Evolution vs Religion article: What do YOU think?

[Venom]

Hi Rockyorz,

As Adam said, if you look at it, there are two options to how life came to be—either it was created, or it came from absolutely nothing by random chance. Any other scenario is an offshoot; you will hear people make up other stories such as panspermia, which states that we came from aliens on another planet. But that is simply a transfer of the problem. The aliens still had to be created or descended from a life form that came from dead matter. Therefore, disproving one of these options proves the other.

An important discussion is the laws of thermodynamics.

Interestingly enough, the Bible summarizes thermodynamic laws 2 millennia ago, through apostle Paul as follows

Hebrews 1:10-12
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

The Universe is decaying (entropy is increasing to a maximum) on a daily basis. Incidentally, this fact demolishes the religion of evolutionism.

The law of cause and effect states that every effect, must have had a cause. And the definition for cause here is, the chief agent causing something to be made. So if one were to punch a dent into a wall, the cause would be the participant’s fist, the effect was the dent in the wall. To state that a dent came about without a cause would be to go against all logic. Professor W.T. Stace (1934) in his, A Critical History of Greek Philosophy, states:

Every student of logic knows that this is the ultimate canon of the sciences, the foundation of them all. If we did not believe the truth of causation, namely, everything which has a beginning has a cause, and that in the same circumstances the same things invariably happen, all the sciences would at once crumble to dust. In every scientific investigation this truth is assumed (1934, p. 6).

Therefore, if it can be shown that the universe had a beginning; it must have had a cause (creator). The first two laws of thermodynamics state:

• 1st Law: Matter is neither created nor destroyed. Therefore the total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

• 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy. Therefore, the Universe had to have had a beginning.

• Everything which has a beginning has a cause.

• The universe had a beginning.

• Therefore the universe had a cause

Further Einstein’s general relativity, shows that time is linked to matter and space. Therefore time itself would have begun along with matter and space. The Bible discusses both the cause of the Universe, and the origin of time, space and matter:

Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth
(matter).

If the Universe Had to Be created, then Who Created God?

This falsely applies the law of cause and effect to that which is not an effect. God did not have a beginning and therefore is not subject to the need for a cause.

God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.

Psalms 90:1-2
1 Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. 2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Psalms 93:1-2
1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved. 2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.

Isaiah 9:6
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Micah 5:1-2
1 Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. 2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting


Hebrews 7:1-3
1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Two terms that need to be understand are biogenesis and abiogenesis.

Biogenesis
The theory that living things can be produced only by other living things.

Abiogenesis (Spontaneous generation)
The supposed transformation of inanimate matter into living matter; also know as spontaneous generation

Spontaneous generation has never been observed. This has been seen so consistently that it is called the law of biogenesis, which states life comes only from life, a fundamental law of biology. Creative manipulation by intelligent beings would obviously not count.

This law was developed by Louis Agassiz, and Louis Pasteur in the 19th century, yet science text books today still state that abiogenesis happened. Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, who has a PHD in physical chemistry states:

“So far, there has not been a single observed exception to the Law of Biogenesis, so it truly stands as a scientific law. Nevertheless, billions of schoolchildren who are taught this law are also taught that 'once upon a time, perhaps in a galaxy far, far away', there was an exception, and possibly many more.”

Now, I know it takes the school books a while to get up to date. But I think 3 hundred years is long enough to correct this error.

Here are some professional opinions on the origin of life. Professor Dr. Klaus in “The Origin of Life; More Questions than Answers” states:


p. 348
" More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

Simply put, to believe, in abiogenesis goes against all logic and scientific support. To conclude, here is a quote from Wald, George, in The Physics and Chemistry of Life:

" One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."

Another topic is the popular Stanely Millar experiment. But this again supports the law of biogenesis!

1953 experiment carried out by Miller and Urey. These scientists attempted to approximate conditions of the early atmosphere, and tried to create life by zapping a mixture containing water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen with electrical sparks. But this was done in the absence of oxygen, which is not an accurate depiction of the early earth atmosphere. The evidence points to it in fact being rich in oxygen. However, if he were to have included it, he knew it would destroy any amino acids formed. So right from the start, his experiment was inaccurate. Now to avoid any products formed from being destroyed by the lighting, he put a trap at the bottom of the flask. He ended up producing two amino acids, and the rest of the products were all toxic to life, such as Tar.

