Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[JtPv 140]

If you really, really want to get down to it there is a sea of articles and videos I could link about evolution.

 

And my point was not that science disproves the divine, but that the divine is simply used to fill in any gaps we have with our current level of scientific knowledge. Every day we are learning and experimenting and researching and thinking like never before in the history of our species: God grows smaller every day. To place God in the places we haven't reached yet is like putting a fence around a mountaintop. "You can't pass here, God did it." Yet the hiker, the scientist, never listens. He always reaches the peak.

 

And in the past decades the scientist has set his eyes on the mightiest peak of them all: the beginning of the universe. Perhaps he may never reach the peak, but the farther he goes up he will be no closer to finding the hand of God.

This is the problem I have with science. You assume everything instead of find cold, hard facts. When you do, it NEVER disproves God. everything that supposedly disproves God is just a list of theories with no evidence. When I see it, I will believe. But for now, believing in God is just...better. Would you rather believe you were made by chance and are nothing important or anything special? Or would you rather believe that you were made and are loved. That someone died for you because he loves you, or because he was crazy? People have seen God before, and Christians still feel and see the impact on their lives today. I'm not trying to convert anyone here, I'm just stating why I believe in God. And just because you can't feel or see God, you choose to believe in science? Believe in something that requires even more faith than believing in God and creation just because you can see or taste it? We keep throwing around so called "evidence" but in reality, the only evidence we have of God and creation is the Bible and past accounts. And I know this was a bit off topic, but I think it was needed. Now, go find your "evidence" which can only be supported with theories, and we can continue this. 

[Space 2335]

This is the problem I have with science. You assume everything instead of find cold, hard facts. When you do, it NEVER disproves God. everything that supposedly disproves God is just a list of theories with no evidence. When I see it, I will believe. But for now, believing in God is just...better. Would you rather believe you were made by chance and are nothing important or anything special? Or would you rather believe that you were made and are loved. That someone died for you because he loves you, or because he was crazy? People have seen God before, and Christians still feel and see the impact on their lives today. I'm not trying to convert anyone here, I'm just stating why I believe in God. And just because you can't feel or see God, you choose to believe in science? Believe in something that requires even more faith than believing in God and creation just because you can see or taste it? We keep throwing around so called "evidence" but in reality, the only evidence we have of God and creation is the Bible and past accounts. And I know this was a bit off topic, but I think it was needed. Now, go find your "evidence" which can only be supported with theories, and we can continue this. 

 

 

..............

 

...............

 

 

...............

 

..............

 

*Puts hand up, opening his mouth as he does this. He lowers his hand, sucking his lips in.

 

Just because something is convinient doesn't make it true. There is PLENTY of evidence for the big bang, evolution, thermodynamics, gravity, all those theories that 'don't really have evidence'

[PtahWithin 1320]

This is the problem I have with science. You assume everything instead of find cold, hard facts. When you do, it NEVER disproves God. everything that supposedly disproves God is just a list of theories with no evidence. When I see it, I will believe. But for now, believing in God is just...better. Would you rather believe you were made by chance and are nothing important or anything special? Or would you rather believe that you were made and are loved. That someone died for you because he loves you, or because he was crazy? People have seen God before, and Christians still feel and see the impact on their lives today. I'm not trying to convert anyone here, I'm just stating why I believe in God. And just because you can't feel or see God, you choose to believe in science? Believe in something that requires even more faith than believing in God and creation just because you can see or taste it? We keep throwing around so called "evidence" but in reality, the only evidence we have of God and creation is the Bible and past accounts. And I know this was a bit off topic, but I think it was needed. Now, go find your "evidence" which can only be supported with theories, and we can continue this.

I do not 'believe' in science. I believe that, given a set of information and rules of logic to obey, truth can be found. Beautiful truth.

These are not "cold, hard facts." These are the truths which elevate and inspire. The universe has been here for 13.7 billion years. I have not even been alive for two decades. The observable universe is 93 billion light-years wide. I am less than 2 meters tall. I live on one planet, orbiting one star, within one galaxy of 400 billion stars, that galaxy being one of millions of billions of trillions,

I do not use these facts to disprove God. I am humbled by them.

