I prefer creation.

[HOGCALLER]

Ceridwen018,



This is what I promised you. I have expanded it to include more than just a list of “facts” but also to include reasonings and things that caused me to have an Arsenio Hall moment. They may, and probably will, seem silly to some. I present these things in the order that they popped into my head and not necessarily in their order of importance.



1.For me, believing in creation means more satisfying answers to more questions.

2.For me, believing in creation means believing in something better for the future.

3.For me, believing in creation means a better life now.

4.For me, believing in creation means more of my “needs” are met.

5.For me, believing in creation means already knowing the “source” so many scientists say they seek. And the “Source” that many scientists are now coming to embrace, some begrudgingly.

6.For me, believing in creation means understanding why the universe is expanding.

7.For me, believing in creation means knowing “the source” of the immense energy that the universe is (e=mc2).

8.For me, believing in creation means knowing, “What was before?”

9.For me, believing in creation means knowing why so many things went right? Or put another way, how so very, very extremely incredibly close we came to not being here. To close for it just to have been chance. Such as: “If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again there would have been no long-lived stars and no life.”—Sir Bernard Lovell. Check out: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm - FO

10.For me, believing in creation means knowing why the universe is so ordered when its start was supposedly an explosion.

11.For me, believing in creation means knowing why the universe remains so ordered in spite of entropy. Astrophysicist Alan Lightman noted that scientists “find it mysterious that the universe was created in such a highly ordered condition.” He also said “any successful theory of cosmology should ultimately explain this entropy problem.”



.

 

[HOGCALLER]

12.For me, believing in creation means understanding the difference between ‘chance’ and ‘cause.’ All the billions of billions of minute little changes that are necessary for evolution to be true each had to have a ‘cause.’ ‘Chance’ or more accurately mathematical probability cannot produce the change or result only the ‘cause’ can. ‘Chance’ only enters the picture when you when are trying to determine how many ‘causes’ are required to arrive at a successful result. The common illustration used is coin flipping. ‘Chance’ or more accurately mathematical probability simply tells you that it will take X number of flips, on average, to produce the desire result; say landing on edge and remaining standing. But each individual flip requires a ‘cause,’ a coin flipper to flip the coin. This may explain why biophysicist Donald M. MacKay stated: “To personify ‘chance’ as if we were talking about a causal agent is to make an illegitimate switch from a scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept.” Similarly, Robert C. Sproul points out: “By calling the unknown cause ‘chance’ for so long, people began to forget that a substitution was made. . . . The assumption that ‘chance equals an unknown cause’ has come to mean for many that ‘chance equals cause.’ ”



Nobel laureate Jacques L. Monod, for one, used this chance-equals-cause line of reasoning. He writes: “Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution. Man knows at last that he is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance.” In other words, Monod does what many others do—he elevates chance to a creative principal. Chance is offered as the means by which life came to be on earth.



One of the dictionary definitions of ‘chance’ is “the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings.” Thus, if one speaks about life coming about by chance, he is saying that it came about by a casual power that is not known. Could it be that some are virtually spelling “Chance” with a capital letter—in effect saying, “Creator?” I honestly acknowledge the fact that I believe in a Creator, how about you?



Lets make a practical application: The basic unit of living things is the cell, and the basic material that makes up a cell is protein. Evolutionists acknowledge that the probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is about 1 in 10113, or 1 followed by 113 zeros. In other words, it takes 10113 ‘causes’ or tries for the event to occur once, to produce the first protein. But any event that has one chance in 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.



But wait it gets better, far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life to occur. For a cell to maintain its functions, some 2,000 different proteins are needed. What, then, is the probability of all of these happening at random? It is estimated that the chance is 1 in 1040,000, or 1 followed by 40,000 zeros! And that just gets you all the component proteins. You still need to get the DNA containing millions of base pairings written into the proper sequence at the same time that you have the 2,000 different proteins present and on and on it goes. Just to make the very first single cell you end up with a number that looks like this: 10100,000,000,000. To put that into perspective, the total number of electrons in the universe is estimated to be 1080. And then you must get from the first living cell to the explosion of life that we see around us today.



And we have not yet discussed the fact that many of the chemical reactions that must occur for evolution to be true are adversely affected the presence of water and yet we are told that life began in the sea. Not only are those chemical reactions adverse to water but also they are reversible. Several of the required chemicals and proteins decompose much too quickly for evolution to work as it is purported to work.

