy ALONE, more than 100000 planets could have evolved life similar to life on earth (I guess the Star Trek writers can appreciate that one). I have seen other estimates that we would need over a trillion entire 'universes' like ours to have life form on a single planet. Creationist/atheist camps are quick to grab hold of the value that supports their position and claim victory over the other side...you'd think people would have better things to do!

Personally, I wouldn't put too much stock in any number that people churn out in the various camps today. Some of the calculations are based completely on speculation....what a waste of time. And its the stuff that people seem to care about only in the confines of debates like these.

One thing is clear: its a pretty stunning sequence of events no matter how 'run of the mill' it might be in the universe...inanimate matter...becoming animate. If anyone claims not to be in sheer awe of the process (if correct), then they don't get the science. I stand in awe of a cold virus...an absolutely incredible construction....I just wish it would get out of my throat...

 

[Arikay]

1) I was talking about the chemical reactions on a large scale. If you put hydrogen and oxygen in a container and add energy, it is not "random chance" that you will get water. The same goes for reactions in abiogenesis.

2) A) no im not quibbling about the word astronomical. Im saying that the possibilities of life coming about in the universe is not as small as some think. Just like the lottery example, the chances of you winning the lottery are small, the chances that Someone will win are much larger. The same goes for life on earth.

B) Your right though, there are so many variables and things we do not understand, to attempt to calculate the chances of earth coming up in the universe is pretty much impossible.

3) No matter what the chances, it happend, and there is a high possibility that it can happen without an inteligent designer. Did it? I dont know.

Thats not true actually, the formation of chemical bonds takes place on the quantum level. And intrinsic to quantum is random chance. This would factor in in many different ways including the proximity of the particles, their position, momentum, etc. Just look at the formation of snow crystals...a beautiful display of random chance and ordered structure all rolled into one. So if atheists don't believe there is anything 'random' in chemical reactions, then I guess the atheists are wrong. But somehow I doubt that this is generally true.



Well, you are quibbling about the word 'astronomical', which in this sense I mean 'enormous'. So when I say 'astronomically small' I mean 'enormously small'. To most one in a billion chance would be considered astronomically small. And that would be a relatively high estimate of the chances of life forming on earth. But why quibble about a word?

And by the way, computing the odds of life forming on a planet is HIGHLY speculative, especially since evolutionary biologists have no clear forumlation of the entire process, including environmental conditions, etc. I have seen estimates that in our galaxy ALONE, more than 100000 planets could have evolved life similar to life on earth (I guess the Star Trek writers can appreciate that one). I have seen other estimates that we would need over a trillion entire 'universes' like ours to have life form on a single planet. Creationist/atheist camps are quick to grab hold of the value that supports their position and claim victory over the other side...you'd think people would have better things to do!

Personally, I wouldn't put too much stock in any number that people churn out in the various camps today. Some of the calculations are based completely on speculation....what a waste of time. And its the stuff that people seem to care about only in the confines of debates like these.

One thing is clear: its a pretty stunning sequence of events no matter how 'run of the mill' it might be in the universe...inanimate matter...becoming animate. If anyone claims not to be in sheer awe of the process (if correct), then they don't get the science. I stand in awe of a cold virus...an absolutely incredible construction....I just wish it would get out of my throat...

 

[Jet Black]

Thats not true actually, the formation of chemical bonds takes place on the quantum level. And intrinsic to quantum is random chance. This would factor in in many different ways including the proximity of the particles, their position, momentum, etc. Just look at the formation of snow crystals...a beautiful display of random chance and ordered structure all rolled into one. So if atheists don't believe there is anything 'random' in chemical reactions, then I guess the atheists are wrong. But somehow I doubt that this is generally true.

snowflakes are not an appropriate analogy, as there are many potential organisations. however carry out a bunch of reactoins and you always get the same chemicals (with a few oddities) in there. look at the medical and chemical industry. those wouldn't exist if it was really "random"

 

[Mike Flynn]

The above is merely your opinion. Please provide solid evidence that "This is not the way God wants us to connect with him". Did God tell you this himself?

I am trying to point out that science and Christ are not fundamentally incompatible...and check any of my other postings on this forum for proof. Why accuse me of being on the wrong side here? Why the attack? If anything, I am on the same side as you, trying to witness my faith as it has been revealed to me....trying to welcome the science community into Christ's community. But harsh voices like yours make that difficult...and that's where we differ in motivation I suppose.

