Very well said
-
Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!
Misc All Things Religious
- Thread starter Cad Wedge NC
- Start date
Iceagewhereartthou
Member
Here's a good discussion on some of this between Frank Turek and Stephen Meyer.
"There's Something in My House!"
www.elijahlist.com
Cetaceans didn't even discover fire. All your counter-arguments are subsets of human evolution/learning really. Nothing contradicts my argument.
MichaelJ
Member
Do you know how many chromosomes are in the human body? To think it was a random evolution process from a primordial swamp to have them properly sequencing is absurd. Just look at the amount of amino acids in the body and try to figure out just which one goes where is like throwing darts at a dart board, with a blindfold on, and having to hit dead center every time.
How about blood clotting? Seem like that would be hard to evolve toward.
Downeastnc
Member
Well when you have literally millions of years for those amino acids to arrange themselves in a infinite number of permutations then yes eventually the amino acids will hit on the best sequences that are most adaptable and survivable and evolve into more complex stuff....there have been several experiments that actually replicate this.....it took hundreds of millions to even billions of years for this to all happen its not like it went from nothing to organized life in a day or even millions of years.....so its not random, the notion that life on earth happened randomly is wrong... it was millions/billions of years of trial and error....
I always liked to use flight in this argument.
MichaelJ
Member
Let me put it to you another way, the amount of possible sequencing of molecules to build a kidney and have it's purpose to filter urine or the synchronicity of proper liver function. How about the ability of the of the 7 TRILLION nerves in the body to work synergistically with our super computer called the brain and it's 100 billion cells working in the proper sequence from scratch would take trillions of years, not billions. Something HAD to have created a scenario of how they would work together and it would certainly not come from an accident in swamp goo.
Iceagewhereartthou
Member
I'm not following you here. My counter arguments are very valid to your original post.
Iceagewhereartthou
Member
I am always amazed at the lengths many atheists will go to avoid the concept of a creator. To believe that multiple steps of origin, formation of bodies, origin of life (amino acid and protein formation for starters), etc, all happened undirected, despite incomprehensible odds at each step, shows more faith than I can muster. Imagine having enough faith that one is going to win the lottery millions of times in a row... I just don't have that much.
Iceagewhereartthou
Member
I'm going to post this again, perhaps some didn't catch it. It addresses the incredible odds of a single protein forming by chance. There hasn't been nearly enough time in the universe for it to even be statistically conceivable, let alone convince me chance is the truth. Keep in mind, this is just for one legitimate protein, not even necessarily one that may be sustained or be able to copy itself.
Downeastnc
Member
This article says what I was going to say much better than I was going to say it.....
New Proteins Without God's Help | National Center for Science Education
Creationists seem to be proud of their calculations that supposedly show how thermodynamics and probability prevent the chance formation of biologically useful macromolecules such as enzymes. Their "evidence" usually consists of quotations from such authors as Hubert P.
Iceagewhereartthou
Member
This article says what I was going to say much better than I was going to say it.....
New Proteins Without God's Help | National Center for Science Education
Creationists seem to be proud of their calculations that supposedly show how thermodynamics and probability prevent the chance formation of biologically useful macromolecules such as enzymes. Their "evidence" usually consists of quotations from such authors as Hubert P.ncse.ngo
Hmmm, well this article from 1985 is quoting a guy from 1977. Since that time there have been many challenges to the idea of origin by chance. So many in fact, many modern scientists have admitted the idea of chance alone is very unlikely. The recent movement of "seeding" is an outflow of that. Basically that the chances of this random forming of proteins is so unlikely that perhaps life was seeded here by a comet or other body, or by alien intelligence. Of course, this would only pass the buck; ie, where did that life come from, but it acknowledges the very probabilistic issue we are discussing. Seeding has gained a lot of traction in recent years and even strict atheists like Richard Dawkins and Micheal Shermer have talked about it.
Further, the authors contention that creationists "do their own calculations" may have been true before 1985 but I haven't seen that to be the case at all. The video I linked to started in the favor of chance by filling the oceans with viable amino acids without any hostile conditions to the acids themselves, and used 150 amino acids to be correctly ordered as it's base for calculations as opposed to the simplest life forms we know needing far more. Ralph Munchaster, (and former atheist) in his 2004 book "Examining the Evidence" wrote a whole chapter on this issue and started his calculations on a far smaller number of amino acids; I think it was just 50. Why 50? Because he was giving the benefit of the doubt to chance to illustrate his point. He also used other numbers quoted directly from scientists. I have read other accounts of this too, and in every one, the writer gives every accommodation to side the of chance. Even when trying to give chance the advantage, the odds are so far fetched that to believe in chance alone, would not only be illogical, it would be folly.
Shaggy
Member
This guy pretty much hit every single thing that I questioned growing up and what led me to becoming full blown athiest. He does it in a very smooth calm articulated way that it's hard to argue against anything he says.
Jessy89
Member
Well I can argue everything he says. People didn’t just pop up one day. Life didn’t create itself God has always been here. Now Atheist will bow down to Jesus very soon as will everyone because Jesus is coming and he is coming soon!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Shaggy
Member
I'm guessing you didnt watch much or any of the video.
Jessy89
Member
I’m watching it now. I’d love to see my pastor debate him. That would be very entertaining
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jessy89
Member
My best counter and response to that video would be this video. And it’s only 2 minutes
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LickWx
Member
I thought you didn’t like Muslims and they worship a demonic moon god . I speak in gist about that last part lol. Just something I have heard before ( not saying from you).