Creation of Adam
Related Articles
-
What the Christian must do when the Bible and science do not agree
-
My theory doesn't agree with your theory so yours must be wrong
-
A Creator - satisfaction comes intellectually, scientifically, philosophically and spiritually
-
No more sweeping statements by scientists on the origin of life ...
A picture, or in this case a cartoon says a 1,000 words. Or is it a thousand thousand thousand....words?
From Answers in Genesis.
Spot on!
The evolutionist will hang on to any thread of hope that their theory might be right. Sounds a whole lot like a leap of faith to me.
See:You can teach evolution, but you can't make folk believe it
& You can teach evolution, but you can't make folk believe it - part 2.
Comments
Spot on! Very good!
Wow...you really don't understand this whole probability thing do you Bill (and Rebecca). I love how deep you've dug yourself these past months - why argue with you when your science illiteracy is self-evident? ]
Rebecca, the Catholic Church is quite comfortable with and accepts evolution. However, let me provide you with His Holiness's address so he can correct the matter.
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
00120 Via del Pellegrino
Citta del Vaticano
I'm eager to hear his reply, please let us know how it goes.
Yes the problem is that number is completely meaningless and just plain nonsensical.
@Diochs - the pope has been wrong before.
As to the number being meaningless and non-sensical, the odds of the 60,000 proteins self-assembling into the nearly 100 compounds necessary for a single cell organism to live (assuming they all somehow found each other all at the same time, in the right proportions) is 1 in 10-"to the 4,478,296th power". Any chance less than 1 in 10 "to the 150th power" is considered scientifically impossible. This doesn't even include the odds for all of the other parts necessary to form a living cell. So how is it believing in evolution is any less nonsensical and meaningless.
As for the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church - the seeming religious leaders of our day; there was another group of religious leaders called the Sanhedrin that doubted Jesus, and crucified Him because He challenged there acceptance of mans rules and standards instead believing God's Word. The Pope is a man, as well as the Cardinals who lead the Vatican; They are NOT God. Jesus, the Word made flesh was in the beginnin
Yeah Jim you just showed why the numbers are gibberish. Could you point to one scientific paper that says it 'just happened' at random?
Oh that's right, I forgot, you don't do science papers.
So what happened to all your comments? I see that they all seem to have been magically deleted.
@Mike [November 1, 5:34 PM] - Of course the Pope can be wrong, and to my mind, frequently is. However, as an institutional whole, the Catholic church accepts evolution. I was merely inviting Rebecca to take this opportunity to correct her church's stance by appealing to the top man himself. FYI, I personally do not believe the origins of species to be a soteriological issue for Catholics or Protestants (regardless of how Bill attempts to force an unwarranted dichotomy).
@Jim Pappas [November 1, 6:17 PM] Thank you for taking the time to personally illustrate the near uselessness of evoking probability arguments against evolution without the necessary information needed to evaluate said claims. You're merely throwing out a number without any data to model the behavior of cellular biology (while simultaneously implying a conclusion not substantiated by your statements).
Those proteins do not spontaneously emerge, rendering your probability argument moot.
Hee hee! I just visited Jim Pappas Examiner's page and skimmed a couple of articles :-)
The good: He, or rather, those who write the articles he posts, attempt to actually construct arguments (instead of merely posting naked assertions).
The bad: The science is frequently misrepresented, and it seems unlikely the Examiner himself has better than a superficial understanding of the topics discussed.
Perhaps next weekend, if Pappas is still around, the discussion can continue.
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
This isn't intended with hostility, but well-meaning sarcasm: According to all measurable knowledge, the probability of life being created by God is exactly 0.
That's worth considering, too. It's like saying the man next door's car only has 60 horsepower, when you've been driving a go-kart with a leaf-blower engine in it.
It doesn't matter how small the probability of evolution you calculate is, it remains larger (technically, it's infinitely larger) than the probability of creationism is.