Of course I would rather believe that someone is watching us who loves us and cares for us. But what I want to believe is not always what nature gives us. You say that the alternative is to believe that we all came from nothing and are just the temporary constructions of randomness.

But think of it. I, this human being - me - emerged from a sea of light and particle noise and quantum randomness. My body is the flesh of dead suns. The air I breathe is the parting gift of an extinguished star that spread the products of its factory of heavy elements across the galaxy. And the thoughts I have - the thoughts I have - came from this. Chance and law.

And since everything I have just said is true, is this not amazing? Is it not incredible?

[Space 2335]

I do not 'believe' in science. I believe that, given a set of information and rules of logic to obey, truth can be found. Beautiful truth.

 

These are not "cold, hard facts." These are the truths which elevate and inspire. The universe has been here for 13.7 billion years. I have not even been alive for two decades. The observable universe is 93 million light-years wide. I am less than 2 meters tall. I live on one planet, orbiting one star, within one galaxy of 400 billion stars, that galaxy being one of millions of billions of trillions,

 

I do not use these facts to disprove God. I am humbled by them.

 

Of course I would rather believe that someone is watching us who loves us and cares for us. But what I want to believe is not always what nature gives us. You say that the alternative is to believe that we all came from nothing and are just the temporary constructions of randomness.

 

But think of it. I, this human being - me - emerged from a sea of light and particle noise and quantum randomness. My body is the flesh of dead suns. The air I breathe is the parting gift of an extinguished star that spread the products of its factory of heavy elements across the galaxy. And the thoughts I have - the thoughts I have - came from this. Chance and law.

 

And since everything I have just said is true, is this not amazing? Is it not incredible?

 

Beautiful, except that the observable universe is like 13 BILLION light years across, due to the fact we have only been able to see light since a bit after the universe was created.l It's not a matter of millions. There's a goddamn quasar that is 4.3 off BILLION light years across. 5% of the observable matter. /rant.

[w1llll 68]

This is the problem I have with science. You assume everything instead of find cold, hard facts. When you do, it NEVER disproves God. everything that supposedly disproves God is just a list of theories with no evidence. When I see it, I will believe. But for now, believing in God is just...better. Would you rather believe you were made by chance and are nothing important or anything special? Or would you rather believe that you were made and are loved. That someone died for you because he loves you, or because he was crazy? People have seen God before, and Christians still feel and see the impact on their lives today. I'm not trying to convert anyone here, I'm just stating why I believe in God. And just because you can't feel or see God, you choose to believe in science? Believe in something that requires even more faith than believing in God and creation just because you can see or taste it? We keep throwing around so called "evidence" but in reality, the only evidence we have of God and creation is the Bible and past accounts. And I know this was a bit off topic, but I think it was needed. Now, go find your "evidence" which can only be supported with theories, and we can continue this. 

 

 

 

This is the problem I have with science. You assume everything instead of find cold, hard facts.

And I suppose you want me to believe that religion is founded on "cold, hard facts".

 

 

 

When you do, it NEVER disproves God. everything that supposedly disproves God is just a list of theories with no evidence.

The burden of proof in this case lies with religion. "God exists because you can't prove he doesn't" is not proof that God exists.

 

 

 

But for now, believing in God is just...better. Would you rather believe you were made by chance and are nothing important or anything special? Or would you rather believe that you were made and are loved. That someone died for you because he loves you, or because he was crazy?

I'd rather be a billionaire, but that doesn't make me one. It's illogical that you should believe in something because it is "nice". People don't go around believing in a flying packet of biscuits that gives food to starving children. That would be rather nice.

 

 

 

 And just because you can't feel or see God, you choose to believe in science? Believe in something that requires even more faith than believing in God and creation just because you can see or taste it?

