Gallup Poll: 4 in 10 believe man created by God 10,000 years ago

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhailey

My point was to dispell this issue that "intelligent design" is utterly unacademic and has no place in science.

---

So, you actually think the voice over 'commentary' at the end of the video is logically correct given the content it refers to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhailey

In the end, whether you belive that life simply "popped" into existence as the "educated" amoung us belive, or you belive that God created life, you must do so on faith. And I would assert that to belive that life simply "popped" into existence takes greater faith than those that assert the position of inteligent design or creation.

---

Well, for those who lack an intellectual curiosity, or creativity, I suppose the 'intelligent design' is the perfect framework. One which provides a very simple and easy to understand answer to any question one may have, namely 'God just designed it this way'.
That doesn't make it science though, not even close. Science does have 'unknowns' and 'fundamental postulates' from which the rest derives, but it's constantly looking for any evidence to dispel with them. Any 'creator' based theory is just a renaming of the 'I don't know/care to know/understand' answer.

To take a page from the book of Jesus - 'by their fruit you will recognize them'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

To take a page from the book of Jesus - 'by their fruit you will recognize them'.

---

Considering the New Testament teaches that Jesus was the creative force, I find this more than a little humorous...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richmondesi

Considering the New Testament teaches that Jesus was the creative force, I find this more than a little humorous...

---

Yes, and as far as I remember, he rather forcefully challenged the well established understanding of what God and Messiah are all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

So, you actually think the voice over 'commentary' at the end of the video is logically correct given the content it refers to?


Well, for those who lack an intellectual curiosity, or creativity, I suppose the 'intelligent design' is the perfect framework. One which provides a very simple and easy to understand answer to any question one may have, namely 'God just designed it this way'.
That doesn't make it science though, not even close. Science does have 'unknowns' and 'fundamental postulates' from which the rest derives, but it's constantly looking for any evidence to dispel with them. Any 'creator' based theory is just a renaming of the 'I don't know/care to know/understand' answer.

To take a page from the book of Jesus - 'by their fruit you will recognize them'.

---

So you believe BY FAITH that life simply popped into existence. I believe by faith that God created life.

The difference is that I don't belittle your opinions, or call you stupid.

Also, thanks for finding the typo, and highlighting it in red, in large font, as if to show that I lack credibility due to such typo. Is that the sign of a gentleman?

By their fruit you will recognize them.

Matt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhailey

So you believe BY FAITH that life simply popped into existence. I believe by faith that God created life.

---

I don't. I just don't know and I don't need 'FAITH' to live with that fact. I find the framework which explains virtually everything in our material world as resulting from three basic particles interacting according a partial differential equation, far more satisfying than 'XXXX just made it this way'.
Not the least because it offers not only interesting exercise for the mind, but also because it has resulted in nifty things like cars, airplanes, computers, cell phones, GPS, internet, nuclear bombs, all kinds of medicines and medical devices, and not in the last place the reason I'm on this forum - some very nice straight razors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhailey

The difference is that I don't belittle your opinions, or call you stupid.

---

I don't belittle anybody's opinions or beliefs, however I do have an issue when the black is called white or when a belief is called science. Everybody's free to live their life any way they like as long as they don't impose on others, but that necessitates that we say what we mean and mean what we say. So when one wants to use the words science and religion, they ought to know what those words mean and apply accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhailey

Also, thanks for finding the typo, and highlighting it in red, in large font, as if to show that I lack credibility due to such typo. Is that the sign of a gentleman?

---

I would've said 'you're welcome', but then it appears you actually meant the opposite of 'thanks'.
Actually it doesn't show any lack of credibility, just lack of a good spelling, or the use of a spell checker. But you just showed a talent for unreasonable extrapolation.

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

Friends.

Let us keep the discussion civil and gentlemanly.
Just a reminder.

Otto
For the Mod. Team.

Gentlemen, let me suggest that this thread needs to stay on topic. It's not headed in a positive direction at the present time. If the discussion continues to include personal criticism between the members I will be forced to lock it for a cooling off period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhailey

My point was to dispell this issue that "intelligent design" is utterly unacademic and has no place in science.

---

It doesn't have a place. There is no evidence for it. As it is now it's the same as saying "I don't know".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhailey

In the end, whether you belive that life simply "popped" into existence as the "educated" amoung us belive, or you belive that God created life, you must do so on faith.