13.For me, believing in creation means not having to believe in spontaneous generation. Perhaps the most important thing in all of this that is being overlooked is that scientists and evolutionists have no idea what life is. In other words, even if you had all the chemicals and components present, what do you add that changes them from lifeless to living? What is the ‘cause’ of life?

14.For me, believing in creation means that I do not have to ignore an established scientific fact, mentioned in number 13, that life comes only from life.

15.For me, believing in creation means accepting the ‘facts’ as they are rather than being forced to twist them to match how I ‘want’ them to be. Nobel laureate Francis Crick, speaking about origin-of-life theories, made the observation that there is “too much speculation running after too few facts.” A few decades ago, professor J. D. Bernal offered this insight in the book The Origin of Life: “by applying the strict cannons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the probabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small. . . . Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence.” In other words, scientists are “being forced to twist [facts] to match how [they] ‘want’ them to be,” just as I stated above.



It is thus understandable that some scientists who examine the facts conclude that life is much too complex to pop up even in an organized laboratory, let alone in an uncontrolled environment.



I could go on and on and on but this should be enough.



My original statement that triggered your request was, “To say that God does not exist is just as contradictory of all the demonstrable facts and only makes things worse.” So let’s review the clear, unchallenged, “demonstrable facts.”

• Life has to have had a “Source,” a “Cause” because science has proved and continues to prove that life only comes from life. Spontaneous generation is false and, therefore, so is evolution.
• It is impossible that ‘Chance’ is the ‘Cause.’
• For evolution to be true requires one to ignore or twist the “facts” and to ”switch from a scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept.”
• The fact is that the “facts” better support creation than they do evolution.

.

 

[Runt]

To me, this sounds like "I want answers, so I will choose some that sound the most appealing and make me most comfortable about my present and my future" rather than choosing answers that seem to explain the reality of the world we live in. I prefer to look to science for answers, not because these answers necessarily give me a great feeling of comfort by suggesting that I will somehow live forever or that I have some cosmic superdaddy looking over me, but because these answers do a great job of explaining to me why things are the way they are, and how they came to be this way. Creationism just doesn't do it for me.

 

[linwood]

Life has to have had a “Source,” a “Cause” because science has proved and continues to prove that life only comes from life. Spontaneous generation is false and, therefore, so is evolution.\

Please cite this "Science" that states life only comes from life and falsifies evolution.

It is impossible that ‘Chance’ is the ‘Cause.’

Considering chance is the cause of a great many unbelievable things I don`t see why it would be considered impossible.
If indeed you choose to view life as a "chance" happening, which I do not.

For evolution to be true requires one to ignore or twist the “facts” and to ”switch from a scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept.”

What facts are those?

The fact is that the “facts” better support creation than they do evolution.

Name one.
From what I`ve been able to read of your posts you haven`t so far.

What you are doing is wishing for a solution so badly that you have bought into someones imaginary reason.

 

[HOGCALLER]

Runt,



In the past, I have talked to persons who said that the above were the very reasons for their choosing not to accept the Bible and God. They did not want to change their present lifestyle nor worry about future consequences so they chose ‘science’ or ‘evolution’ or whatever.



As I explain above, my opinion is that you are the one not “choosing answers that seem to explain the reality of the world we live in.”



Please show me a “scientific” explanation of exactly what life is and, therefore, how it can and does and did “spontaneously generate” by accident and therefore I should believe in it rather than what I do. You are entitled to your “mythological concept” and I to mine.





.

 

[linwood]

Please show me a “scientific” explanation of exactly what life is and, therefore, how it can and does and did “spontaneously generate” by accident and therefore I should believe in it rather than what I do. You are entitled to your “mythological concept” and I to mine.

Well..I`m apparently invisible here but thats ok i`ll keep running off at the mouth anyway.

No one can give any explaination for the origins of life simply because no one knows.

However just because "We don`t know" is no reason to go manufacturing stories with no basis of evidence.

"I don`t know" is a perfectly acceptable answer and truly preferable to fiction.

 

[painted wolf]

the total number of electrons in the universe is estimated to be 1080

that has to be the silliest thing I've ever heard... where did you get that number?

I'll get to the rest when I have more time.

wa:do

 

[HOGCALLER]

linwood,



You say: “Please cite this "Science" that states life only comes from life and falsifies evolution.”



I say: Perhaps you recall Louis Pasteur and his scientific work and the results. In 1864 he announced: “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.” That statement remains true. No experiment has ever produced life from nonliving matter.