You're almost there. People don't believe in God due to to not being able to taste him. They don't believe in him because of a lack of proof that he exists. There is an equal amount of proof for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster than there is of the existence of God.

 

 

 

We keep throwing around so called "evidence" but in reality, the only evidence we have of God and creation is the Bible and past accounts.

A novel written by some medieval Italian does not constitute proof, neither do fairy stories.

 

 

 

Now, go find your "evidence" which can only be supported with theories, and we can continue this. 

As I have mentioned before, the burden of proof lies with religion. You have stated that the only real "evidence" of God's existence is in the Bible, which does not constitute proof of his existence. Until some reliable evidence can be presented, science has no need to disprove the existence of something which cannot be proved to exist in the first place.

[Praetor 1550]

This is the problem I have with science. You assume everything instead of find cold, hard facts. When you do, it NEVER disproves God. everything that supposedly disproves God is just a list of theories with no evidence. When I see it, I will believe. But for now, believing in God is just...better. Would you rather believe you were made by chance and are nothing important or anything special? Or would you rather believe that you were made and are loved. That someone died for you because he loves you, or because he was crazy? People have seen God before, and Christians still feel and see the impact on their lives today. I'm not trying to convert anyone here, I'm just stating why I believe in God. And just because you can't feel or see God, you choose to believe in science? Believe in something that requires even more faith than believing in God and creation just because you can see or taste it? We keep throwing around so called "evidence" but in reality, the only evidence we have of God and creation is the Bible and past accounts. And I know this was a bit off topic, but I think it was needed. Now, go find your "evidence" which can only be supported with theories, and we can continue this. 

 

The bible is not a history book. Far from it. The Bible is a large amassment of metaphores and complex stories that generally are not historically correct but were made to convey some hidden meaning to the people who read it.

My dad is a theologian and made a Doctorat on Romans (The Book in the bible.) And I think I can safely say I know a bit about this book.

 

Take the 7 days of creation for example, that is a metaphore as well. The world wasn't created in 7 days 6000 years ago, which is what is said in the bible. You have solid proof of things existing much longer before that, and Carbon 14 doesn't lie.

 

I used to be/am a Protestant in a christian family. I can't say I don't believe in anything simply because I've always been told something exists up there, but to answer.

 

 

 

 Would you rather believe you were made by chance and are nothing important or anything special? Or would you rather believe that you were made and are loved. That someone died for you because he loves you, or because he was crazy? People have seen God before, and Christians still feel and see the impact on their lives today.

 

I'd much rather think I have control over my life and some entity isn't controlling me, and wagging a finger at me each time I do something bad. I refuse to let my life be guided by the desires of some bigger thing and won't let him decide my fate for myself. 

You earn your importance in this world, and if God really does love everybody, I'd like to know why my friend lost his dad when he was 13 for no reason, why so many people get bullied, why so many natural catastrophies kill people.

 

You could counter any human caused greif by "He wanted to let us choose our lives". But not the natural deaths, like Tsunami's and all that. 

 

I don't generally post when religion comes into something, but I decided to say what I thought of it for once.

 

PS: In the end though, everybody believes what they want, and that's that.

[Pro_Whistler 37]

Oh god. (No pun intended.) Just believe what you believe and don't shove it down other peoples throats. Keep religion or non-religion to yourself unless people ask. Because this thread did ask, I base my 'belief' (more my ability to trust in something I can observe than something I cannot) in Evolution. But really, just continue with normal life believing what you want. Just please, oh please, don't tell people they can't get married or such just because this and that. 

[JtPv 140]

The bible is not a history book. Far from it. The Bible is a large amassment of metaphores and complex stories that generally are not historically correct but were made to convey some hidden meaning to the people who read it.

My dad is a theologian and made a Doctorat on Romans (The Book in the bible.) And I think I can safely say I know a bit about this book.

