Posted on 03/05/2018 8:28:40 AM PST by fishtank
See comment 60. There could have been the highly improbable situation where both the sperm and the ovum divided abnormally. Perhaps both parents were older than average.
Loaded dice was a poor choice of words on my part. What I meant was he knew the outcome all along, it was part of the plan.
That it was not clear to us, was perhaps on purpose. He told us about it in terms we could comprehend.
Firebrand - not sure of the science or relevance of your post.
Many scientists take the position that a woman has X number of eggs in their ovaries at sexual maturity, and that’s a finite number, whereas spermatogenesis is an ongoing process, and pending sexual activity, human sperm are often well less than a week old, every time.
I welcome your thoughts.
Virtually every life form on this planet requires a male and a female to reproduce. If life evolved from mud, how was it that two sexes evolved at the same time in order to start the cycle of life in all the millions of different life forms on this planet. It can’t be a coincidence....
I think I saw that explained by a Jewish Rabbi who was also a PHD physicist. In a nutshell, the seven days of creation were like a rubber band being stretched out
I think you're talking about Gerald Schroder.
I often wonder what the big hullabaloo over creation is all about. We are here, and that is a fact.
Do I care if “God” made us from clay? Do I care if were made by higher level creatures to act as intelligent slaves? Do I care if I am a spiritual being confined to the body to serve some bigger purpose?
Do I care that I am a collectiob of single celled goop that was hit by lightning?
I dont care or worry...or hardly think about that stuff. There is nothing I can do about it. Nothing is going to change it.
I CAN focus on what I do today and how I treat myself and others.
The rest is a pretty bungled mess of “creation” stories—each trying to out do each other.
Everyone is free to believe what they want. I just think its funny to see Scientists and Creationist twist their logic to fit the model.
I learned in an nineth grade anthropology class that it is not survival of the fittest. It is survival of the most adaptable.
If a species of red bird develops a mutation that causes some to be blue, and they happen to live in an area rife with red flowers, the green birds will contrast with the environs and be easy prey. On the other hand, if the red flora succumbs to plant disease and is replaced with green foliage, the green mutation will have the upper hand. Neither, of their own accord, is more fit or more adaptable. They are either beneficiaries or victims of fate (as the secularist would call it) or design (as the creationist would term it.) In either case, there's still a very, very long leap to the red or green specimen becoming a new species, much less an entirely new class of vertebrae (ie. When does the green bird become a mammal?)
It explains the “why”, not the “how”, but perhaps that is not within human comprehension.
“All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.” John 1:3
Math_challenged and philosophically_underdeveloped minds who do not want to be accountable to the Creater God love evolution.
“But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.” Matt 10:33
At least the origin of the angels is not encumbered by such silliness.
I dont disagree with that at all.
My only point is that the strong are not always the ones that come out on top.
I guess my other point is that I personally, don’t care how my body go to this point. And a brief study of creation stories will show you that magic and super natural beings usually play a big role.
And therefore, it is a safe assumption to believe that the folks 3,000 years ago had no more idea of where everything came from as we do today.
It was a guess, and qualified as being highly improbable. It is a fact, though, that Downs can be due to the father’s age.
Another possibility is that it is inherited, as a minuscule number of Downs cases are, and we just haven’t noticed it since it is very rare and we don’t test everyone as a matter of course. If so, it would most probably be recessive, since the parents of the two people were obviously fine.
Best you read this ;-) [ maternal age is the linkage ]
Other articles point out that older men with older wives share the risk, but not older men with younger wives.
NET: women over 35 who are pregnant and want to know should get the pre-natal exam.
Full disclosure: I was a physiology major years ago (very close to pre-med curriculum) and have two kids who work in healthcare, PLUS I serve the healthcare industry in my professional role.
Yeah, time is a relative thing indeed! Very relative.
May I introduce you a site called Google.
pardon? Missed your point/ just trying to clarify.
Pretty sure I know about Google.
The science isn’t altered by what Google returns from searches.
ClearCase_guy: "I don't have enough faith to swallow that fairy tale."
This idea gets expressed on any evolution-related thread, and should probably be corrected just as often.
The idea that science, strictly defined, has something to do with "faith" or "belief" or even "truth" -- in a larger sense -- is false.
It doesn't.
Instead, science is really only about one large idea: finding natural explanations for natural processes.
Such explanations may be called "hypothesis" or "theory" or even a mathematical "law", but the fact is they are all just explanations which may be accepted provisionally, temporarily or conditionally, pending falsification by new data or better explanations.
So faith, belief & even truth have nothing to do with it.
Ideally, science itself will abandon any explanation whenever it's falsified, so that cannot be a matter of "faith" or "belief".
Yes, unfortunately, we hear that term, "settled science", all too often, especially in a political context where it absolutely doesn't belong.
But "settled science" should only mean an explanation has been tested often enough, hard enough, long enough and passed every test such that it seems only remotely possible it might ever be falsified.
For an example, consider this: "the Earth is a globe rotating on its axis and revolving around the sun."
In ancient times that was a radical hypothesis, not accepted by many.
In early modern times it became a confirmed theory when great explorers circumnavigated the globe and mathematicians calculated the planets' orbits.
In more recent years it's become an observed fact, with satellites circling and taking photos of the globe.
Yes, you can say the explorers needed "faith" and "belief" in their unproved hypothesis, but scientifically speaking, they were simply risking their own lives to test the hypothesis that the earth is globe-shaped.
Had the tests proved negative, the scientific response would not be, "Oh, dear, now my faith in science is shattered", that's ridiculous.
Instead, the scientific response would be: "Oh, isn't that interesting, let's find a new hypothesis."
Science is all about finding new ideas when old ones don't work so well.
So, as it relates to this thread the important point is: regarding evolution & abiogenesis, there is no "law" of abiogenesis, and not even a strong theory, but only some weakly confirmed hypotheses, a little firmer than wild speculations, but not that much.
So no scientist would put "faith" or "belief" or hold as "true" any such hypotheses.
They are all just interesting ideas some of which may eventually prove confirmable.
As for God's role, I'm certain that however natural-science may eventually try to explain it, it happened as God intended, planned and made it happen.
In my mind, even that's not "faith", it's fact.
But what does the theory of Darwinian evolution have to do with "science"? It's never been witnessed happening, can't be measured, provides no predictability and can't be falsified. I see nothing about this "theory" that conforms to the scientific method. That's why it's based purely on faith.
“Instead, science is really only about one large idea: finding natural explanations for natural processes....there is no “law” of abiogenesis and not even a strong theory, but only some weakly confirmed hypotheses, a little firmer than wild speculations, but not that much.”
And yet, abiogenesis is accepted as essentially a fact - is it not. No? What other “natural” theory is seriously being considered out there?
So then, if abiogenesis - a wildly improbable theory - is accepted over the more probable answer - that a Creator was involved, how is this “acceptance” of abiogenesis different than faith?
“So faith, belief & even truth have nothing to do with it.”
Unless there is an agenda in play.
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.