I still believe the position of Evolution and the position of some Monotheistic religions do not contradict each other at all. Evolution is a theory accepted as highly likely truth due to the great amount of evidence behind it. If not the original theory, then one of the branch theories gradually developing is highly likely and continually being worked on. We don't have all the information. How does it contradict the possibility of a God created universe?

Just because God created us without giving each and everyone a full picture from the start, with all the understanding of the inner workings of all of creation does not mean our consequent discovery of those workings negates his existence. That's just ridiculous.

I have to agree with this statement.

The truth is that even if this world was 100% random, and there were 10^500^500 universes, it still would not give argument or evidence to/of the divine. They are separate questions entirely.

this is all wonderful, please give source.

name of the book would be appreciated as i can use google :3

if it was a scientific book it should be easily accessible, if it was opinion then i can easily find some works of fiction... (OH SNAP) i just want to see the logic and thought process at determining a number such as 10^700.

1953? you are quoting science from 1953? for the past 10 years the amount of information in the sector of biology has doubled every year. and you quote something more then 50 years old? anyways, i wont discount it until i have had a proper look at it. does this experiment have a name or a reference? once again google will get me the sources you wont provide.



hmmm so the big bang didnt happen? the expansion of our universe from a singularity couldnt happen because before the expansion there was no time therefore no possible choices could be made

and what say you to random choices leading to a random event?
ie. not picking lottery numbers based on superstition by by a random number generator.


curiousity compels me. you are definately not atheist. agnostic? creationist? you generally need a purpose to strike out at scientifically accepted evolution in favor of ID/IC.

CURIOUSITYFULNESS!

the 1953 experiment was discovered in 2008 in some old shoe box or something. It's called the 1953 experiment.

I'm not denying evolution, I'm denying that it's done by pure random numbers.

re the lottery... I'm not sure about where you are, but in California the megalottery IS done by randomly generated numbers, you aren't allowed to pick your own. However, because of the rules, the specific order in which the numbers are picked don't matter, save the last one. (a choice) This limits the randomness and probability dramatically. If the order of the number mattered, and they replaced each ball back in the bucket, nobody would ever win the lottery. So with the current rules, the possible combinatons are 1 in 175,711,536 instead of 1 in 2,763,633,600 (if the order mattered) or 1 in 678,223,072,849 if they replaced each ball. Which means 678 billion tickets would need to be sold before somebody won the lottery. (unless someone was cheating)

The last time the lottery was won, the value was 223M, since the lottery starts at 12 million, and the minimum the state takes is $0.50 (some take up to $0.70) that means that 422,000,000 tickets (at a minimum) were bought. Notice how the number of attempts tried is greater than the number of combinations possible.

Again the number 10^700 comes from multiplying 26 X 26 ... 500 times. I'm not sure what sort of source you want on it.

I did a search for the author to see if he made any internet articles, and I found this for you.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/Evolution.aspx

Btw, this statement is nonsense.

Firstly, there is nothing scientifically accepted regarding random chance. If anything, what I was taught in science is that randomness is an indication of entropy, not order. Secondly, I think it takes a lot of brainwashing to convince someone that the factory that is a single cell is some sort of random process. If anything, we should be learning how to write computer programs that are as efficient and well abstracted and compartmentalized as cell biology. (I wish I could program so good!)

On the contrary, I think you have to be a hard core atheist to believe that randomness has any part to play in the basic functioning of our universe. As Einstein said, "god does not play dice"

I will agree that things can be arbitrary, but certainly not randomness as understood by mathematical statistics. You've got to have some deep faith and superstition to believe that nonsense.

It seems to me, like you Christians have such a fight going on amongst yourselves, that you are afraid to give each other any inch of possible room to argue with. Choice? Information? Can't be... why that might mean that Christians have a point! Well no, it doesn't mean that at all, it just means that information is a key component of our universe.

Well I gotta question both the bible and the evolution theory. We sure werent created by a man who created the universe( How many people believe that?) but we were not created by some micro organism about 1 billion years ago. Why you may ask?
Look at it this way> The theory of evolution has 3 small problems in it. The first problem is that when scientists say the first micro organism showed up the oceans were iron rich and the atmosphere of the planet had not developed then. The problem there is that if the seas were iron rich and no atmosphere then the temperature of the oceans would be a little under 125 degrees celsius. The second problem is that all the things a life form would require to suvive would be missing> Oxygen, Food, etc. The final problem is that no creature could survive because of the lingering radiation still in the water. So I gotta question the bible and the Evolution theory.


For all we know we could be aliens. Who knows?

Firstly, which bible says that the universe was created by a man?