I think the irony here is quite. No offense, but there is evidence of the Bible. I have to be quick, so:  

http://carm.org/can-we-trust-new-testament-historical-document

 

Take the 7 days of creation for example, that is a metaphore as well. The world wasn't created in 7 days 6000 years ago, which is what is said in the bible. You have solid proof of things existing much longer before that, and Carbon 14 doesn't lie. Now, don't get me wrong here, I am an old-earth theorist. If you know what they are, great! Skip down! But if not, allow me to explain. There are 2 verses that can be used to support us. Basically, we believe that the earth is not thousands of years old. Much longer than that. The 2 verses state "That one day with the Lord is as a thousand years" and I can't remember the other.  

 

I used to be/am a Protestant in a christian family. I can't say I don't believe in anything simply because I've always been told something exists up there, but to answer.

I'd much rather think I have control over my life and some entity isn't controlling me, and wagging a finger at me each time I do something bad. I refuse to let my life be guided by the desires of some bigger thing and won't let him decide my fate for myself. 

You earn your importance in this world, and if God really does love everybody, I'd like to know why my friend lost his dad when he was 13 for no reason, why so many people get bullied, why so many natural catastrophies kill people.

 

You could counter any human caused greif by "He wanted to let us choose our lives". But not the natural deaths, like Tsunami's and all that.  I can counter that. When Eve ate of the apple, sin cam into the world, and with it came death and despair. Sin is slowly making us deteriorate when Evolution says we should be getting better or dying out, right? And you could argue that "Oh, we are learning new things! We are getting better!" but in reality, you turn on the news and 3/4 of the time what do they talk about? Death and destruction. Now, God isn't "wagging a finger" at you every time you commit sin. He knows everyone does it. He set the ten commandments up as a guideline, not a lifestyle. He knows we all commit sin, all he wants is for you to admit it, which is exactly what you aren't doing as long as you "have control at your own life". This is why we, the christian population, continue to decrease, because people want supposed freedom and don't want to admit there is a God. They want to do what they want to do and if you think of it, it sounds childish. But we will always come up with something whenever something "supernatural" or "divine" happens because it is in human nature. 

 

I don't generally post when religion comes into something, but I decided to say what I thought of it for once.

 

PS: In the end though, everybody believes what they want, and that's that. Sadly, this is truth when it comes to it.

[Pro_Whistler 37]

JtPv. God cannot be combated by Science, because the existence of a God is not testable through science. In your earlier post, you stated the Universe could not create itself. 

 

Where did God come from?

[argonian 14254]

"That one day with the Lord is as a thousand years"

Doesn't that make the world 7 thousand years old, according to the bible?

[PtahWithin 1320]

Beautiful, except that the observable universe is like 13 BILLION light years across, due to the fact we have only been able to see light since a bit after the universe was created.l It's not a matter of millions. There's a goddamn quasar that is 4.3 off BILLION light years across. 5% of the observable matter. /rant.

We currently see the radius of the universe to be its age in light-years, but actually, due to inflation and the expansion of the universe, those objects are now a calculable distance away which is greater than the 'age' of the universe in light-years.

Oh, and thank you for the edit. I meant to write billion in that post, not million.

[Pro_Whistler 37]

EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself nor has it always existed

a. The universe could NOT have created itself

In his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design, Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Think about that.

Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist but responds to Hawking’s assertion that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” with; “That sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland ... it’s not science!”¹¹

Lennox explains by saying; "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."¹² Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!”¹³

In relation to Hawking's latest idea Dr. Lennox rightly concludes; "What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists".¹⁴

The universe cannot have created itself!

Ravi Zacharias and John Lennox discuss Stephen’s Hawking’s ideas in his latest book entitled The Grand Design (4 part audio)

 

So they, if X cannot create X, then how can God, who lives within the Universe, create the Universe, the very space he dwells upon? You cannot begin to decorate your house until you have purchased the house. 

 

b. The universe could NOT have always existed

The idea that the universe has always been in existence has been thoroughly rejected on scientific grounds. The Laws of Thermodynamics show the universe must have had a beginning.  

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy and the Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available existing energy would have already been used up.

 

Yes. All of this is true. 

THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION

 

The only logical / scientific explanation for the existence of the universe is that it was created by an outside intelligence.