---

The educated agree that how life started is still an unknown. There is no faith needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhailey

And I would assert that to belive that life simply "popped" into existence takes greater faith than those that assert the position of inteligent design or creation.

---

Saying life "popped" into existence sounds pretty much like saying God did it.

And what do you mean by life? Because it's most likely that life started off very very simple. It also had a very long time to evolve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mhailey

My point was to dispell this issue that "intelligent design" is utterly unacademic and has no place in science.

In the end, whether you belive that life simply "popped" into existence as the "educated" amoung us belive, or you belive that God created life, you must do so on faith. And I would assert that to belive that life simply "popped" into existence takes greater faith than those that assert the position of inteligent design or creation.

---

Nobody who is educated says that life just "popped" into existence, nor does evolution even propose to have an answer for the origin of life. I don't know where you learned that, but you were taught wrong.

Intelligent design has no place in the academic community because there is no evidence for it. Science is about building our knowledge based on observational facts, not myths and fairy tales.

If religions want to have discussions about intelligent design, that's great. That is where it belongs. But as there is no evidence for it, there is not way to test it as a hypothesis, there is no way that any kind of theory of "intelligent design" would accurately predict natural phenomena we see in the world around us, it has no place in the scientific community.

@Xman
My point wasn't on religion versus science. It was on the concept of faith. Which you've just clearly shown you've entirely ignored and picked out the only thing you don't like about it. Which is that is counts for everything, wrapping science in the same boat as religion. I didn't say that religion is more valid. What I do say is that unless you're an experimental physisyst (spelling anyone?) you're going to have to take a large number of the laws of physics on faith. Because especially the first time...you have no proof of your own. If you're not a biologist then you're going to have to take a number of biology principles on faith because let's face it...you didn't do or see the experiments and you're just going to have to take the scientist's word for it.



I also noticed that the word faith is once again completely misused and (seemingly) misunderstood.

Non-religionists often imply that anyone who believes in a God has faith. Religionists often better understand that someone who believes in a God has belief.
Someone who acts as if there's a God has faith. MASSIVE difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

What I do say is that unless you're an experimental physisyst (spelling anyone?)

---

me, me me - physicist, it's two letters difference and that 'c' is actually pronounced as 's', the first 's' is pronounced 'z' and the last 's' is pronounced 's'. I always knew English makes perfect sense :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

you're going to have to take a large number of the laws of physics on faith.

---

I disagree, experimental physics doesn't make any difference, nobody is capable of repeating every single experiment. But if that's the defining criterion, you'll have to go all the way to defining an 'observation' and then you don't really fare any better, as you'll have a philosophical problem.

But I think you're setting up a false comparison, based on poor criterion.

In my opinion the qualitative difference between science and religion is that religion has immutable postulates, while in science nothing is sacred and everything must be constantly challenged, reverified, refuted and reestablished. But at any given moment in science there are postulates or axioms that everything is based on, just not the 'rock solid foundation' that a religion is supposed to have, and that's what paradoxically gives science its strength. It's not 'facts' that must be taken by faith, but a process of improvement to our understanding. And the only advantage it has is that it has demonstrated to be more effective and efficient than anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

me, me me - physicist, it's two letters difference and that 'c' is actually pronounced as 's', the first 's' is pronounced 'z' and the last 's' is pronounced 's'. I always knew English makes perfect sense :)

---

Thanks, no matter how muuch I write/speak it....sometimes I just can't grasp it right...probable because I already speak Dutch, German, a little french and I'm learning spanish...I wonder if I start mixing them up.

Quote:

---

I disagree, experimental physics doesn't make any difference, nobody is capable of repeating every single experiment. But if that's the defining criterion, you'll have to go all the way to defining an 'observation' and then you don't really fare any better, as you'll have a philosophical problem.

---

That's what I've been saying. Thus believing that you have a possible explanation and acting upon that explanation requires faith. As you cannot possible with 100% certainty confirm that you are right. There will always be the tiniest granule of doubt....which is the part that faith bridges.

Quote:

---

But I think you're setting up a false comparison, based on poor criterion.

In my opinion the qualitative difference between science and religion is that religion has immutable postulates, while in science nothing is sacred and everything must be constantly challenged, reverified, refuted and reestablished. But at any given moment in science there are postulates or axioms that everything is based on, just not the 'rock solid foundation' that a religion is supposed to have, and that's what paradoxically gives science its strength. It's not 'facts' that must be taken by faith, but a process of improvement to our understanding. And the only advantage it has is that it has demonstrated to be more effective and efficient than anything else.