If you wan't proof for 'this is not how God wants us to connect with him' then check your Bible. Find me a single passage where Jesus or any of the apostles indicate that people can enter their faith by these kinds of debates and arguments (or even the process of logical 'convincing') and I will concede the point to you. If anything, scripture supports my position. We need to accept Christ, and it will always come down to a simple matter of faith. Is the same for a genious or the simplest mind. And the best witness you could ever give is to demonstrate God's glory as he works through you when you accept Christ, redeeming the world as you come into his service. Doesn't that jive with scripture?

I'm NOT trying to slam intelligent design, creationism, and the various other pundits of creationism. They are making honest efforts to demonstrate the presence of God in Creation...That could bear great fruit as you have indicated. I'm NOT passing judgement on them at all.

I guess I'm not making myself clear...

One problem I have with the various creation 'science' perspectives is that they attempt to intrinsically link scripture with scientific discovery.
This is not new BTW, at one time the Church had bought into the geocentric model of the universe (originated in science) lock, stock and barrel. When that was proven to be incorrect, terrible things happened in the body of the Church...and in a way, it defines this debate even to the present time... HOW MANY MILLIONS HAVE BEEN DENIED ENTRY INTO THE CHURCH (even chastized and ridiculed, punished, and killed) BECAUSE OF CHRISTIANS TAKING HARSH DOGMATIC VIEWS ON SCIENCE? The PROBLEM is that science is malleable, it keeps getting re-defined while scripture does not. So when the science changes and new discoveries come to light, the Christian science perspectives fall like a house of cards because we have constructed link to our faith. It puts us at risk...

So what if intelligent design and irreducible complexity is unequivically proven wrong someday scientifically, what happens to all of those converts who were won over by it?...will their faith be strong enough without the ID science? Hopefully. But history shows us that when science 'changes', the Church is slow to follow. And history also shows us that this has done more harm to the Church than good. See my point? If your faith is based on scientific proof, it can be weakened by it.

The Bible tells us to have ready answers for questions about our faith. If the questions come from the realm of certain interpretations of science, then we must be prepared to respond to those questions.

But how much HARM has been done with this same philosophy? The problem here is that NONE OF THE SCIENCE FORMULATIONS ON EITHER SIDE ARE COMPLETELY CORRECT. So while you might win over some...you will certainly marginalize others with these arguments. Why can't we agree that Christianity and science do not have to be incompatible at all...and focus on what really counts.

The works of various creationists and intelligent design advocates have won tens of thousands to Christ over the years. How many souls has your criticism of them won to Christ?

I'm sorry you feel the need to take a sarcastic shot at me like this. Let me make this clear: I'M NOT CRITICIZING ANY OF THOSE POSITIONS per se. I am criticizing people who feel they need to dig in and take a staunch, obstinate view of creation and impose it on others. I'm criticizing people who say 'you can't believe (whatever theory) and call yourself a Christian'. In short, I'm criticizing YOUR HARSHNESS....nobody else. People on BOTH sides need to have an open mind and a character of humility in this whole debate. And YES, I believe that GOD has put it on my heart to say things like this here.

And do you really believe 'answering questions about your faith' is tantamount to slamming everyone else's opinions with sarcasm and cheap shots...and endless 'Please show me...' statements that ooze with a tone of self-righteousness? Get a grip...we're on the same team. Lets get on with living out our Christian lives and bringing glory to God's name...

 

[Mike Flynn]

snowflakes are not an appropriate analogy, as there are many potential organisations. however carry out a bunch of reactoins and you always get the same chemicals (with a few oddities) in there. look at the medical and chemical industry. those wouldn't exist if it was really "random"

Just look up 'quantum chemisty'...if I'm wrong, you win. I'm all 'scienced out' for today.