You say: “Considering chance is the cause of a great many unbelievable things I don`t see why it would be considered impossible.
If indeed you choose to view life as a "chance" happening, which I do not.”



I say: Wrong! Only causes are causes, changes only come about due to ‘causes,’ effects are produced by ‘causes’ only. Chance can describe the process by which a ‘cause’ eventually produced an effect or change or result but the work was done by the ‘cause.’ Consider: by chance Mr. X was sitting in his front room when he was killed by the drive-by-shooter’s bullet. What did the killing? The bullet did. Chance only describes the circumstances that lead up to the ‘cause’ being able to do its work.



The reason it is ‘impossible’ is because the shear number of tries or chances required and the amount of time required to accomplish them make it impossible given the “facts” about our universe that science has revealed. Again, the claim is that only “blind chance” is involved. In other words, no purposeful, guided, directed, etc. ‘causes’ only ‘chance causes.’ Therefore, without someone or something to play with the numbers and to affect the ‘causes,’ to in effect become ‘The Cause,’ then we should not be here because enough time has not past. Additionally, the time period here on earth during which the conditions were “right” for the theorized ‘causes’ of evolution to have occurred are many, many, many, many billion of billions of years short of what would be required for only ‘chance causes’ to account for what we see in existence. Thus, professor of biology Dean H. Kenyon recently stated that it is “fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems.”



You say: “What facts are those?”



I say: Those I just mentioned. But don’t take my word for it:



“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming.”—Paul Davies



“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”—George Greenstein



“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”—Fred Hoyle



“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story 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.”—Robert Jastrow



linwood, please go to the nearest mirror, point your figure at the image and repeat these words: “What you are doing is wishing for a solution so badly that you have bought into someones imaginary reason.”







.

 

[HOGCALLER]

did not notice the changes made!!

1080 is 10 to 80th power

1040,000 is 10 to the 40000 power

10100,000,000,000 is 10 to 100,000,000,000 power

 

[HOGCALLER]

linwood,



If you or no one else for that matter “can give any explanation,” then why is it you (plural including the scientists) manufacture stories?



If “no on knows” how is it that you (singular and personal) can accuse me of manufacturing stories or preferring fiction?



On what “facts” do you base your claim?

 

[linwood]

If you or no one else for that matter “can give any explanation,” then why is it you (plural including the scientists) manufacture stories?

I have manufactured nothing by stating "I don`t know".
It is truly a fact that "I don`t know"
It is also a fact the "You don`t know" but you prefer to imagine creators instead of realizing that "You don`t know".
Find me a scientist that says he knows how life began in this universe and I`ll give ya a dollar, hell I`ll give ya twenty.
Scientists merely take what they find an attempt to explain them sometimes their explanations are logical, sometimes they`re not but no one is making up stories.

If “no on knows” how is it that you (singular and personal) can accuse me of manufacturing stories or preferring fiction?

Because you nor anyone else has ever found even the slightest shred of evidence to support any theory of ID.
All you and those who believe as you do have done is attempt tear down the evidence that does exist for evolution.
Disproof of one theory does not make the other theory correct.
The manner in which ID proponents attempt this proves nothing but their ingorance of evolutionary theory. Considering what they generally attack are strawmen that have no basis in evolution but falsities they`ve built in order to appear to tear down evolution.

On what “facts” do you base your claim?

My claim that "I don`t know" is not based on facts it is based on a lack of facts and until I get some facts I will continue to submit with all honesty..."I don`t know."

 

[linwood]

I say: Perhaps you recall Louis Pasteur and his scientific work and the results. In 1864 he announced: “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.”

This is exactly the strawman I mentioned in my previous post.
You attempt to support ID by disproving evolution through the means of discounting spontaneous generation.
This all sounds well and good until you come across someone who realises that sponaneous generation has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or abiogenesis.
Spontaneous generation is a myth that was believed in the dark ages that Pastuer debunked and rightly so.
It does not however have a damn thing to do with evolution or abiogenesis.
This proves my second point against ID proponents and my earlier statement that they only show their ignorance of the theory of evolution by believing Spontaneous generation is a part of evolutionary theory.

Spontaneous generation is the idea that life can "spontaneously" arise from non living inorganic matter and yes many evolutionists considered this possible in the 17th century.
Pastuer proved them wrong.
What Pastuer did not disprove (And never attempted to) is abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is the idea that life can arise in very simple forms through chemical processes and reactions over a long span of time.
This is the current hypothesis of origins of life in the scientific community.
With fairly strong evidence to support it.
Pastuer most definately did not disprove evolutionary change/mutation.
Considering it has been proven within the framework of modern genetics and other fields it is a moot point.