 

Nope! Just because the Universe cannot have poofed into place does not mean that you can say God must have created it. I did not see my house be built, nor do I have proof that is was built by men, so can I say it was built by Unicorns just to be convenient? Nah.

 

EVIDENCE 2:  The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it.

World-renowned evolutionist Isaac Asimov when discussing the Second Law of Thermodynamics said:
"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'" Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."¹

 

^{I can believe this. It makes sense. The Universe is becoming more disorderly. The simplest and most orderly of things is nothing.}

^{The more complex you get, the more errors, and disorder there is.}

As Isaac Asimov says, everything becomes 'a mess ... deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself'. Now in complete opposition to one of most firmly established laws in science (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), people who support the theory of Evolution would have us believe that things become more organised and complex when left to themselves!

 

As Isaac Asimov says, everything becomes 'a mess

everything becomes 'a mess

everything 

Everything = Evolution. So we are becoming more disorderly? Cool. A  mirror that collects enough dust, guess what. Isn't a mirror any more. It's not a ball of dust. Which turns out, is great for looking like a ball of dust, and existing in an enviroment where that is needed. So a billion billion mirrors are gathered in someones house who wants a dust mirror that looks like Abraham Lincoln. One does. She throws the rest out, and keeps that one. 

 

Over 4 billion years, a few animals survive with key select traits that let them live longer. Are they more disorderly? Yep! Do they live longer? Mhm. Evolution? Yeah.

 

Some people argue that the earth is an open system and therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply. Simply pouring in energy (sunlight) into the earth does not override the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As shown in Isaac Asimov's quote above, the Second Law still applies on earth. Pouring energy into a system makes things more disordered!

The brilliant scientist Lord Kelvin who actually formulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics says for very good scientific reasons; "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." ⁹

As Dr John Ross of Harvard University rightly states:"… there are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. …"⁷

Evolution has no plan or outside intelligence and, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, can never take place.

 

It does have a plan. That things that cannot survive die, and things that can survive live longer. 

 

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution?

EVIDENCE 3.  Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things

To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

 

Neither has the creation of the Universe, so therefore the Universe cannot exist because we never observed it.

A Biology textbook puts it like this: "As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis." ⁸

So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!

 

Primordial Soup.

 

 

Why Is Abiogenesis Impossible?

EVIDENCE 4: Complex Systems do not evolve 'bit by bit'

In the following quote, Darwin himself acknowledges the logical absurdity of a complex organ like the eye being formed using the natural processes he was suggesting in his theory.  Darwin’s own deductive reasoning should have caused him to reject his own theory but sadly it did not and Darwin continued to promote his theory of trying to explain the complexity of life using natural processes only.

We are NOT saying that the following quote was Darwin’s conclusion but that it should have been Darwin’s conclusion.      

Darwin said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." ³

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years. Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement! Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as well.

There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!

 

 

Hi, I'm a cell. This is my buddy, Cell, and his mate, Cell, and his uncle, Cell. There are about 50 trillion of us. Yay! Uhh... First we're gonna get.. tissue over there! And then... Then.. An organ! Of.. Yeah! Highly specialized cells! And then a human! Cool, Cell. I know, Cell. You're a genius, Cell. Thanks, Cell.

Can evolution be the source of life in all its complexity?

EVIDENCE 5:   The Missing Links are Still Missing

If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record.  Despite over a hundred years of intensive world wide research into the fossil record, the 'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'.

Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould reluctantly concede this when they say, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not based on the evidence of fossils." ²

What does the fossil record teach us about evolution?
Who's who & what's what in the world of "missing" links?
Is there fossil evidence of 'missing links' between humans and apes? 
Did ancient humans live millions of years ago?

 

1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 15. I just counted to fifteen wrongly. 1-15 still exist, but because they aren't in that number sequence, God must have created everything.

 

EVIDENCE 6: Mutations are contrary to Evolution

Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed.

For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.⁴ This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings.

Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more disordered over time). It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place!