---

Everything has to be taken by faith, be it facts, a process, or someone's intentions.

Interesting. Small change however. I'll make a small correction to illustrate my point.

Quote:

---

The qualitative difference between science and religion SHOULD BE that MOST religionS haVE SOME immutable postulates, while in science nothing SHOULD BE sacred and everything must be constantly challenged, reverified, refuted and reestablished.

---

What you're displaying here is the ideal of science whilst at the same time you're looking at the reality of MOST religions. So your comparison is slanted as well.

You see, as you're right that science SHOULD BE gradual improvement. In general that isn't the face it presents to the world.

In that same breath....those things covered by religion that are alsso covered by science are no more than a smaller footnote in religion (creation etc)....whilst things featured in science that are also covered in religion (such as morality, the path to happiness etc) are but a mere footnote in science.

I agree that in science the goal is gradual increase towards truth. However that is not the way the scientific community present's it's face to the "non enlightened". Things are presented as scientific FACTS, not the "working theories that we at this moment take to be true because everything we've seen so far says so".

At the same time SOME religions/religionists focus completely on those things that should not be important to them.

God wouldn't care if you were misstaken about the creation happening the way you think it did. However he WOULD care about the way you treated those that don't agree with you.

And so the major part of the "advocates of science" focus on those things that play only a minor role in religion and because of that proclaim it to be bogus and of no worth.


However you take it though. Whenever you take something that has not bee proven to you personally and apply it....that requires faith. Be it in the person that taught you, or a concept that you believe came from God....be it a commandment that came from your wife/dog/sacred toast with the virgin mary in it.

Faith is not a concept that is part of religion alone. It's the acting on something that you believe and trust to be true. And when/if/ proof comes...your faith in that person/concept/company/God/toast increases and you're more likely to act on that/them the next time.





Once again, I'm not saying science and religion are the same thing. Merely that they both (as is every action in this life) are based on the concept of faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Once again, I'm not saying science and religion are the same thing. Merely that they both (as is every action in this life) are based on the concept of faith.

---

Well, I would think it's obvious that one constantly acts on something they 'believe to be right' and it may not be so. I view it as a rather banal fact of life and don't particularly care if it's the same kind of faith that a religious person is supposed to experience. See, to me when comparing two frameworks that yield completely different outcomes, the differences are more important than the common things, because after all I'm interested in the fact that the outcomes are different.

I don't agree that my comparison is between 'an ideal' and 'a practical implementation', thus flawed. I am talking about the ideal concepts in both cases. I think the very idea of religion necessitates a postulated absolute truth, which can not be challenged or changed. At least that's the case with the top religions, including the no.3 Hinduism where despite the lack of single doctrine there is still postulated truths. That's not how science works at all. It doesn't seek a truth, it seeks a better description of the material world, not necessarily gradual, could be via singularity. The only criteria is predictive power. And that's where most religions fail by design. An omnipotent, omniscient, sovereign deity, far superior to humans is synonymous with unpredictable.

And of course I can not disagree that especially in US a lot of religious people seem to have horribly misplaced ideas about the role of their religion. Some think it calls for political changes, others think it's the source of knowledge. It is probably a source of moral for some, and then there are those who go on to extrapolate that it is the only possible source of moral.

I don't know whether science will ever be able to address the problem of morals. Certainly there are scientific experiments on the matter, but it's not a well developed area. One thing that is well established is that the moral decisions one makes can be biased by say speech, drugs (done for thousands of years), light, magnetic fields, surgery, etc., so that means it is something that can be quantified and examined in a scientific manner and is not reserved exclusively for the domain of religion.
Whether somebody else believes my morals are a result from God secretly working in my life, my upbringing, my genetics, or just the solution of Maxwell's equations with the boundary conditions of my brain, as long as they leave me alone, it probably doesn't affect the particular moral choices that I make.

Finally I think that anybody who is presenting science as 'facts' or 'truth', instead of as a process to develop temporary theories with predictive power, doesn't know what they're talking about.



BTW I'm sure you've see it before but here's a humorous take on the euro-english: Aha! Jokes > Fun Pages > Converting to Euro English!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Finally I think that anybody who is presenting science as 'facts' or 'truth', instead of as a process to develop temporary theories with predictive power, doesn't know what they're talking about.