I say: Wrong! Only causes are causes, changes only come about due to ‘causes,’ effects are produced by ‘causes’ only.

This is all well and good and I would readily accept it for the sake of argument if you were not at the same time putting forth the supposition of an uncaused creator.
If only causes have causes then who created your creator?
If you fail to apply the same standard to your first cause that you apply to all following causes and creation your theory is bunk and extemely unfounded.

Thus, professor of biology Dean H. Kenyon recently stated that it is “fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems.”

What support does Prof. Kenyon have for this statement?
He has none considering Prof.Kenyon doesn`t usually submit evidence for his ideas on evolution/creation but instead submits "statements" that attempt to tear evolution down.
Prof.Kenyon should publish his findings in this field.

linwood, please go to the nearest mirror, point your figure at the image and repeat these words: “

What you are doing is wishing for a solution so badly that you have bought into someones imaginary reason.”

You don`t understand, I couldn`t care less what the accepted theory of lifes origins is as long as it has basis in strong evidence.

If an ID proponent were to submit evidence of the possibilty of a creator I would immediately re-consider my stance.

I won`t hold my breath however.

You yourself have repeatedly admitted you hold your beliefs on faith and not empirical evidence.

 

[HOGCALLER]

linwood,

what is ID?

 

[HOGCALLER]

linwood,



right out of the dictionary:



spontaneous generation (spon-tane-s jen-rashn)n. See abiogenesis.[1]





a-bi-o-gen-e-sis (abi-o-jeni-sis)n. The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation. --a'bi-o-ge-net'ic (-j-netik). or a'bi-o-ge-net'i-cal adj. --a'bi-og'e-nist (-oj-nist). n.[2]
[1]Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary. Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


[2]Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary. Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[Orthodox]

Linwood,

Abiogenesis is the idea that life can arise in very simple forms through chemical processes and reactions over a long span of time.
This is the current hypothesis of origins of life in the scientific community.
With fairly strong evidence to support it.

What evidence was this? I'm afraid saying "I don't know" will not suffice here . If you 'don't know' why would you say you did?

Richard Dawkins, Professor of Zoology at Oxford University, said about Chemical Evolution "There are various theories for how it might have happened. None of them is fully convincing". Perhaps you know something he doesn't?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Okey dokey--I found some great sites on abiogenesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
http://uti.dinggraphics.com/archives/cat_science.html
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_abio.htm
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1303
http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=95
http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=99
http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/abiogenesis.htm#Origins

Lol, alright--I think that should do it for now. They're posted loosely in order of usefulness, with the best coming first (and bolded, it seems...) to not so best coming last. Let me know if you need any more!

 

[Ardhanariswar]

"In the past, I have talked to persons who said that the above were the very reasons for their choosing not to accept the Bible and God. They did not want to change their present lifestyle nor worry about future consequences so they chose ‘science’ or ‘evolution’ or whatever."

to others: dont mistake God as being only judeochristian. God comes in many forms, HInduism addresses reality and does not force believers to believe in myths. sure, i believe you can learn something from it in a parable sorta way. but it was never meant to be taken literally.

i follow God, and i believe in Evolution. evolution came from the Great Spirit, God, doesnt matter if you think its creationism or evolution. i prefer evolution, personally, because it makes more sense than two people magically appearing out of no where, YET having almost the same dna as the ancestory of apes.

 

[linwood]

Linwood,
What evidence was this? I'm afraid saying "I don't know" will not suffice here . If you 'don't know' why would you say you did?

Would you like me to answer your questions or do you prefer to continue to answer them for me and then counter the answers you`ve put in my mouth?

It`s up to you but I think you`d get more satisfaction doing it your way.

It doesn`t matter because I`ve just noticed Cerwiden posted some links on abiogenesis before I could
Thanks.

Richard Dawkins, Professor of Zoology at Oxford University, said about Chemical Evolution "There are various theories for how it might have happened. None of them is fully convincing".

No..none of them are fully convincing but I submit they are far more convincing than ..THE SKY DADDY DID IT !! ..THE SKY DADDY DID IT !!

Perhaps you know something he doesn't?

Perhaps the correct question is if I know something he didn`t but that would depend on when he made that statement.