A person with one sickle-cell anaemia gene (a mutation) and malaria has more chance of surviving malaria than a person without the mutated gene. Evolutionists point to this as evolution in action. Read more on malaria / sickle-cell anaemia

Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!

Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that ultimately cuts the theory down and destroys it!

Can genetic mutations produce positive changes in living creatures?

 

So like, Ever gotten a vaccination? Yeah... Wonder why you have to get so many? (P.S, It's Evolution of germs.)

 

EVIDENCE 7: Probability Facts are also contrary to Evolution

Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'"⁵

In a desperate attempt to override the very powerful argument that life could never arise by chance, Richard Dawkins conjectures that “If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against …”¹⁰

A billion to one is only 1 in 10 to the 9^th power. BUT the probability of even one single protein molecule consisting of 200 amino acids arising spontaneously by chance is 1 in 10 raised to power of 260. This is calculated by raising 20 (the number of different types amino acids available) to the power of 200 (the number of amino acids in the protein chain). Even if the whole universe was packed with amino acids combining frantically for billions of years, it would not produce even one such protein molecule let alone produce a living cell.

Read our answer to the question: "Does evolution of life in reality have anything more than just ‘sheer higgledy-piggledy luck’?"

Let's now put this in its larger context.  Proteins are 'made' by genes in the cell.

* The average human gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.

* The total number of human genes is estimated at 30,000.

* The human genome has some 3 billion DNA base pairs. Except for mature red blood cells, all human cells contain a complete genome!

* The constellation of all proteins in a cell is called its proteome. Unlike the relatively unchanging genome, the dynamic proteome changes from minute to minute in response to tens of thousands of intra- and extracellular environmental signals. A protein’s chemistry and behavior are specified by the gene sequence and by the number and identities of other proteins made in the same cell at the same time and with which it associates and reacts.

* Finally, It is estimated that the human body may contain over two million different proteins, each with a unique function.

There is no chance that the human body could have come about by chance!

Probability Arguments in Why Is Abiogenesis Impossible?

Great scientists from the past and present talk on Evolution and God

How Antony Flew (an outspoken atheist for 60 years) came to believe there is a God

Four Things That Two Ex Sceptics Got Wrong

 

4 billion years to find the right combinations. A child could have done it.

 

 

GREAT SCIENTISTS FROM THE PAST

C.S. Lewis showed the very strong connection between the development of modern scientific thought and the belief the scientists held in a Creator (Lawgiver). “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”¹⁴

"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." (Lord Kelvin) 

"I am a Christian ... I believe only and alone ... in the service of Jesus Christ ... In Him is all refuge, all solace." (Johannes Kepler) 

"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God." (Louis Pasteur). Pasteur strongly opposed Darwin's theory of evolution because he felt it did not conform to the scientific evidence. 

Robert Boyle believed in Jesus Christ's "Passion, His death, His resurrection and ascension, and all of those wonderful works which He did during His stay upon earth, in order to confirm the belief of His being God as well as man."

"Order is manifestly maintained in the universe … the whole being governed by the sovereign will of God." (James Prescott Joule) 

"There are those who argue that the universe evolved out a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye?" (Werhner Von Braun) 

"Almighty Creator and Preserver of all things, praised be all Thou has created." (Carl Linnaeus) 

"I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity." (Sir Joseph Lister) 

"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." "The true God is a living, intelligent and powerful being." (Sir Isaac Newton) 

Michael Faraday was careful to "Thank God, first, for all His gifts."

Taken from the book 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible by Ann Lamont published by Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 6302, Acacia Ridge D.C., Queensland, 4110, Australia, 1995.

PRESENT DAY PhD SCIENTISTS

"The evidence points to an intelligent designer of the vast array of life, both living and extinct, rather than to unguided mindless evolution." (Nancy M Darrall, Speech Therapist at the Bolton Community Health Care Trust in the UK. She holds a PhD in Botany from the University of Wales.) 

"Evolutionary theories of the universe cannot counteract the above arguments for the existence of God." (John M Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University. John holds a PhD in Aeronautics.) 

