Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[barrister]

 
... Darwinists typically "claim that macroevolution is just microevolution continued over a very long time through a mechanism called natural selection," Johnson says. The claim is highly controversial, because the "mechanism of macroevolution has to be able to design and build very complex structures like wings and eyes and brains"—and "it has to have done this reliably again and again."
 
The trouble is, plenty of experiments have been done that show small changes do not accumulate to make large changes. So what Darwinists need is a new mechanism—yet there is no new mechanism on the horizon.
 
This, Johnson says, is why Darwinists are reluctant to make a clear distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. They have evidence for a mechanism for minor variation, as with finches' beaks, but he adds, they have no distinct mechanism for the really creative kind of evolution—the kind that builds new body plans and new complex organisms.
 
As a result, macroevolution is nothing more than a mysterious process with no known mechanism. "A process like that isn't all that different from a God-guided process," Johnson notes, "and it certainly would not support those expansive philosophical statements about evolution being purposeless and undirected."
 
http://www.doingtherightthing.com/commentaries/5257-bait-and-switch-science

[barrister]

 
A definition of Evolution… In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection.
 
By itself the above definition is true and has been observed since before Darwin. It simply describes the obvious fact that there is variation within every species / kind of animal and plant. Natural selection, due to environmental reasons, can encourage some traits over others in subsequent generations. We can and do observe natural selection reinforcing existing traits. But such things are not mechanisms to add new information into the genes and change one kind of animal (e.g., a reptile) into a totally different kind (e.g., a bird).

... Micro-Evolution (also called Horizontal Change) – Creationists have never had a problem with Natural Selection, and variation within a kind or family group, or in some cases the phyla or species. (There is no consistent definition of species). Everyone understands change and variation in what characteristics the descendants may inherit and become dominant. This includes the length of beaks in finches and coloring of moths, and even dominant hair and skin color in humans. This variation can be controlled by humans (i.e. dog breeding) and can also happen naturally (hence: Natural Selection) such as long beaked finches having an advantage in times of drought. Their longer beak allows them to pick food deeper out of rock crevices, survive and breed, while their short beaked cousins die off.
 
... Macro-Evolution (also called Vertical Change): This is the ever increasing complexity of life, The natural development of simple cells, and then invertebrates, then fish, amphibians, and eventually humans. This is what most people think of when we use the basic term Evolution. The problem is that evolutionists simply extrapolate if micro-evolution is true then macro-evolution must be true. There is variation and change within a species, therefore the whole species must have evolved over time. Bait and switch.
 
The problem is there is NO evidence for macro-evolution at all in the fossil record. And all of our discoveries and research into micro-biology and heredity, make this idea of macro-evolution not just unlikely, but impossible. DNA works against this happening. Mutations, or errors in DNA do not add new information and do not help. Ernst Mayr, the prominent atheistic biologist released a new book in 2001: What Evolution Is and his fellow evolutionists said there is no better book on evolution.
 
And Yet Mayr uses virtually the same evidences as those used 150 yrs ago by Darwin in Origin. He devotes five chapters to micro-evolution and only one to macro-evolution, AND GIVES NO examples or solid evidences of any macro-evolutionary change. No science, just bait and switch.

 
http://qccsa.org/bait-switch-tactic-of-evos-micro-macro-evolution/

[docelmo]

"Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If
we could document the spontaneous generation of just
one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at
least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have
originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared
and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular
species), the purely evolutionary explanation
would be cast in in doubt. But no one has yet produced
such evidence."

your two examples of disproving it are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

First on spontaneous generation, isn't it that this is one of the tenets of evolution itself? That the origin of life started from inanimate materials then through natural processes evolved to become the first life on earth. Or are again tweaking the meaning to make it appear that this not part of evolution....

While the second you are looking/waiting for ET, and not a supernatural cause( because to you that would be really Irrational!).

Disproving evolution should be based  on its basic tenet of natural processes acting on mutation to produce all life. Then any experiment, discovery, fossil records, laws, math even logic or reasoning that shows the opposite result or findings(dami nyan) of evolution's mechanism....makes evolution false!

More evidence on mutation:

The Bio-evolution-Inertia Equation

The BEI equation is an expression of the effectiveness of mutation on organism. Since most induced and spontaneous mutations are either neutral or deleterious  thus these types of mutations will not lead to better fitness for the organism.
 
Bio-evolution- inertia: measured by the complexity of the organism; the more complex, the more inertia. The effectiveness of mutation (EoM) is much less for higher inertia. That is,

EoM = P/I
P, the probability of a mutation having effect on a genome.
I, the inertia. I = 1 for single cell genome. For every additional bio-mechanism above single cell (such as becoming multicellular; with differentiations; with complex organs, etc.), it increase a factor of ‘10’ for every addition complexity. So, for differentiated multicellular organism, I = 10^3. For a multicellular organism which has five internal organs, the I = 10^(3 + 5), etc.

For single cell organism, the EoM = P/1 = P

For higher level organism {with n (complexity) = 8}, EoM = P/I = P/10^8. A mutation for this organism has very little effect.

Then, for the high level organism (such as mammals) which reproduces with Meiosis process, it divides its body into two parts: the soma and the germline. In general, the mutations in the somatic cells will not directly link to the germ cells. That is, the majority of the mutations in this organism is not inheritable. So, the nature-selection-pressure of Darwin-mechanism has very little effect on this organism.