Amino acids have been formed in a laboratory environment .
Proteins have been made of these amino acids.
All that is really left to do is to find a way to get these cultures to duplicate it`s own DNA and accept it...this is no simple task however.
Very recently (This year)scientists have "jumped ahead" and found that they can get these laboratory proteins to accept pieces of natural DNA sequences within thier own DNA.

They are in the process of creating life from non-life.
They have not gotten there yet but what they have accomplished is light years from anything Pastuer could ever have fantasied about in his wildest dreams.

right out of the dictionary:

Yes I see that.
Right out of the 1997 American Heritage Talking Dictionary.

Please go look up the word "atheism" in that dictionary, post it to the atheist forum on this site and see if you can get even a single atheist to agree with the definition in its entirety.
You can`t..their definition is incorrect even if only slightly.

Tell me...do you think in all his life Pastuer every heard the term "Abiogenesis"?
I don`t, because the concept of generating molecular life from inanimate compounds had never been thought of in the 17th century.

My point is that spontaneous generation is a different animal today but is still an incorrect term when speaking of abiogenesis.

Here`s a better resource than the 1997 American Heritage Talking Dictionary when considering scientific terminology with a bias you might like.
http://www.iscid.org/

Abiogenesis is the proposal that life emerged from non-life. It can be viewed as a special form of spontaneous generation (see "The Origin of Life: Philosophical Perspectives," published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1997, by Michael Ruse). Instead of life arising from non-life on a regular and observable basis, abiogenesis proposes life arising from non-life at some particular point in the ancient, unobservable past. But abiogenesis differs from spontaneous generation in another important way. While spontaneous generation proposed the emergence of a complete, complex cell or organism from organic molecules in one huge jump, abiogenesis draws from gradualism, where the original life forms were much simpler than modern cells and only gradually evolved their present-day form of complexity. Thus, abiogenesis not only places the spontaneous generation of life far in the past, but the life that is generated was supposedly much simpler, thus easier to generate spontaneously.
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis

In short ...
Abiogenesis says simple molecular level life can be brought forth from inanimate compounds and evolve into complex life from there.
Spontaneous Generation says complex animals can spring forth immediately from inanimate objects already fully evolved as a complex organism

In the 17th century it was believed that creatures such as weevils and mealworms spontaneously generated from the grains they were found in because none could see any other way for them to get there.
They believed mice would spontaneously generate from trash heaps.
This of course is ridiculous and is why the term "Spontaneous Generation" should not be used when speaking of evolutionary origins of life.

what is ID?

Sorry..ID is short for "Intelligent Design" which is the idea you are talking about.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Intelligent design is the (idea) that the directed organization of living things cannot be accounted for by purely blind natural forces but also requires intelligent agency for its proper explanation.[/font]
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Intelligent_Design

Having said all of that I want to clarify something.
Even if a multicelled living organism should arise tomorrow out of some petri dish in some lab somewhere and astound the world I would still answer with "I don`t know" when asked about the origins of life on this planet.

This is because it doesn`t matter if scientists create life in a lab it is not empirical evidence that it happened the same way in nature.
It is just empirical evidence that it "possibly" happened that way in nature.

So..I still "Don`t know" and never will.

 

[HOGCALLER]

Ceridwen018 Et Al,

My eyes on are gone for tonight.

It will take me some time to read all that and then digest it.

But eventually--I'll be bach! (think Arnold)

 

[Runt]

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. Creationism does. It insists that everything is exactly the way it is because God made it that way, and that if something doesn't seem to make sense when looking at it from a Creationist perspective, it is simply because "God works in mysterious ways" and we "mere humans" with our "imperfect intellect" are simply unable to understand the mind of God. However, if we can't understand the mind of God, then how can we truly say that Creationism is the way God did made the world? Because the Bible says so? But we translated the revealed words of God into our imperfect human languages and attempt to understand them with our imperfect human minds... so how can a Creationist possibly claim that what they believe the Bible says about "how things came to be"--Creationism--is true at all?

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. Science is about the SEARCH for answers, and not about laying claim to all the answers. If there are serious holes in a hypothesis a scientist does not ignore them and say "Well, the hypothesis is true no matter what despite the fact that it doesn't make sense in light of this newly discovered data!" No, the scientist throws out hypotheses that fail to stand up to scrutiny and replace them with more valid explainations. The scientific explaination of "how things came to be" changes as new information arrives to support or refuse old beliefs; Creationism totally disregards new information and insists, against all evidence to the contrary, that it is right.