BTW I'm sure you've see it before but here's a humorous take on the euro-english: Aha! Jokes > Fun Pages > Converting to Euro English!

---

We sure use a lot of words to say we agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

God wouldn't care if you were misstaken about the creation happening the way you think it did. However he WOULD care about the way you treated those that don't agree with you.

---

How would anyone know that?

If anything it would seem from the evidence that if there is a god he doesn't care about humans at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Faith is not a concept that is part of religion alone. It's the acting on something that you believe and trust to be true. And when/if/ proof comes...your faith in that person/concept/company/God/toast increases and you're more likely to act on that/them the next time.

Once again, I'm not saying science and religion are the same thing. Merely that they both (as is every action in this life) are based on the concept of faith.

---

They aren't the same kinds of faith. Religion requires blind faith. You have to believe god exists without any evidence.

You don't need blind faith in science. It might be difficult but you can reproduce the results claimed by science and verify them yourself.

I'm sure most rely on faith with regards to science. Faith in the scientists that they are not deceiving the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

How would anyone know that?

If anything it would seem from the evidence that if there is a god he doesn't care about humans at all.



They aren't the same kinds of faith. Religion requires blind faith. You have to believe god exists without any evidence.

You don't need blind faith in science. It might be difficult but you can reproduce the results claimed by science and verify them yourself.

I'm sure most rely on faith with regards to science. Faith in the scientists that they are not deceiving the public.

---

When you make a statement like this make sure you distinguish between science that is repeatable like gravity and things that are not or at least cannot be reproduced like evolution. The problem that scientist and evolutionists will always face is that theories are simply to outlandish for any intelligent person to believe is possible by mere chance. Unfortunately, their best response to this, instead of looking at all of the evidence and making a determination if an intelligent designer is behind it say that the mere fact we are here proves that it all happened despite the odds.

I think to believe in unaided evolution requires not only blind faith but intellectual suicide. There are major difficulties in this theory and trying to explain the origin of DNA code and complex adaptations like vertebrate limb and reptilian hard-shelled eggs. The only answer given by these experts is how important it is to the species but not how they were developed as every mutation we see today dies off in 1 generation and is not a working adaptation.

Another important thing you should be aware of is that you don't have to believe in a God to think that unaided evolution is entirely impossible. Most evolutionists try to make you think otherwise by lumping those who believe in their improbably theory and "religion" which is neither fair nor accurate.

I would challenge each of you to research both sides and determine which way does the evidence point rather than puke back what your professor told you in whatever liberal school you graduated from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

I would challenge each of you to research both sides and determine which way does the evidence point rather than puke back what your professor told you in whatever liberal school you graduated from.

---

Do you know how to count? If you do, I would challenge you to derive for us the two probabilities (or as you prefer to call them 'odds') of things happening according to the "theories are simply to outlandish for any intelligent person to believe is possible by mere chance", and by an "intelligent designer".

I think that would make it much easier for each of us to make the determination you are asking us to make. I certainly don't want to kill myself intellectually, so please help me understand your point by providing some back up of your claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

When you make a statement like this make sure you distinguish between science that is repeatable like gravity and things that are not or at least cannot be reproduced like evolution.

---

No need too. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Most accept that Gravity and Evolution are facts. The theory part comes in when you start asking what causes each.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

The problem that scientist and evolutionists will always face is that theories are simply to outlandish for any intelligent person to believe is possible by mere chance.

---

Nothing outlandish about the theory of Evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

Unfortunately, their best response to this, instead of looking at all of the evidence and making a determination if an intelligent designer is behind it say that the mere fact we are here proves that it all happened despite the odds.

---

You're saying the scientists aren't looking at all the evidence? What evidence are they not looking at?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

I think to believe in unaided evolution requires not only blind faith but intellectual suicide.

---

What exactly do you mean by unaided?

It takes blind faith to believe there is some being aiding evolution since there is no evidence for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

Another important thing you should be aware of is that you don't have to believe in a God to think that unaided evolution is entirely impossible. Most evolutionists try to make you think otherwise by lumping those who believe in their improbably theory and "religion" which is neither fair nor accurate.

---

So what do you think is aiding evolution then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

I would challenge each of you to research both sides and determine which way does the evidence point rather than puke back what your professor told you in whatever liberal school you graduated from.

---

Nothing to research on the intelligent design side. There is no evidence.

puke back? Learning from a professor is a good thing. Where are you getting your info about evolution?