 

[Christian Soldier]

"Of 'Superstrings':
There is a theory that suggests that the universe began as an infinitessimal 'point' in a 10 dimensional space (but not 'nothing' as some put it). These 10 dimensions were 'curled up' and about as long as a 'planck' length (10^-36 m) in size, and all the matter in the universe was intertwined in super-strings in this space. It has been demonstrated mathematically, in a powerful contruction under string theory, that RANDOM thermal fluctuations would lead to an explosive expansion of just three of these spatial dimensions (3 dimensional space that we have now, in other words), leaving 6 more dimensions infinitessimally 'curled up' (plus time for a total of 10). While there is room for speculation, the construction of this theory takes into consideration quantum electrodynamics, chomodynamics, and electoweak theory...and even general relativity...the stuff of quantum 'fields' if you like. If you want more 'facts' I'd be happy to provide them..."

Most of what we "know" about so-called superstrings is hypothetical . And there are anti-Creationists who will agree with me on that. What you describe above is not scientific fact. Simply because a hypothesis includes mathematical calculations, doesn't make it true. Your comment "While there is room for speculation", was one of the few factual statements in your post. Superstring hypotheses involve an ENORMOUS amount of speculation. So actually you're not providing us with "facts" at all, but sheer speculation.

"How did this space come to exist in the first place? Well, thats a toughie, since time itself was intertwined within the dimensional space. It could be that it always existed...but its nothing more than speculation for now. I could be that science will discover more answers to questions like these in due time..."

Yes, like virtually all of your post, it's merely speculation. Please present us with scientific facts, like I previously requested.

"This is like the pot calling the kettle black. Maybe you should research the topic YOURSELF a little. Your last statement about QM is false, plain and simple. If you think it isn't, then why don't you post your sources here?"

I've studied it, friend, so we don't need your egotistical rant. And you have presented absolutely nothing to prove that my "last statement about QM is false". You have provided mostly speculation and opinion.

"ALL of science deals primarily with hypotheses and theories....that doesn't make the theories false or invalid."

Nor does it make them true, so your comment is irrelevant.

"A theory is simply a framework that incorporates all of the available data and evidence that we have gathered to date. Good ones can even make predictions and give us insight about things we have not yet seen. By those standards, QM is stunningly good. Tunneling electron microscopes, lasers, even semiconductor technology is founded on this 'theory'. So you can thank the QM formulation for your computer, DVD, and CD technology...pretty good for a set of hypotheses and theories I'd say."

Thank you, but I'm well aware of what constitutes a theory. And your examples do nothing to prove that Quantum mechanics could create the universe from nothingness.

"You would be correct to say that QM is essentially a mathematical formulation. No one really 'gets' the 'physicality' of it...I spent five years of studying it in order to realize that!"

Most students of Quantum physics realize that when they BEGIN their studies.

"Example: wave particle duality. When an electron is fired through a narrow double slit, its final trajectory depends on a 'wave nature'....the sum of millions of electrons will produce a characteristic interference pattern, even when fired ONE AT A TIME through the pair of slits. If you close one slit, the resulting interference pattern is quite different in shape. Physics tells us that each electron must go through one slit OR the other...makes sense, right?. But when one slit is closed, it (incredibly!) affects the trajectory of all of the electrons that pass through the open slit.

I hope you can see the quantum 'wierdness' here...the result seems to make no visceral sense. Its as if an individual electron 'knows' the other slit is closed, and alters its course accordingly. A brilliant physicist, named Richard Feynman, proposed that a SINGLE ELECTRON SOMEHOW TAKES ALL POSSIBLE PATHS SIMULTANEOUSLY...but how can that be? Enter the concept of MULTIPLE UNIVERSES....quite speculative, yet entirely possible within the mathematical framework of QM...a real possibility. One caveat: QM specifies that there could be absolutely NO communication link (or transfer of knowledge) between these multiple universes since this would preclude the intrinsic randomness of the system and violate the entire quantum formulation. But the assertion that ALL EVENTS HAPPEN within the 'multiverse' framework is an absolutely valid one.

...so the 'no basis in scientific fact' statements are quite unfounded here...not to mention uncalled for."

No, actually they are quite founded, and very called for.

As you yourself state above, the concept of multiple universes is "quite speculative", which is what I said to BEGIN with. So you have proven only that my original statement is CORRECT.

If a theory or hypothesis is "quite speculative", then it is NOT scientific fact. So my original statement still stands. You have disproven nothing.

So I submit that most of YOUR statements are unfounded and uncalled for.