This is from life, and in unrealistic environments. The gases were the wrong type to have existed on Earth, the energy sources would have destroyed most of the product, and what was left would have been very dilute and contaminated. When I say dilute, I am referring to a mixture of right handed and left handed amino acids. All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’. A mixture would not be able to support life, in order for this to work, he would need just left, and just right handed amino acids.

Evolutionist Robert Shapiro stated regarding the products of the Miller-Urey experiment: “Let us sum up. The experiment performed by Miller yielded tar as its most abundant product. There are about fifty small organic compounds that are called ‘building blocks.’ Only two of these fifty occurred among the preferential Miller-Urey products” (1986, p. 105).

Scientific America, one of the most evolutionary based journals in the world did a piece on Miller and his thoughts on the state of spontaneous generation.

"None of these approaches has gained enough support to qualify as a new paradigm. That bothers Miller who is known as both a rigorous experimentalist and a bit of a curmudgeon. Some theories, he asserts, do not merit serious attention.

Such work, he grumbles, perpetuates the reputation of the origin-of-life field as being on the fringe of science and not worthy of serious pursuit.'


Now, even though life has never been created in a lab, what would creating life in a lab prove?



Creating life in a lab would support one thing—it takes intelligence to make life. The cartoon above displays this, you have hundreds of the smartest scientists in the entire world, with billions of dollors of equipment trying to make life. And saying this proves it would take no intelligence for life to form in the beginning. That is absurd logic. This means that because we can create cars artificially (with loads of intelligent input!), it proves they could emerge naturally (without intelligence!)? No way, making life in a lab proves nothing except that it takes intelligence to make life, further supporting the law of biogenesis.


Next, if there were a creator, then we should be able to see him in the creation. And we can! Check out the bible studies for tons of examples. This study by Joe was awesome, here

I hope that helped! [img]/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Adam Knowlden]

[ QUOTE ]
The easiest way to look at it is with cards. Say you have a 5% chance of getting a card you need. Well if you look at it as if you have 20 hands to get it in, you SHOULD get it. But if you look at it hand, by hand, that's not necessarily true. If you miss it after 1 shot, you lost that one and it doesn't make it more likely for you next time to get it. However if you DO look at it over 20 hands, you should get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Rocky, again the reese's cup brings you grace. [img]/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I was just being a finicky technical fool OS because #1 involves #2, and not having #1, yet still having #2 is still a possibility...in the way that the other way of saying it, says it).

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain in more detail please?

My main point is just that probability can not defy a scientific law.

Take for example the law of conservation of mass. Can time disanull the law? No. That is the issue. Can adding lots of time eradicate the law of biogenesis? How can a probablily increase if there is way for an event to occur?

That is like me saying, if I stand here for billions of years eventually the law of gravity will not apply to me and I will be able to fly.

How does time increase probability of a occurance that can not exist?

The issue is not truely probablily, because there is absolutely no probablility that sponteanous generation occured (10 the 600th power if you are factoring in just the liklihood of DNA sequencing, not to mention the protein coding that self repairs the DNA, RNA and RNAi), nor is there any science to even call it a theory.

Its a faith based religion.

[Awesome]

Please do note: I tried to choose my diction and even sentence order so as to not upset anyone at all, and to keep this as nice as possible. I do not wish to see mods upset at myself, nor myself upset with mods. As of right now, this is the case (as in not upset one bit).

Anyways, to continue:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The easiest way to look at it is with cards. Say you have a 5% chance of getting a card you need. Well if you look at it as if you have 20 hands to get it in, you SHOULD get it. But if you look at it hand, by hand, that's not necessarily true. If you miss it after 1 shot, you lost that one and it doesn't make it more likely for you next time to get it. However if you DO look at it over 20 hands, you should get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Rocky, again the reese's cup brings you grace. [img]/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]


[/ QUOTE ]

There's nothing wrong with that statement. If you have a 1/6 chance of something happening, theoretically, it should happen in one of six tries. The more time/chances you have, the more likely it is to happen.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I was just being a finicky technical fool OS because #1 involves #2, and not having #1, yet still having #2 is still a possibility...in the way that the other way of saying it, says it).