From a respected authority in the field:

YouTube - Archie Bunker on Creation vs Evolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HNSB

From a respected authority in the field:

---

I'm glad someone else loves Meathead. :)

Science is built upon evidence.

Religion is built on myth.

The difference is so huge that I cannot imagine how one could possibly say both rely on faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markevens

Science is built upon evidence.

Religion is built on myth.

The difference is so huge that I cannot imagine how one could possibly say both rely on faith.

---

Perhaps it's how you interpret the evidence. I think that there is a tremendous amount more evidence for an intelligent design to the universerse rather than complete random chance.

For those of you that think evolution is indisputable you may want to join the flat earth society as that theory is still alive and well:

The Flat Earth Society

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

The problem that scientist and evolutionists will always face is that theories are simply to outlandish for any intelligent person to believe is possible by mere chance.

---

Outlandish?

Hmmmmm. I wonder. Evolution or...... Christianity for example.

Evolution - A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

Christianity - The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Which is more outlandish?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

For those of you that think evolution is indisputable you may want to join the flat earth society as that theory is still alive and well:

The Flat Earth Society

---

People once thought the earth was flat, then science proved otherwise.

In your example, believing that the earth is flat is akin to believing in intelligent design. Not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

Perhaps it's how you interpret the evidence. I think that there is a tremendous amount more evidence for an intelligent design to the universerse rather than complete random chance.

For those of you that think evolution is indisputable you may want to join the flat earth society as that theory is still alive and well:

The Flat Earth Society

---

It isn't just random chance, its random chance + cause and effect over huge expanses of time. That is a big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MykelDR

Outlandish?

Hmmmmm. I wonder. Evolution or...... Christianity for example.

Evolution - A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

Christianity - The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Which is more outlandish?