Secondly, I think your timeline for what scientists claim is a bit off. I'm pretty sure there is a 1 million year gap between the formation of the atmosphere and the emergence of life. (It used to be a 3 billion year gap, but that was disprove some time ago)

unaerobic archae bacterium is common, even today. OXYGEN KILLS. it is corrosive and it eats metal. :3 almost more dangerous then DHMO!!

both scientific theories relating to abiogenesis is that the atmosphere was severely depleted in O2 and O3. and you are also assuming the lifeform would eat/photosynthesis. after a couple billion years of non stop chemical reactions with organic compounds any early organism can synthesis all the amino acids and proteins that dont result in life. in short. the second it could replicate was the second it could harvest everything else.
the first life DID not contain DNA. the first life did contain RNA. the 2 theories of iron sulphur and RNA world both state that life formed when there was no O2/O3 in the atmosphere, this allowed for amino acids to form more readily rather then get broken down by Mr Reactive O2/O3


name of BOOK?!?!?!
what part of source dont you understand, especially if i find a fact of yours completely wrong you need to back it up. there are 20 general basic amino acids to life, 22 amino acids that CAN be used in life. you cant tell me which one the book says.

next, it does not count in catalysts/mediums like temperature that greatly cut down possible sequences as not all proteins can be formed in the same environment.


see this, here he is aiming to work the reader into a fervor. the actual number is incredibly lower. the number of genes in mammals differ significantly... humans DO have roughly 30 000. it then assumes no protein can be used again. which is outlandish and stupid and only serves to get a bigger number.
the rest is B.S. slathered all over whoever has to read it.

page 3 is nonsense with some sense thrown in to throw readers off...

and to the 4th page... there is this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... e_size.svg
oh and the fact that he mentioned micro evolution is further evidence that he has no clue. the cambrian evolution was random? lul what? there is no "random" with natural selection. genetic complexities allowed organisms to explore different niches and adapt to that niche.


it is this ignorance that makes me want to facepalm. where did the eye first come about?
not all species use the same eye

they have different genes, but more importantly, different eyes depending on how they use them.
oh what the heck. *facepalm*

in short. give me something better, anything better, interview the hobo on the street for an opinion.


1. did not answer the question. (assuming agnostic.)
2. spontaneous randomisity? find a snow flake. look at its shape and patterns. how many snow flakes have fallen upon the earth? how many a similiar? therefore it is statistically impossible for that SNOW FLAKE with THOSE PATTERNS to have formed. THEREFORE IT COULDNT HAVE FORMED AND DOESNT EXIST.
same goes for fingerprints. MY FINGERPRINTS DONT EXIST!!!

a cell is not a random process, now you are just like the guy you are reading from. you mingle fact and fiction. a cell is the result of hundreds of millions of years of natural selection.

no one. NO ONE EVER. apart from you. HAS EVER. ASSUMED. THAT. THE CELL WAS THE FIRST KIND OF LIVING ORGANISM.
first living organism for a case, with something inside like enzymes and some replicating awesomeness. these enzymes synthesize the masses of monomers that had taken billions of years to form. the synthesized monomers become polymer amino acids. these became more protein which became another organism.

lastly. to make sure no one gets confused. we are arguing abiogenesis, not evolution. i said i wouldnt as there is no hard evidence for either side in terms of abiogenesis. did god breathe life into dust to create man or did a bunch of amino acids link to form a protein that was viable.

Ducky, it's hard to respond to somebody who doesn't know how to read.

Seriously.

He did not say that every organism has the same eye STRUCTURE, he said that every organism has the same eye GENE, using the same amino acids on 130 sites. He said nothing about the STRUCTURE or FUNCTION of the eyes, which all vary. (even amongst reptiles) A gene does not directly correlate to the structure or function of said eye. (just compare the eye of a gecko to the eye of an alligator or a snake. They function completely differently)

Perhaps you would like to tell the Swiss that they made a mistake:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA0 ... e_gene.php

The book I'm referring to was talking about a 500 character sonnet using 26 letters of the alphabet. The math is the same regardless of what example of combinations you want to use. The particular chapter was talking about the "infinite monkies writing the works of shakespeare", again, the math is the same regardless of what object you want to talk about.


Please show me where I wrote that cells were the first form of life? Did I write that anywhere? NO I did not. Learn to read newb. However, Cells do exist, and they make choices. The total possible number of cell combinations is far greater than the total number of cells combinations that exist in reality.

Also, again, who wrote anything about snowflakes not existing? or life not existing? You seem to confuse duplication of a random structure with a single random structure existing. Please show me the two snowflakes with the exact same structure. There are over 6 billion fingerprints in the world. Supposedly very few of them are duplicates. Why? Because of all the possible combination available for fingerprints, in the entire history of recorded fingerprints you don't get duplicates save from twins. And yet you want me to believe that PURE RANDOMNESS created and drives life?

I agree 100% with natural selection. Natural selection is a clear example of where CHOICE causes change, not randomness. Of the species of butterflies that changed from white to black because of smoke from factories, none of those butterflies turned green, or blue, or any color in between. (green butterflies, or dark blue butterflies would have also evaded the preying birds)




This is what we in the world of logic call a false dichotomy.

So in addition to learning reading comprehension, I think you need to learn some logic skills.

Next time you want to have a conversation with a person, it would help if you actually read what was written, instead of reading what you want them to have written.

Btw, this is blatantly false:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html

There is a 300 million year period between the formation of the earth's crust and the first cell. So there certainly were not BILLIONS of years for the first monomers to form.
Secondly, there was only 900 million years between the formation of any form of planet and the first cells. So even if you wanted to start counting from the very beginning of the mixing of the atoms, you still have less than even 1 billion year.

Note that it took 1.5 BILLION (1,500 million years) years to move from Prokaryotic cells to Eukaryotic cells. And then another 955 million years to move from Eukaryotic cells to the Cambrian explosion.