"PLEASE note that I am not trying to be insulting to anyone. I just wish people on BOTH sides of the creation issue would set thier obstinate attitudes aside before entering into the fray. I believe that God has created the laws of physics...and he has explicitly USED THEM to create this universe (isn't that miraculous enough?)....so don't be so quick to denigrate the science community, and be continually suspect of its assertions...God has gifted these people with some incredible insights into his astounding creation. And He has a heart after them and wants to redeem them too. Don't we make that harder by asking them to check their brains at the door before they enter the Church? That can't be God's will."

You're the one being obstinate. The vast majority of trained scientists would agree with me that much of what we know about quantum physics is purely hypothetical.

Nobody here is "denigrating" the scientific community. According to multiple polls from secular sources, 40% of trained scientists are theists.

Nobody is asking them to check their brains at the door. You're correct when you say that God wants to redeem the 60% who don't believe.

Since that 60% obviously won't accept Christ through faith alone, then Creationists and ID advocates are obviously providing a vital service to God and Christianity by providing scientific information that supports the concept of a Creator! Which would indeed be God's will!

"One last point: theists and creationists alike should not be so afraid of random chance and how it has been 'woven' into the stuff of the universe. This element is our guarantee that God has created much more than a deterministic 'puppet' universe, and we are much more than 'robots' within it. Read through the thread on 'free will' (if you are inclined)...many of these concepts were discussed there."

I have no fear of your alleged "random chance". You have provided no credible evidence that quantum mechanics are completely random, and could create the universe out of nothingness. You have provided no credible evidence that there are multiple universes.

If as you state, God has created it and "woven" it into the "stuff of the universe"--is it really "random"? Or because of man's very limited knowledge of the subject, does it just APPEAR to be random?

 

[Christian Soldier]

"I am trying to point out that science and Christ are not fundamentally incompatible...and check any of my other postings on this forum for proof."

I'm already well aware of that fact. In order to prove that science and Christ are not fundamentally incompatible, it is necessary for Creationists and ID advocates to study science and present scientific information. There are many unsaved souls who will NEVER accept Christianity on the basis of faith and the Bible alone. So presenting scientific information supporting the existence of God is VITAL in reaching them.

"Why accuse me of being on the wrong side here? Why the attack? If anything, I am on the same side as you, trying to witness my faith as it has been revealed to me....trying to welcome the science community into Christ's community. But harsh voices like yours make that difficult...and that's where we differ in motivation I suppose."

Please stop with the self-righteous rant and false accusations. I have used no foul language, have not called you any names, and have made no personal attacks on you. You simply don't like having your opinions challenged, so you've gone into an overly defensive mode.

I asked some straight forward questions that you failed to credibly answer. If you consider that a personal attack, then you are mistaken.

"If you wan't proof for 'this is not how God wants us to connect with him' then check your Bible. Find me a single passage where Jesus or any of the apostles indicate that people can enter their faith by these kinds of debates and arguments (or even the process of logical 'convincing') and I will concede the point to you. If anything, scripture supports my position. We need to accept Christ, and it will always come down to a simple matter of faith. Is the same for a genious or the simplest mind. And the best witness you could ever give is to demonstrate God's glory as he works through you when you accept Christ, redeeming the world as you come into his service. Doesn't that jive with scripture?"

Find me a single passage that supports YOUR position. There were many areas that Christ is silent on in the Bible, so your assertion proves nothing.

The Bible instructs us to have a ready answer for questions about our faith. If our faith is attacked by the opinions of certain people in the scientific community, with their own interpretations of scientific evidence, then Christians must be prepared to present scientific evidence to the contrary.

Merely telling them "The Bible says so", would merely cause them to laugh. They want to see scientific evidence. So we must provide it.

"I'm NOT trying to slam intelligent design, creationism, and the various other pundits of creationism. They are making honest efforts to demonstrate the presence of God in Creation...That could bear great fruit as you have indicated. I'm NOT passing judgement on them at all."

You're proclaiming that their method of witnessing is wrong, and yours is right. That's pretty close to a "slam" of them.

And they have already bore great fruit, with tens of thousands of souls being brought to Christ, including many scientists.

"I guess I'm not making myself clear..."

I understand completely what you're saying, but I simply don't agree with some of your main points.