---

No question that there are some outlandish belief systems...but which is more probable...following taken from nodnc.com:
For roughly fifty years secular scientists who have faith in the power of dumb atoms to do anything have been carrying on scientific research aimed at finding out how the dumb atoms could have initiated life without any outside help. Since they believe that this really happened, they believe that it was inevitable that the properties of atoms, the laws of physics, and the earth's early environment should bring forth life. More sober minds, however, have realized the immense improbability of the spontaneous origin of life (called "abiogenesis"). Some have made careful investigations and mathematical calculations to estimate what the probability is for abiogenesis to occur. Their calculations show that life's probability is extremely small, essentially zero.
To understand these results let us explain what we mean by probability. What, for example, is the probability of tossing a coin and getting "heads"? There are two possible outcomes of tossing a coin, either the head side or the tail side will be up. The sum of the probabilities of these two outcomes is 100% or 1, unity. Then, since for a perfectly balanced coin the two probabilities must be equal, and their sum is 1, the probability of either heads or tails in one flip of the coin is ? , and the sum of the two probabilities is ? + ? = 1. Simple. Now you understand probability!?
Now let's ask what the probability is for flipping the coin twice and getting two heads in a row. It is the product of the two probabilities of getting heads both the first time and the second time. That is, P2H = ? x ? = ?. Now you understand how to calculate the probability that both of two independent events will happen. It is the product of the probabilities of the two events.
Next we will calculate a probability for the chance production of a single small protein molecule. A protein molecule consists of one or more chains made up of amino acid molecules linked together. There are 20 different amino acids molecules which the cells use to construct the protein molecules needed for the life of cells. We will think about a small protein molecule with only 100 amino acid molecules in its chain. Assume we have a reaction pot containing a mixture of the 20 different amino acid molecules, and they are reacting at random to form chains. What is the probability, when a chain with 100 amino acids is formed, that it will by chance have the sequence of amino acids needed to form a particular working protein molecule?
There are 100 positions along the chain. What is the probability that a particular one of the 20 different natural amino acid molecules will by chance be placed at position number 1 in the chain? It will be P1 = 1/20. When the complete chain has formed, what is the probability that the necessary particular amino acids will be placed at each of the 100 positions in the chain? It will be the product of the probabilities at the 100 positions. Thus the probability will be the fraction 1/20 multiplied by itself 100 times. So P100 = (1/20)x(1/20)x(1/20)x...x(1/20) = (1/20)100 = (1/10)130 = 1/10130. This is an extremely small fraction. It is the fraction formed by the number 1 divided by the number formed by 1 followed by 130 zeros!
But we have oversimplified a little bit. In actual fact a protein molecule can have a substantial variability at many of the positions on its amino acid chain. In 1975 I examined the data for a particular protein molecule called cytochrome a which has about 100 amino acids in its chain. This is an important enzyme molecule in all living cells, and the sequence of amino acids has been determined for cytochrome a molecules in about a hundred different species. From the quantitative data I made a rough estimate that on the average up to five different amino acids could fill a particular position on the chain of the enzyme molecule. Thus the probability that an acceptable amino acid would be found by chance at a particular position would be 5/20 = ?. So the probability for a working enzyme molecule to be formed by chance would be (?)100 = 1/1060. This is still a very, very small probability. It is the fraction formed by 1 divided by the number 1 followed by 60 zeros.
In 1977 Prof. Hubert Yockey, a specialist in applying information theory to biological problems, studied the data for cytochrome a in great detail.1 His calculated value for the probability in a single trial construction of a chain of 100 amino acid molecules of obtaining by chance a working copy of the enzyme molecule is 1/1065 , or the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 65 zeros. This is a probability 100,000 times smaller than my very rough estimate published two years earlier. Prof. Harold Morowitz estimated that the simplest theoretically conceivable living organism would have to possess a minimum of 124 different protein molecules. A rough estimate of the probability of all of these protein molecules to be formed by chance in a single chance happening would be P124P = (1/1065)124 = 1/108060, the fraction 1 divided by the number 1 followed by 8060 zeros. Truly these are extremely small probabilities calculated through a statistical approach. They tell us that the probabilities for the chance formation of a single working protein molecule or of a living cell are effectively zero.Prof. Morowitz made a careful study of the energy content of living cells and of the building block molecules of which the cells are constructed. From this thermodynamic information he was able to calculate the probability that an ocean full of chemical "soup" containing the necessary amino acids and other building block molecules would react in a year to produce by chance just one copy of a simple living cell.2 He arrived at the astronomically small probability of Pcell = 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros! Yet he still believed in abiogenesis. Back in the 1970s Prof. Morowitz admitted in a public debate at a teachers' convention in Honolulu that in order to explain abiogenesis, it would be necessary to discover some new law of physics. At that time he still believed in abiogenesis, the spontaneous formation of the original living cells on the primeval earth. However, some ten years later he finally stated that in his opinion some intelligent creative power was necessary to explain the origin of life.
There are yet more mysteries in life's probability(or improbability) which science has not plumbed. One mystery is how one virus has DNA which codes for more proteins than it has space to store the necessary coded information. A gene is a portion of the long DNA molecule which carries the code for the sequence of amino acids in a chain that folds up to produce a particular protein molecule. The DNA molecule is itself made up of four code letter molecules called nucleotides. These provide the four-letter alphabet of genetics. Their names are abbreviated by the letters A, C, G and T. A three-letter "word" called a codon codes for a particular one of the twenty amino acids used to build protein chains.
The mystery arose when scientists counted the number of three-letter codons in the DNA of the virus, fX174. They found that the proteins produced by the virus required many more code words than the DNA in the chromosome contains. How could this be? Careful research revealed the amazing answer. A portion of a chain of code letters in the gene, say -A-C-T-G-T-C-C-A-G-, could contain three three-letter genetic words as follows: -A-C-T*G-T-C*C-A-G-. But if the reading frame is shifted to the right one or two letters, two other genetic words are found in the middle of this portion, as follows: -A*C-T-G*T-C-C*A-G- and -A-C*T-G-T*C-C-A*G-. And this is just what the virus does. A string of 390 code letters in its DNA is read in two different reading frames to get two different proteins from the same portion of DNA. Could this have happened by chance? Try to compose an English sentence of 390 letters from which you can get another good sentence by shifting the framing of the words one letter to the right. It simply can't be done. The probability of getting sense is effectively zero.
Reasoning from these and other mathematical probability calculations, we can conclude that, without God the Creator, life's probability is zero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

following taken from nodnc.com:

---

I stopped reading there. What a joke that website is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

Perhaps it's how you interpret the evidence. I think that there is a tremendous amount more evidence for an intelligent design to the universerse rather than complete random chance.

---

Well what is some of this evidence for intelligent design?

And that's how you believe evolution works? Just random chance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

Well what is some of this evidence for intelligent design?

And that's how you believe evolution works? Just random chance?

---

Before we get in to the pros and cons of the theory read here that first tells you what it is and what it is not:
Intelligent Design

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

Reasoning from these and other mathematical probability calculations, we can conclude that, without God the Creator, life's probability is zero.

