Posted on 04/02/2021 8:40:05 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It is my opinion that trying to use science to prove the existence of god shows a profound lack of faith. Not to mention that it can’t be done.
I remember seeing an article that stated something to the effect that to build a single cell organism would be akin to a tornado going through a junkyard and leaving a fully functional 747 in it’s wake.
Who could see a supposedly hedonistic and ego-driven man like Trump being God's instrument to counteract and slow the rampant evil? We see the true nature of it in the black spaces where Biden's eyes should be as he signs Executive Orders never read nor comprehended while the Supreme Court has somehow been compromised/neutralized.
These ARE times that try us. I think we should take note of who denies God for the sake of human hubris/arrogance for those are the ones who've lost the ability to hear God with their soul. And they are almost always Democrat. Hence so few stepping up after aiding the massive fraud - utter lack of sense of guilt.
How about the law of entropy is violated to have a beginning from nothing, so ‘someone’ had to set the whole shebang to running so it can run down?
Absolutely! And from there it is logical that this Designer/God created/designed it all for a purpose. Additionally, this Designer/God created a lifeform (humans) with the singular capability to look around and be able to recognize design and conclude that there then must be a Designer. It is logical that God, by creating humans to see His hand and would seek to know Him, also wanted to relate to us and to have a relationship with us.
Amen!
Yes!
I think that was Fred Hoyle.
And I think he said there’s a far better chance of getting the 747.
I believe in God, just not religion...for my own, personal reasons.
I get in touch with Him I my own ways.
I believe in God, just not religion...for my own, personal reasons.
I get in touch with Him I my own ways.
Rabbi Nachmanides described the Big Bang about 800 years ago.
I was kidding basically. But a lot of folks beleive in God, but won’t accept christ as savior. You don’t need religion to become a child of God. It’s a personal thing.
Not saying you haven’t accepted christ, I don’t know if you have or not, just pointing out that it’s not enough to beleive there is a God. There is only one way to communicate with God, and that is through His son, by accepting Him as Savior. Again, this is a personal decision between a person and Christ, so not prying or suggesting one way or the other that you haven’t. Just pointing out that many folks know about God, but do t know Him personally, the way He tells us to get to know Him, through His Son
Very good and thoughtful responses here.
***We used to have these kinds of discussions a lot when Betty Boop and Alamo Girl were around.
They both wrote a book based on their interactions on these threads:
Don’t Let Science Get You Down, Timothy: A Light-hearted (but Deadly Serious) Dialogue on Science, Faith, and Culture Paperback – January 27, 2007
by Jean Drew (Author), Sandi Venable (Author)
5.0 out of 5 stars
1 rating
https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Science-Down-Timothy-Light-hearted/dp/1430304693
There is no chance of getting a single cell to form with no supernatural help. At least with the tornado and junkyard, there is a small chance because all the parts and elements needed to move the parts are in play naturally. Whreas to assemble a lcell that can survive without being destroyed immediately, you need intelligent design to manipulate the elements, and control the whole process. Sure, they can create both right hand and left hand amino acids in a lab, but they must separate them or they will destroy thesmelves, and they must precisely control the elements and conditions o that the acids can survive
In my profile page, I have an article talking about the probabilities, its a good article. The odds of life evolving from base elements to present day life is so far beyond the upper probability limits for even one cell, let along billions happening over and over and over again, as demanded by the evolution hypothesis, is zero, it wont happen, it is not possible beyond a certain probability limit, and again, that is just for one isolated cell, let along all the vast things that would have to happen just to create one ‘simple’ species
There is a.so the argument about ‘if you giveenough monkeys typewriters, with an infinite amount of time to work with, they could eventually produce the works of Shakespeare’ or something like that, but the flaw is the second law. The typewriters will break down one by one, the ink Wil. Run out, the ribbons will dry out ets. You’d need intelligent design to step in and create a ‘supernatural’ process where the ink, key, mechanics etc of the typewriter somehow replace themselves when they break and wear out, Nd a way to keep the monkeys fed and healthy without intervening, and a xlew,slow, other problems that would need both supernatural processes to keep going, and intelligent design to organize things so they would keep running smoothly. And good luck keeping the monkeys typing 24/7 ‘for eternity lol
From your profile page (so I won’t luze the information):
MacroEvolution is Mathematically Impossible
For four cards, the formula is 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 = 24. Try it! You can arrange only 4 cards in 24 separate ways.