"One problem I have with the various creation 'science' perspectives is that they attempt to intrinsically link scripture with scientific discovery.
This is not new BTW, at one time the Church had bought into the geocentric model of the universe (originated in science) lock, stock and barrel. When that was proven to be incorrect, terrible things happened in the body of the Church...and in a way, it defines this debate even to the present time... HOW MANY MILLIONS HAVE BEEN DENIED ENTRY INTO THE CHURCH (even chastized and ridiculed, punished, and killed) BECAUSE OF CHRISTIANS TAKING HARSH DOGMATIC VIEWS ON SCIENCE? The PROBLEM is that science is malleable, it keeps getting re-defined while scripture does not. So when the science changes and new discoveries come to light, the Christian science perspectives fall like a house of cards because we have constructed link to our faith. It puts us at risk..."

Because there have been mistakes made in the past, we should avoid speaking about scientific evidence for the existence of God altogether?! How then would we reach the roughly 60% percent of scientists, and millions of non-scientists, who have no intention of accepting Christ through faith and the Bible alone?

Many evolutionist hypotheses and theories have been shot down badly over the years. The evolutionists don't like to talk about that. They have continually had to revise Darwinian theory to keep evolution afloat. But they have no intention of giving up their belief in evolution simply because mistakes were made. And many evolutionists aren't able to comprehend that even if evolution is true, it still does nothing to disprove the existence of God.

So why should Creationists give up on presenting scientific evidence, simply because their side has made some mistakes also?

Creationists are no more harsh and dogmatic than evolutionists. Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini and Mao were all devout evolutionists, and I would certainly categorize them as harsh and dogmatic!

Atheists, evolutionists and other anti-Creationists love to pine about how allegedly harsh and dogmatic Henry Morris is, but Morris has admitted that if they could produce incontrovertible scientific evidence that the earth isn't young, he would "happily" accept the fact, and promptly become an old earth Creationist!

As you stated, science is indeed "malleable". It's hypotheses and theories have to be continually revised. Science in no way disproves the existence of God. Belief in God is completely logical and rational.

"So what if intelligent design and irreducible complexity is unequivically proven wrong someday scientifically, what happens to all of those converts who were won over by it?...will their faith be strong enough without the ID science? Hopefully. But history shows us that when science 'changes', the Church is slow to follow. And history also shows us that this has done more harm to the Church than good. See my point? If your faith is based on scientific proof, it can be weakened by it."

So scientific study and discussion should be avoided altogether, simply because certain theories are cast aside?! Countless evolutionist theories and hypotheses have been disproven over the years, but that does not stop evolutionists from believing in their faith. So why would Christians give up their beliefs, simply because this or that theory is proven wrong?

The Church should indeed be "slow to follow". Major theories of science have been disproven time and time again, so it's a sign of wisdom that the body of Christ does not make a hurried jump to support the latest theories put forth by secular scientists.

"But how much HARM has been done with this same philosophy? The problem here is that NONE OF THE SCIENCE FORMULATIONS ON EITHER SIDE ARE COMPLETELY CORRECT. So while you might win over some...you will certainly marginalize others with these arguments. Why can't we agree that Christianity and science do not have to be incompatible at all...and focus on what really counts."

But if you make no attempt to reach the other side, NONE of them will be won over. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that there are many who will NEVER be won over by quoting scripture and telling them how wonderful your beliefs are. They want to see scientific evidence. I myself was won over because of examination of scientific evidence. God works in many ways, he is not limited to just the method that you believe to be best.

I am already well aware that Christianity and science are completely compatible, which is why Christians should definitely not refrain from discussing scientific evidence for God's existence.

As I previously stated, 40% of trained scientists are theists. Many of them were won to Christ by their studies in science.

"I'm sorry you feel the need to take a sarcastic shot at me like this. Let me make this clear: I'M NOT CRITICIZING ANY OF THOSE POSITIONS per se. I am criticizing people who feel they need to dig in and take a staunch, obstinate view of creation and impose it on others. I'm criticizing people who say 'you can't believe (whatever theory) and call yourself a Christian'. In short, I'm criticizing YOUR HARSHNESS....nobody else. People on BOTH sides need to have an open mind and a character of humility in this whole debate. And YES, I believe that GOD has put it on my heart to say things like this here."

Again, I must ask that you cease with your histrionics.