---

Pretty funny.

Don't know why you're switching to Abiogenesis now but ok.

But where is there evidence that god did it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

The probability of getting sense is effectively zero.
Reasoning from these and other mathematical probability calculations, we can conclude that, without God the Creator, life's probability is zero.

---

The amount of life on earth compared to the rest of the known universe is, as you say, "effectively zero," but it still exists. If you compare intelligent life on earth to all other life forms that have ever existed on earth, the number is also "effectively zero." My point is that when dealing with thing on the scale of the universe, the numbers are far beyond normal human understanding. Mathematical probability as it relates to our normal life just doesn't relate to the cosmic level.

Also, there is no evidence for god, yet there are mountains of evidence for evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

Pretty funny.

Don't know why you're switching to Abiogenesis now but ok.

But where is there evidence that god did it?

---

that was a point that I made in my original post that you don't have to believe in god to believe that where there's a design there's always a designer. that simple. And that is where religion picks up to decide who or what created or guided evolition

think of it this way....let's say we discovered a running fully functional Boeing 747 in the junkyard. Is it possible that a tornado blew all the parts together...sure....but what is more probable...that someone with intelligence designed and built it.

now religion tries to discover who was the designer of the Boeing. Anyone disagree that life is incalculably more complex and fine tuned than an airplane? It would then stand to reason that the builder would need to have far greater intelligence and skill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

now religion tries to discover who was the designer of the Boeing.

---

So you're saying that god can just always be, but that life cannot form spontaneously? If you're saying that because something exists that means something else had to create it, then why would a god be any different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by commiecat

So you're saying that god can just always be, but that life cannot form spontaneously? If you're saying that because something exists that means something else had to create it, then why would a god be any different?

---

not if this "god" created time as we know it to begin with. But again...this lies in a Religious conversation about the nature and probability of a "god" and can we know this being. You can believe as you like whether the origins came from ET or god or whatever....what I was trying to convey is that regardless of discussions around a god it seems that an intelligent designer is highly more probable than random chance blowing together a Boeing 747.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

not if this "god" created time as we know it to begin with. But again...this lies in a Religious conversation about the nature and probability of a "god" and can we know this being. You can believe as you like whether the origins came from ET or god or whatever....what I was trying to convey is that regardless of discussions around a god it seems that an intelligent designer is highly more probable than random chance blowing together a Boeing 747.

---

Random chance blew together atoms. Billions of years of evolution brought us to the Boeing bit. God also needed to be created by your watchmaker logic, and at some point you need to admit that things just happened by random chance.

The long-gone point of this thread is that the myth of creationism, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, does not belong in our schools under the arm of "science".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

that was a point that I made in my original post that you don't have to believe in god to believe that where there's a design there's always a designer. that simple. And that is where religion picks up to decide who or what created or guided evolition

---

That's begging the question. There is no evidence of a designer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

think of it this way....let's say we discovered a running fully functional Boeing 747 in the junkyard. Is it possible that a tornado blew all the parts together...sure....but what is more probable...that someone with intelligence designed and built it.

---

That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't work that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

now religion tries to discover who was the designer of the Boeing. Anyone disagree that life is incalculably more complex and fine tuned than an airplane? It would then stand to reason that the builder would need to have far greater intelligence and skill.

---

Not when you have evolution. No designer is needed. A natural process explains it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

That's begging the question. There is no evidence of a designer.



That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't work that way.



Not when you have evolution. No designer is needed. A natural process explains it.

---

Natural processes explain rock formations but do not explain Mount Rushmore.

My question to you guys is if you landed on Mars and found Mount Rushmore....how would you decide if it was due to natural erosion or blasted out by someone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

No question that there are some outlandish belief systems...but which is more probable...following taken from nodnc.com:
....

---

Very well, I read that. Apparently you can't count, but you can 'puke' (your own choice of words).
Incidentally I am not impressed by zeroese, since the author either doesn't understand how, or doesn't want to include the lapse of time, or why not time-space. After all we're talking about evolution, which is a process (i.e. there are at least two variables) and all that big copy&paste contains is a single variable.

BTW if that was in fact an attempt to meet my challenge, you did miss the second part - numbers about the probability of 'intelligent design'. As, I said it's all just counting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

Natural processes explain rock formations but do not explain Mount Rushmore.

---

What about the Jesus toast - is that explained by natural or unnatural processes?