Posted on 02/28/2009 8:01:11 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Leading atheist Richard Dawkins himself admits:
“[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.” [The Blind Watchmaker, cited in my book Refuting Evolution, ch. 9]
Just as the Britannica had intelligent writers to produce its information, so it is scientific to believe that the information in the living world likewise had an original Writer. Furthermore, the DNA information requires a complex decoding machine, the ribosome, but the instructions to build ribosomes are on the DNA. And decoding requires energy from ATP, built by ATP-synthase motors, built from instructions in the DNA decoded by ribosomes … “vicious circles” for any materialistic origin theory, as leading philosopher of science Karl Popper put it (see also Self-replicating enzymes? A critique of some current evolutionary origin-of-life models).
The non-Christian physicist Paul Davies points out:
“We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules…. Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system…. It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.”
He says:
“How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows … ” [Life force, New Scientist 163(2204):27–30, 18 September 1999. See also Huff and Bluff: Can quantum magic save chemical evolution?]...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Anyone who’s ever dealt with an early release of DOS or Windows has to give some credibility to the “random” theory of how complex systems are assembled.
It just happened by accident, after billions of years of rain, which somehow came along from space and rained on the hot earth, cooling it and forming that mysterious premadoral soup from which all organic life sprang forth and evolved into everything else.
And they say belief in God takes a leap of faith....
DOS didn't assemble itself randomly. It was created in sequence by it's creator.
It’s amazing the lengths some people will go to worship the creation, rather than the Creator.
***And they say belief in God takes a leap of faith....***
I like this one: “First there was nothing, and then it exploded.”
""God said, 'Let there be light', and there was light." (Gn.1:3).
But before light, there was Gods spirit hovering over the "waters" (Gn.1:2)
So in creationist theory, nothing didn't explode, God created the light (which isn't the sun at this stage) out of these mysterious "waters". Which is more likely, nothing exploding and turning into everything, or God creating the universe out of something as of yet unknown?
That Hebrew word which has been translated “waters” for hundreds of years, has been hotly debated by hebrew scholars.
It is definitely NOT WATER as in “cup of” or “ocean of”.
That word is only used elsewhere in scriptures describing the “enigma of the nature of water” or the “stuff that helps compose the sphere of the earth”.
Modern scholars with a knowledge of physics, have said a better translation would be “plasma”.
Talk about an enigma: What’s your point?
My molecular biology associate stated that evolution is simply “change in allele frequency” and left it as the simple explanation for the origin of life.
If the poster was questioning the Genesis sequence because “waters” seemed to precede “light”, then a brief definition of “waters” was probably in order.
Thanks.
But does it matter whether water means water or water means plasma?
***But does it matter whether water means water or water means plasma?***
Not one bit.
But when talking about the Bible, some people just need to be “scratched where they itch”, and there’s alot of itching when it comes to science and the Bible.
Creation vs. evolution: Which side are you on?
Thanks for the ping!
Wow, where do I begin...
I’ve been teaching secondary physics and chemistry for .... a long time.
I started in public school back when the debating (as in Christians actually speaking up) started...which forced me to reevaluate where I stood.
I was at a national conference where a Chinese American Professor from UC San Francisco presented a paper on an incredible site he was allowed to work on in Manchuria.
This site had ALL phyla, including Chordates in a strata which was dated early Cambrian.
The bottom line of his presentation was that the usual branched tree showing the evolutionary development of life actually looked more like what he called “a lawn.”
The audience, mostly science educators, secondary and up, sat silent and stunned.
I have no idea what happened to the guy, probably retired to obscurity, but things changed for me.
I’ve been a diligent student since. Very creationist, but not a young earther. I subscribe the Gerald Schroeder’s ideas on time stretching and dilation.
Way more than you wanted to know....but you asked.
A few weeks ago, John Ankerberg was pilloried for having Dr. Hugh Ross on his show espousing (I believe) an old earth theory.
Can you shed any light on that subject?
Hugh Ross is a brilliant physicist, and yes disagrees with the young earth dating.
His books defending the nature of the universe and God’s hand in it are the very best around, but...
Ross has gotten into trouble with evangelicals because he has a problem with no death before the fall (even for animals).
As a professor, he has heard biologists say that there is no way that carnivores could not be carnivores and live, their metabolisms simply must have certain proteins.
Thing is, we have no capacity to understand what the world was like before the fall.
Anyway, he’s a good guy, just has some problems.
Hugh Ross also believes that it is not scientifically possible for God to have made the sun on the forth day. Do you think the order of creation is significant?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.