You're quite presumptuous. You know virtually nothing about my personal beliefs, yet you automatically assume that I'm extremely dogmatic. Also, I'm not being harsh at all. I simply asked you for scientific evidence to prove your hypotheses, and you were unable to produce.

You're not open-minded at all, you immediately assume a self-righteous stance when your views are questioned.

"And do you really believe 'answering questions about your faith' is tantamount to slamming everyone else's opinions with sarcasm and cheap shots...and endless 'Please show me...' statements that ooze with a tone of self-righteousness? Get a grip...we're on the same team. Lets get on with living out our Christian lives and bringing glory to God's name..."

I've made no cheap shots, you're the master of that. You're the one who needs to get a grip. I already live out my Christian life and bring glory to God's name. You're the one oozing with self-righteousness.

You appear to have a bad habit of falsely accusing people of having the very same character flaws that you yourself possess.

I asked you for hard scientific evidence to support your views, and you were unable to deliver. So now you're engaging in histrionics to cover up that fact.

 

[Jet Black]

Many evolutionist hypotheses and theories have been shot down badly over the years.

well they will do if the hypothesis doesn't fit the data. Creations scientists are just the same, though far less of their hypotheses fit the data.

The evolutionists don't like to talk about that. They have continually had to revise Darwinian theory to keep evolution afloat.

is that entirely suprising though? Darwin's idea came about long before DNA and our knowledge of the fossil recors, geological processes and so on. the fundamentals of it though, are sound "descent with modification, and natural selection"

But they have no intention of giving up their belief in evolution simply because mistakes were made.

because there is no better model to explain the data. granted old ideas like lamarkism have gone out the window, but we have DNA now, so no problem. Neandertal man turns into a cousin rather than a grandfather, some things get shuffled round, but it is a process of refinement as more and better data comes to light.

And many evolutionists aren't able to comprehend that even if evolution is true, it still does nothing to disprove the existence of God.

there might be some atheists who think that. however "evolutionists" cover a broad range of people, from theistic to atheistic.

So why should Creationists give up on presenting scientific evidence, simply because their side has made some mistakes also?

The problem is that they are trying to present evidence for a theory that has already been falsified hundreds of times. there was no creation event 6000 years ago, there was no flood 4000 years ago. these things just do not fit with the evidence that we see.

Creationists are no more harsh and dogmatic than evolutionists. Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini and Mao were all devout evolutionists, and I would certainly categorize them as harsh and dogmatic!

oh please don't mix up science with someone's political ideologies. or should we start going on about how scummy and immoral various religious leaders and popes have been through the ages? I wouldn't try to discredit catholicism by mentioning Pope Alexander VI, so please try to forget about the likes of hitler stalin and mao when talking about evolution.

Atheists, evolutionists and other anti-Creationists love to pine about how allegedly harsh and dogmatic Henry Morris is, but Morris has admitted that if they could produce incontrovertible scientific evidence that the earth isn't young, he would "happily" accept the fact, and promptly become an old earth Creationist!

but would he really though? or would he just ignore the evidence like so many do?

As you stated, science is indeed "malleable". It's hypotheses and theories have to be continually revised.

as I said before, it is a continual process of refinement.

Science in no way disproves the existence of God.

yes.

Belief in God is completely logical and rational.

no.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I just wanted to pick up on one point from this:

As I previously stated, 40% of trained scientists are theists. Many of them were won to Christ by their studies in science.

Now. I think your figure is a US rather than a world one, but we'll let that pass.

Some 95% (at least) of trained scientists accept evolution.

Therefore, if 40% of scientists are theists, and that includes all the creationists (which it must do, to all intents and purposes), then it follows that, in the US:

5% of scientists are theistic creationists
35% of scientists are theistic evolutionists
60% of scientists are agnostic evolutionists.

According to http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html, the figures are 5%, 40% and 55%, which bears out this analysis.

Comparing these figures with the US population as a whole, it is clear that amongst those with the best knowledge and understanding of the evidence, evolution wins hands down. That ought to tell us something.

Moreover, factor in other western countries - in the UK, for instance, YEC is a tiny minority position - and the isolation of the YEC position becomes all the clearer.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Christian Soldier...