"The correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me to conclude that these events must be one and the same." (John R Baumgardner, Technical Staff Member in the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. John holds a PhD in Geophysics and Space Physics from UCLU.) 

"We have already seen that no such system could possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created in the beginning, just as God told us." (John P Marcus, Research Officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant Pathology, University of Queensland, Australia. John holds a PhD in Biological Chemistry from the University of Michigan.) 

"The fossil record is considered to be the primary evidence for evolution, yet it does not demonstrate a complete chain of life from simple forms to complex." (Larry Vardiman, Professor from the Department of Astro-Geophysics for Creation Research, USA. Larry holds a PhD in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University.) 

"I … have no hesitation in rejecting the evolutionary hypothesis of origins and affirming the biblical alternative that 'in six days the Lord God created the heavens and earth and all that in them is'. (Dr Taylor is senior lecturer in Electrical Engineering at the University of Liverpool. Dr Taylor has a PhD in Electrical Engineering and has authored over 80 scientific articles.) 

"I believe God provides evidence of His creative power for all to experience personally in our lives. To know the Creator does not require an advanced degree in science or theology." (Timothy G Standish is an Associate Professor of Biology at Andrews University in the USA. Dr Standish holds a PhD in Biology and Public Policy from George Mason University, USA.) 

"At the same time I found I could reject evolution and not commit intellectual suicide, I began to realise I could also accept a literal creation and still not commit intellectual suicide." (AJ Monty White, Student Advisor, Dean of Students Office, at the University of Cardiff, UK. Dr White holds a PhD in the field of Gas Kinetics.) 

"So life did not arise by natural processes, nor could the grand diversity of life have arisen through no-intelligent natural processes (evolution). Living things were created by God, as the Bible says." (Don Batten, a research scientist for Answer in Genesis in Australia. Dr Batten holds a PhD in Plant Physiology from the University of Sydney and worked for 18 years as a research scientist with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture.)

"In the words of the well-known scientist, Robert Jastrow, 'for the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story [of the quest for the answers about the origin of life and the universe] ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Jerry R Bergman, Instructor of Science at Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio. He holds a PhD in Evaluation and Research from Wayne State University and a PhD in Human Biology from Columbia Pacific University.)

Taken from the book In Six Days (why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation) edited by John F Ashton PhD, New Holland Publishers, 1999.

 

I like Scientist Christians. Wanna know why? They're nice and let Gays get married. 

[PtahWithin 1320]

I will respond directly to the Second Law of Thermodynamics fallacy.

 

All it says, the law itself, is that the entropy of the entire universe increases over time. But for a local area of the universe, it says that if you want to decrease the entropy and make something ordered, you have to expend energy, and have it be relatively inefficient. And this is what happened - despite the order and structure of living organisms, far faaaaarrrr more disorder was added to the universe when they formed. Their waste products, the constant need to recycle organic tissue, the constant expelling of heat and thermal energy - all of this added to the entropy of the universe.

[Pro_Whistler 37]

I will respond directly to the Second Law of Thermodynamics fallacy.

 

All it says, the law itself, is that the entropy of the entire universe increases over time. But for a local area of the universe, it says that if you want to decrease the entropy and make something ordered, you have to expend energy, and have it be relatively inefficient. And this is what happened - despite the order and structure of living organisms, far faaaaarrrr more disorder was added to the universe when they formed. Their waste products, the constant need to recycle organic tissue, the constant expelling of heat and thermal energy - all of this added to the entropy of the universe.

Gah, THANK YOU.

I've been defending this for years. B-But, Second Law of Thermodynamics! Yes, and when we Evolved, it made things MORE CHAOTIC. Better fit to live on the Earth, but didn't help the UNIVERSE much. :<

[Praetor 1550]

 

I never said the bible didn't exist. I said the bible wasn't a book made of true facts and solid historical events. Some of are, but many are simply metaphores and examples. More so in the Old Testament than in the New One.