3 Major Scientific Discoveries In The Past Century That Point To God

The Federalist ^ | 04/02/2021 | Stephen C. Meyer

[ConjunctionJunction]

Bookmark

[Bob434]

Yeah I usually put the quoted parts through online html converter, then paste the code into fr. That way it keeps the original formatting

[Kevmo]

Keep in mind that when Coppedge came up with his 10^-34 chance of a polypeptide forming into an Amino Acid, he was tweaking 14 or 15 parameters to be extremely favorable towards a result.

For instance, he included the ENTIRE mass of the earth as available for the chemical interaction, when in reality it should have simply been the SURFACE of the earth. Stuff like that.

The numbers of years for it to have happened by chance is in the trillions of trillions of years.

[Bob434]

Yup, and that was just for 1 amino acid to happen ‘naturally. The Miller experiments where they created amino acids in the lab fro base elements, was also intelligently designed and supernaturally controlled, so that the amino acids could be considered ‘created naturally’ for a short period of time. the problem was that both right and left hand a ino acids were created at the same time, and these will I guess destroy each other if not immediately separated, and also the conditions I the lab needed to be strictly controlled I order for the acids to survive for any length of time.

There were other things about that experiment that were intelligently designed and controlled too. It’s been about 15 or so years since I read through the rebuttal to the experiment.

The arguments for macroevolution fight so hard just to come up with a conclusion that the volition of just one cell ‘could be possible if given enough time, but then their problem magnifies billions of times because of the necessity of creating billions more steps after that first impossible step,is overcome possibly, (in their thinking anyways). The first step isn’t even truly overcome, but we’re to beleive that billions of steps following that happened ‘naturally’?

Too far fetched in my opinion. And they can’t escape the fact that the second law also plays a huge part, even though they vigorously argue that it doesn’t because the ‘systemic open’ or some such argument, which is also easily rebuttaled. I have an article on a sight by a fella that dismantled the idea that the second law needn’t have played a part in opposing the process of macroevolution, but that takes us into a whole nother topic.

[Bob434]

[[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.]]

He makes the same argument I make, though he gives examples of how impossible the scenario of macroevolution is. I don’t know how a macroev9lution beleiver can get around those calculations. A full connection every second for 2 billion years? And again, this is just for the process of evolving neurological connections only, there are a ton more systems and processes that had to,evolve, al. At the same time, and all overcoming impossible odds whole they did

Far easier for me to beleive an omniscient intelligent designer omnipotently created species with all the connections already inlplace and functioning properly

[Bob434]

[[For instance, he included the ENTIRE mass of the earth as available for the chemical interaction, when in reality it should have simply been the SURFACE of the earth. Stuff like that]]

Yup, good catch.

[misanthrope]

Currently reading “Darwin’s Doubt” after having finished “Signature In The Cell” and “Return Of The God Hypothesis” (all three of Stephen Meyer’s books).
All three are very well done, presenting the proofs for ID beyond logical dispute.
If you’ve not read any of them, and are considering reading them, start with “Return Of The God Hypothesis” first. It covers all four of his major categories pointing undeniably to ID, then “Signature” and “Darwin’s Doubt” go into two of the four in great detail.

[BDParrish]

Actually the question would be, “Has He revealed Himself?” Of course your question IrishB is obvious, unless you know that it’s turtles all the way down whatever position you take. If you did wonder where He came from, I doubt that would be the first question to someone who sincerely was convinced of His existence, but say it was the question, then just ask Him. But can we? Yes actually we can. And so it goes from there...