I want to apologize openly to you here. I have reacted negatively and the tone of our discussion has degraded substantially. I feel that I have done a disservice to this discussion in that respect...and I'm sorry that I have implied negative character to you and your beliefs. Again...I have no place doing that...its wrong and I'm sorry for it.

I'm also sorry that I may have come across in a critical, accusatory tone in this forum. This is not my intention...like many of you, I am here to present my faith as it has been revealed to me...to add my knowledge of science and my faith as a Christian as a witness. My prayer is for God to work through me, and to work positively with other Christians to further the will and the kingdom of God on earth. Christian Soldier...I think you have made it clear that your intentions are the same. I too am trying to answer questions about faith that come from not just science but from the Christian community as well.

And just let me say that you are right...there are no definitive 'facts' or absolute proofs to many of these theories (that includes QM, string, evolution, and ID+IC, OEC, YEC etc). Maybe we will NEVER know...an assertion that many scientists (including myself) have faced in this complex universe of ours.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that the debate itself has its share of victories and casualties as well. The casualties occur when people get arrogant, entrenched, and lack a true spirit of humbleness and humility that we are called to have in all matters. (Not to mention judgement). There's nothing wrong with the pursuit of scientific and Biblical compatibility when its done with the right kind of character....I absolutely agree.

I don't want to see this discussion degenerate as it has (and you're right, That is squarely MY FAULT Christian Soldier). Neither do I want to be condescending, arrogant, judgemental, or obstinate. I can see now that my feelings here have not been spoken out of humility and humbleness...and open-mindedness. So you're right...I am guilty of the very thing I am trying so hard to point out. I stand convicted of my own judgement.

Christian Soldier...You have made some excellent points in your arguments...I have reservations about some of them...but I don't want to delve into that for now. This post is purely intended as an apology...not just to Christian Soldier, but to anyone else who I may have unintentionally (or foolishly) slighted here or in any other thread.

 

[Mainframes]

Many evolutionist hypotheses and theories have been shot down badly over the years. The evolutionists don't like to talk about that. They have continually had to revise Darwinian theory to keep evolution afloat.

Darwinian theory hasn't ben refined to keep it afloat. There have been modifications to the theory to beter fit the facts. Darwin made a great start but was missing some facts and didn't know the mechanism behind inherited characteristics. We now know these and therefore the theory has been updated. It is thus not called darwinian theory, but is known under the umbrella of evolution theory.

But they have no intention of giving up their belief in evolution simply because mistakes were made. And many evolutionists aren't able to comprehend that even if evolution is true, it still does nothing to disprove the existence of God.

So? All evolutionists are trying to do is prove that evolution is the method by which the variety of life has come to be. We aren't trying to prove whether god exists or not, that has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Mike Flynn]

I have no fear of your alleged "random chance". You have provided no credible evidence that quantum mechanics are completely random, and could create the universe out of nothingness. You have provided no credible evidence that there are multiple universes.

If as you state, God has created it and "woven" it into the "stuff of the universe"--is it really "random"? Or because of man's very limited knowledge of the subject, does it just APPEAR to be random?[/b]

At the risk of overstaying my welcome these one these issues...I will add what I have learned about RANDOMNESS. (with noted caveat that from now on I will leave do my best to leave out any obstinance or accusations on the subject..that dastardly sinful nature)

Actually experiment after experiment over the last 50 years in particle physics has shown that the randomness and uncertainty inherent to Quantum Mechanics are not merely reflections of a lack of knowledge or experimental precision, etc. Rather, it seems to be a fundamental property of matter. This has been widely confirmed among the best QM theoreticians ever to delve into the field (and clearly spelled out in every QM text I have ever read). Einstein held the view that the randomness was a result of 'a lack of knowledge'....he took this to the grave. And yet, experiment after experiment during the 20th century has shown that this is NOT the case. This led Stephen Hawking to proclaim that "Einstein was confused, not the Quantum".

In fact, the random character is a big part of the reason why we have no simple, tangiable models that allow us to physically describe particles like the electron....nature is elusive!

 

[ThePhoenix]

Quantum theory has by now proved that no amount of equipment, no theoretical percision, will make the quantum instability go away. Actually it has manifested in mechanical devices now, as Intel has stated that their latest chips are so small that electron uncertainty is contributing errors. So far it isn't a problem, but it looks like quantum physics may impose limits on small that have nothing to do with physical material properties.