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain in more detail please?


[/ QUOTE ]

All I meant with that whole ordeal is simply that the two options should be stated, just like you said as supernatural, or natural, rather than life created itself, life was created.

[ QUOTE ]

My main point is just that probability can not defy a scientific law.

Take for example the law of conservation of mass. Can time disanull the law? No. That is the issue. Can adding lots of time eradicate the law of biogenesis? How can a probablily increase if there is way for an event to occur?

That is like me saying, if I stand here for billions of years eventually the law of gravity will not apply to me and I will be able to fly.

How does time increase probability of a occurance that can not exist?

The issue is not truely probablily, because there is absolutely no probablility that sponteanous generation occured (10 the 600th power if you are factoring in just the liklihood of DNA sequencing, not to mention the protein coding that self repairs the DNA, RNA and RNAi), nor is there any science to even call it a theory.

Its a faith based religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This certainly goes along with what I've been saying:

[ QUOTE ]

However what we have supposably 'grown' into today from what scientists say, is beyond odds and probabilities...which means I do infact agree with you on times ability to allow for the creation of humans, but I do disagree with ABC's view of time to allow for the unlikely to become likely...so just like I said at the beginning...I'm just be finnicky.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess when I said 'beyond odds and probabilities' I used them too loosely to match what I meant. In anycase, right after it I said '...which means I do infact agree with you on times ability to allow for the creation of man' Meaning I do agree with you that time is not a factor.

[ QUOTE ]

Given so much time,
the "impossible" becomes possible,
The possible probable,
And the probable virtually certain,
One only has to wait:
Time itself performs the miracles."
(Wald, G. (1954), Scientific American)


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't feel like checking, but I remember the quote you gave me earlier was by a guy with a name like Wald G....anyways, that doesn't matter. His statement is correct, as long as I'm understanding that his usage of quotes around "impossible" means the EXTREMELY VERY MUCH OH MY WORD SO VERY VERY unprobable anything (I suppose it could be a reference to evolution, which would also make sense, if so, then forget this partly). Time does allow for unlikely events to occur. It's fact. That's all I was saying.

BUT. If there is any single, one in a number-bigger-than-you-or-i-or-anyone-else-on-abc-has-ever-heard-of chance of something happening. Then it's still possible it will happen...and to look at it in a weird way, in another amount of time, it would be LIKELY for it to happen, many, many times. The scientists believe that there is a chance for it to happen, which means they need time on their side. Less time means their theory is less likely to be correct. However, ABC's stance is that it is not possible, which means that it doesn't matter how long it has to happen, it simply won't happen.

The thing that has me confused, is that ABC mods seem so sure that it is actually IMPOSSIBLE, despite time, for it to happen. Yet other scientists see it as a possibility(such an infinitely small one for as to taken blah blah blah number of years). If evolutionists can even FEEL, that there is a chance of this, why can't the ABC mods? If ABC mods can be 100% sure that its impossible, why can't evolutionists?

You guys KNOW for a fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE for evolution to have occured. Evolutionistic scientists feel there IS a possiblity for it to have occured.

The fact that neither side can convince the other side (both scientists, both looking for straight FACTS) one way or the other...leaves an assumer to assume that it is possible. If it IS so impossible, then it would have been given up on. If it IS possible in the least, then they'd need time. Which is what they've given themselves with the big-bang, and the old universe theories...

If you need me to clear up anything, just ask, I don't wish to get into a debate simply because of miscommunication (which it initially was...now I'm interested in something else).

[Venom]

Hey, Rockyz0rz

Real quickly..

[ QUOTE ]

Please do note: I tried to choose my diction and even sentence order so as to not upset anyone at all, and to keep this as nice as possible. I do not wish to see mods upset at myself, nor myself upset with mods. As of right now, this is the case (as in not upset one bit).