I would say that yes, the chances of a human instantaneously forming is probably that high, but what is the chance that you get a mutation that is favorable? Given that there are billions of organisms is almost certain to happen.
The probability argument is a ridiculous one for several reasons. No one who makes that argument is ever looking at real statistics, but made up ones where they ignore things like conditional probability or the chance that small improbable events might accumulate over time.
They are exactly the kinds of people who put mothers in jail because two of their children died of sudden infant death syndrome. The chances of a child dying that way in the UK are 1 in 7,500, so two must be 1 in (7,500*7,500) - ignoring the fact that both children had similar genetics, the same parents, similar settings (house, air quality, cradle, food etc... etc...)
As I said - ridiculous, but also ignorant.
You have made the creationists' point. The proteins do not just randomly merge because it is impossible for them to randomly merge, they must be purposely assembled; hence, God created life and the universe life dwells in just as He said, the way He said.
@Jim Pappas [November 2, 7:10 PM]
1. Jim: Argument against evolution invoking probability.
2. It was noted out that it wasn't a problem of probability.
3. Jim: Misses the point, assumes purpose, and invokes God.
Heh...I'm quite comfortable leaving the dialogue how it stands if you are :-).
I find it fascinating that Jim, who never takes on those of us, like me, who daily take his arguments apart like a child's puzzle suddenly pops up here to repeat silly attempts at argument.
The numbers are, indeed, baseless and ridiculous, and Jim's attempt to restate it is no better. It presents an attempt to calculate odds of a model no one presents. To understand the model which is presented requires study and understanding. From reading your articles for many weeks its evident that you don't have a clue about the science you're referencing, nor the model it represents.
I guess the same has to be said of Bill who also dredges up failed ex-scientists whose minds collapsed in the face of religious emotion.
Diochs, I've been following Jim's articles for some time. They tend to be at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of sophistication. Many focus on straw men arguments (like these statistical follies) and others on elementary errors in logic. Read the latest on presupposition.
I see! I just noticed that Jim has resorted to the time tested examiner perogative of deleting all comments. All my nice refutations of nonsense gone.
I guess a lot of examiners can't stand the heat. I get that a lot. Jake the Evangelical examiner automatically deletes my posts ever since I caught him publishing falsehoods, in particular about mercury compounds. He didn't understand the difference between methyl mercury (dangerous) and ethyl mercury (not so much). I pointed out that methyl alcohol is poisonous but ethyl alcohol is traditional for holidays (as in bourbon). Oh well.
I guess some would prefer publishing nonsense and lies rather than going for some semblance of truth.
Hahah yeah I just saw that Jim comments had all mysteriously disappeared *again*.
Hah Run and hide Jim. That's all he can do.
A while ago you were lamenting that people can't disagree with each other without being bitter and hostile.
Now you're back to insulting and mocking people because their different views make them stupid and inferior.
Why not discuss God's love instead of man's contempt?
In fact Jim is being mocked because of his cowardice. He regularly posts or copies articles from creationists and NEVER defends their views directly in writing. When I've shown his arguments to be illogical he's usually just gone on to post another article with more nonsense.
I never comment on his religious posts, only his erroneous science and philosophy arguments. But I guess his ego couldn't deal with it so he deleted them. Its his only weapon. He can't use thought or argument so he just deletes.
The problem with arguments that attempt to use probability to DISPOVE the Theory of Evolution is that more often than not, the people making those arguments know very little about theoretical probability models. In fact, exteme probabilities are rather likely to occur, if the system in which you look for them is large enough, and the Universe is pretty darn large now, isn't it?
As for Jim's assertion that, "proteins do not just randomly merge because it is impossible for them to randomly merge," I would suggest that he needs to do a little more research. In fact, it has been proved that inorganic compounds can and organize themselves into organic compounds (c.f. the Miller-Urey Experiment), and in fact the "spontaneous assembly" (look it up) of proteins is well-documented in the extant scientific literature.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!