If there were 5 cards, then the chances of a particular arrangement by chance are 1 in 120 (1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5).
We suggest that you click here to see how this works, otherwise you find it difficult to believe what follows. Because when you get to the 20th card, there are more different combinations of cards than there are seconds in two billion years...
With 9 there are 362,880, with 10 there are 3,628,800, with 11 there are 39,916,800, with 12 there are 479,001,600, with 13 there are 6,227,020,800, with 14 there are 87,178,291,200, with 15 there are 1,307,674,368,000, with 16 there are 20,922,789,888,000, with 17 there are 355,687,428,096,000, with 18 there are 6,402,373,705,728,000, with 19 there are 121,645,100,408,832,000, and with 20 there are 2,432,902,008,176,640,000 random combinations.
There are only 1,051,200,000,000,000 seconds in two billion years. So, with the random combinations of just 20 cards, one has already surpassed the number of seconds in two billion years by more than two thousand times...
There are 1,051,200,000,000,000 seconds in two billion years and there are 1,000,000,000,000,000 neurological connections - this would require a rate of evolution of approximately one fully perfected connection per second for two billion years. And is hardly even the beginning, because at the same time one would have to evolve a non-physical digital (?) code that describes not only millions upon millions of separate colors, but also every sensation, emotion and thought of man.
http://creationdesign.org/english/chances.html
An occurrence that has more than one chance in 1050, it has a statistically zero chance of actually occurring.
“Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence.”
I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., 1984), p. 205 (as quoted in Vance Ferrell, The Evolution Handbook (Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 260
In order to circumvent the problem of statistical zero, evolutionists often argue that “Given enough time, anything can happen.” This is not a rational argument. It proves nothing. It is a reference to practically infinite periods of time that lie beyond statistical zero.
“A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of avoiding the conclusion that the probability of a self-producing state is zero ... When for practical purposes the condition of infinite time and matter has to be invoked, the concept of probability is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything ... “
P.T. Mora, The Folly of Probability, as quoted in Origins 13(2):98-104 (1986) Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Lind University, 1986. Emphasis supplied.
In fact the chances of the chance formation of just DNA - much less all of the applications of DNA - are so remote, they are far beyond statistical zero.
“This means that 1089190 DNA molecules, on average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code 124 proteins. 1089190 DNAs would weigh 1089147 more than the earth ... A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have been formed.
R.L. Wysong, The Creation Evolution Controversy, (Inquiry Press, Midland MI, 1976) p.115, as quoted in The Evolution Handbook (Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 261. Same Website as above
Thanks, I guess I could just done that too doh. Not thinking too good this mornin
It’s weird how copy & paste turns
10^50
into
1050
The following is an important argument from the article
‘In order to circumvent the problem of statistical zero, evolutionists often argue that “Given enough time, anything can happen.” This is not a rational argument. It proves nothing. It is a reference to practically infinite periods of time that lie beyond statistical zero.
“A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of avoiding the conclusion that the probability of a self-producing state is zero ... When for practical purposes the condition of infinite time and matter has to be invoked, the concept of probability is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything’
I see a lot of xounteraegument that defend macroevo.ution by saying ‘given enough time, anything is possible, but even if this were true for the ‘creation of something as simple as a single cell, it would never be possible for the vast array of cells and systems within species. It would take billions of ‘happy concidences’ and many many supernatural events to overcome the problems and I possibilities involved with ‘evolving systems’
I beleive it was Miller, aybe Dawkins, I don’t remember now, who proposed a ‘natural process for the evolution of blood clotting’ (a process that has given scientists headaches trying to figure out how it could have arisen naturally)
I read his paper on the issue, and then read a rebuttal to his paper. The rebuttal pointed out that the fellas ‘natural evolution process’ was anything but natural. It included several supernatural steps in order to arrive at the end result, including supernaturally controlling conditions so,that the ‘next steps could take place. In otherworldly, his ‘natural process’ needed both intelligent design, and supernatural events to take place that could not happen naturally, an intelligent designer was needed to control the conditions and assembly process.
Same for the supposed ‘mouse model’ hypothesis at first glance, that sounded like ‘yeah OK, I can see how that could happen but upon further investigation, you learn that the model was a yhting but random as proclaimed by the fella that came up with it. It was intelligently designed nearly all the way through, in order to arrive a preconceived conclusion
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.