[/ QUOTE ]

We are not upset one bit. Your posts are great. Please do not feel any tension posting or worry about us getting upset at you or anyone in this thread. We are just having a discussion among ourselves. [img]/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Awesome]

[ QUOTE ]
This study by Joe was awesome, here

I hope that helped! [img]/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read that before! Very interesting stuff! [img]/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Awesome]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, Rockyz0rz

Real quickly..

[ QUOTE ]

Please do note: I tried to choose my diction and even sentence order so as to not upset anyone at all, and to keep this as nice as possible. I do not wish to see mods upset at myself, nor myself upset with mods. As of right now, this is the case (as in not upset one bit).

[/ QUOTE ]

We are not upset one bit. Your posts are great. Please do not feel any tension posting or worry about us getting upset at you or anyone in this thread. We are just having a discussion among ourselves. [img]/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. [img]/forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

And I hate to make another post to respond to without having given enough time to you to respond to the other one...but this one really sums up what I'm thinking right now:

Do you believe/know that evolution is impossible just because of the insane improbability of it(..continue to read![img]/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]), or because you believe/know it is impossible.

If you can know it is impossible for certain...why can't it be proven to these evolutionists?

edit: Especially after reading this quote from you:

[ QUOTE ]

As creationists, we insist that we cannot scientifically prove creation or disprove evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

edit2: Don't respond to this...your next post did, hope this is edited in time.

[Venom]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys KNOW for a fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE for evolution to have occured. Evolutionistic scientists feel there IS a possiblity for it to have occured.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I am reading what you said right, your point is that we are too dogmatic on our view on evolution, in that you think we believe there is no chance that it occurred?

That is not true. We are not saying there is no chance. In science, you don’t prove anything—you see what the evidence suggests. This especially holds true for origin science, which is why we always say it is inherently religious. Both believing in evolution and God takes faith, in fact, it is impossible to please God without faith!

What we are saying is that the evidence strongly suggests that evolution did not occur, and that rather, the bible is true.


[ QUOTE ]
If it IS possible in the least, then they'd need time. Which is what they've given themselves with the big-bang, and the old universe theories...

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have to disagree. Time is not a magic formula. The probability of goo turning into you by way of the zoo is not going to just increase with time.

[Venom]

You edited in time lol. One comment, though.

[ QUOTE ]
If you can know it is impossible for certain...why can't it be proven to these evolutionists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, first, for many of them it is their religion, and a way to escape from God and follow after their lusts. I am not trying to be harsh here; it is the truth which many have flat out stated. Read this thread, Evolution is a religion of blind faith.

Second, paradigms die hard. Read the current issue of JHR. If you look, people like Henry and Battig were persecuted in their day for their radical suggestions. Yet, they were correct. To change a paradigm takes a lot of time and hard-work.

I would also highly recommend you read about Galileo here, http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/sho...true#Post598551

[Adam Knowlden]

Yes we're just discussing Rocky, I'm not upset about anything. [img]/forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] I value your opinion. [img]/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
All I meant with that whole ordeal is simply that the two options should be stated, just like you said as supernatural, or natural, rather than life created itself, life was created.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was just trying to break it down into simple terms. I see your point, ok, I will be more technical from now on.

[ QUOTE ]
Time does allow for unlikely events to occur. It's fact. That's all I was saying.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we can narrow this down a bit.

Time allows for unlikely events to occur I agree. The implied truth of that statement is that an event can physically occur to being with.

Probablily is the the quality or condition of being probable. We know abiogenesis is not probable at all:

[ QUOTE ]
As Coppedge (1973) notes, even 1) postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary for life, 2) speeding up the bonding rate so as to form different chemical combinations a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3) allowing for a 4.6 billion- year-old earth and 4) using all atoms on the earth still leaves the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10,261. Using the lowest estimate made before the discoveries of the past two decades raised the number several fold. Coppedge estimates the probability of 1 in 10119,879 is necessary to obtain the minimum set of the required estimate of 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life form.

At this rate he estimates it would require 10119,831 years on the average to obtain a set of these proteins by naturalistic evolution (1973, pp. 110, 114). The number he obtained is 10119,831 greater than the current estimate for the age of the earth (4.6 billion years). In other words, this event is outside the range of probability. Natural selection cannot occur until an organism exists and is able to reproduce which requires that the first complex life form first exist as a functioning unit.

In spite of the overwhelming empirical and probabilistic evidence that life could not originate by natural processes, evolutionists possess an unwavering belief that some day they will have an answer to how life could spontaneously generate.


[/ QUOTE ]

THe type of probability you are defining is Aleatory probability. Which is the likelihood of future events whose occurrence is governed by some random physical phenomenon.

What we are discussing is epistemic probability, which represents our uncertainty about propositions when one lacks complete knowledge of causative circumstances.

Such propositions may be about past or future events. Some examples of epistemic probability are to assign a probability to the proposition that a proposed law of physics is true, and to determine how "probable" it is that a suspect committed a crime, based on the evidence presented.

For example, abiogenesis requires that the first life forms consisted of free-living autotrophs since the complex life forms needed to sustain heterotrophs did not exist until later.

Unless one postulates the unlikely scenario of the simultaneous spontaneous generation of many different organisms, one has to demonstrate the evolution of an organism that can survive on its own, or with others like itself, as a symbiont or cannibal.

This is but one factor, so indeed spontaneous generation not only has to deal with the probability of occuring once but an entire host of "just so" circumstances.

This is not simple Aleatory probability. This is why I'm not finding the card example really that comparable. Does what I'm saying help? [img]/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
The simplest form of life requires millions of parts at the atomic level, and the higher life forms require trillions. Furthermore, the many macromolecules necessary for life are constructed of even smaller parts called elements. That life requires a certain minimum number of parts is well documented; the only debate now is how many millions of functionally integrated parts are necessary. The minimum number may not produce an organism that can survive long enough to effectively reproduce. Schopf notes that simple life without complex repair systems to fix damaged genes and their protein products stand little chance of surviving. When a mutation occurs

cells like those of humans with two copies of each gene can often get by with one healthy version. But a mutation can be deadly if it occurs in an organism with only a single copy of its genes, like many primitive forms of life.... (Schopf, 1999, p. 102)
Therefore, the answer to our original question, “What is the smallest form of nonparasitic life?” probably is an organism close to size and complexity of E. Coli, possibly even larger. No answer is currently possible because we have much to learn about what is required for life. As researchers discover new exotic “life” forms thriving in rocks, ice, acid, boiling water and other extreme environments, they are finding the biological world to be much more complex than assumed merely a decade ago. The oceans now are known to be teeming with microscopic cells which form the base of the food chain on which fish and other larger animals depend. It now is estimated that small, free-living aquatic bacteria make up about one-half of the entire biomass of the oceans (MacAyeal, 1995).



[/ QUOTE ]

[Awesome]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it IS possible in the least, then they'd need time. Which is what they've given themselves with the big-bang, and the old universe theories...

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have to disagree. Time is not a magic formula. The probability of goo turning into you by way of the zoo is not going to just increase with time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, now. You just said it was possible. ANY possibility, becomes more likely to happen if you're looking at it over a long and longer scale.

The dice analogy works somewhat well. If you have a regular 6 sided dice. The odds of rolling a 6 10000 times in a row are 1/(6^(10000)). Which means that, theoretically, if you roll a dice 3.254646585493662058831844291325*10^(7781) times...you should have this happen one time in all of that rolling.

That example is just meant to show how no matter HOW unlikely, something is to occur, it should occur in a long enough period of time.

Fact of the matter is, time does allow for unlikely events, to become likely. It's a dangerous way to say it. Because like I said earlier, if you flip a fair coin 12 times, and it's heads every time...it's still 50/50 that it'll be tails next time. I'm not saying that as time passes, it becomes more likely, but rather that looking over an amount of time to come, it's chances are more likely.

If you look for a heads flip in 1 flip, you have a 50% chance. If you increase the number of flips you're willing to give it, your chances go up of getting (at least) one at the end (not on a single one, but rather just on any one (or more) of the multiple flips).



This shouldn't have taken so long to type up...there was lots of paragraphs that I felt were'nt working and deleted then came up with new stuff for...so that's why it took so long.