Intelligent Evolution
By Tienzen (Jeh Tween) Gong
October 11, 2014

[barrister]

 
The Chicken or the Egg,
DNA or Protein?
Sean D. Pitman M.D.
© January 2007
 
... In the very first cell (assuming that there was a "first" cell) what came first - the DNA or the protein?  Of course, the protein that reads the DNA is itself coded for by the DNA.  So, the protein could not be there first since its code or order is contained in the DNA that it decodes.  Proteins would have to decode themselves before they could exist.  So obviously, without the protein there first, the DNA would never be read and the protein would never be made.  Likewise, the DNA could not have been there first since DNA is made and maintained by the proteins of the cell.  Some popular theories about abiogenesis suggest that RNA probably evolved first and then DNA.  But this doesn't remove the problem.  RNA still has to be decoded by very specific proteins that are themselves coded for by the information contained in the RNA.  Obviously both DNA and/or RNA and the fully formed decoding protein system would have to be present at the same time in order for the system as a whole to work.  There simply is no stepwise function-based selection process since natural selection isn't even capable of working at this point in time.

Just like the chicken and the egg paradox, it seems like the function of the most simple living cell is dependent upon all its parts being there in the proper order simultaneously.  Some have referred to such systems as "irreducibly complex" in that if any one part is removed, the higher "emergent" function of the collective system vanishes.  This apparent irreducibility of the living cell is found in the fact that DNA makes the proteins that make the DNA.  Without either one of them, the other cannot be made or maintained.  Since these molecules are the very basics of all life, it seems rather difficult to imagine a more primitive life form to evolve from.  No one has been able to adequately propose what such a life form would have looked like or how it would have functioned.  Certainly no such life form or pre-life form has been discovered.  Even viruses and the like are dependent upon the existence of pre-established living cells to carry out their replication.  They simply do not replicate by themselves.  How then could the first cell have evolved from the non-living soup of the "primitive" prebiotic oceans? 

http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html
 

[RU9]

Please allow to share this article which got me thinking and pause...
The last part makes a lot of sense...  You may call this a cop-out, so be it.

The Basic Question
The basic question at issue in the contemporary origins debate is whether or not the world was created.

It could be tempting to simply put participants in the discussion into two groups—creationists and evolutionists—and leave it at that.

Some on both sides of the issue would like to do exactly that.
In fact, some of the people who most readily identify themselves as creationists or evolutionists often speak as if these are the only two options.
 
Name Calling
Some creationists dismiss everyone who doesn’t hold their view as an “evolutionist” (using this term in a negative sense).
Some evolutionists dismiss everyone who thinks that the world was created as a “creationist” (using this term in a negative sense).
When this happens, the two camps are using prejudicial language. They’re calling each other names, and that doesn’t advance the discussion.
They’re also distorting the issue, because there are clearly middle positions on this question. In fact, there’s a spectrum of them.

How can we describe these positions?
 
Creationism
The people most likely to identify themselves as “creationists” seem usually to endorse some or all of the following claims:
There is a God.
The world was made in a period of six, twenty-four hour days.
The world is only a few thousand years old.
God specially intervened to create the life forms on earth, without using prior, extinct life forms to do so.
The majority viewpoint in the natural sciences on the age of the world and the origin of present-day life forms is mistaken.
 
Intelligent Design
The people most likely to identify themselves as advocates of “intelligent design” seem usually to make the following claim:
The world (either the whole cosmos or just the life on earth) shows evidence of a scientific nature that suggests it was intelligently designed.
Most advocates also seem to hold the following proposition:
God exists and is the intelligent designer of the world.
This view, however, is not essential to their position.
 
Theistic Evolution
The people most likely to identify themselves as “theistic evolutionists” seem usually to endorse some or all of the following claims:
There is a God.
The world developed over a longer period of time than six, twenty-four hour days.
The world is much more than a few thousand years old.
God used prior, extinct life forms to produce the life forms we see today.
The majority viewpoint in the natural sciences on the age of the world and the origin of present-day life forms is correct.
 
Atheistic Evolution
The people most likely to identify themselves as “atheistic evolutionists” seem usually to endorse some or all of the following claims:
There is no God or, at least, we do not have good reason to believe that there is a God.
The world developed over a longer period of time than six, twenty-four hour days.
The world is much more than a few thousand years old.
The life forms we see today arose from prior, extinct life forms.
The majority viewpoint in the natural sciences on the age of the world and the origin of present-day life forms is correct.
 

[RU9]

Continued...

What Bugs Me
What bugs me is the way that advocates of these different positions often dump on each other:
Creationists often dump on the other three positions as lacking a sufficient appreciation of the Bible and as being either compromised by or completely sold-out to faithless, atheistic evolutionism.

Atheistic evolutionists often dump on the other three positions as lacking a sufficient appreciation of modern science and as being either compromised by or completely sold-out to anti-intellectual creationism.

Atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists sometimes dump on intelligent design as being just a shill for creationism.

Advocates of intelligent design and theistic evolution, not wanting to be identified with creationism, sometimes dump on advocates of that view.

Creationists and advocates of intelligent design sometimes dump on theistic and atheistic evolution as ignoring scientific evidence that they believe undermines the idea that the world and life forms arose without outside intervention.

Of course, each of these schools of thought is different from the others, and people who hold different views inevitably have lapses in charity when discussing each other.
But it seems that there is a huge amount of heat that is brought to this discussion, and at times the origins debate seems to degenerate into a mutual snarkfest.
 
Can’t We All Just Get Along?
Of course, people coming from different viewpoints will not agree with each other. That’s why their viewpoints are different.
It’s also natural and healthy for advocates of the different views to make their case and to cross-examine the positions of others.
That’s how we get at the truth.
But we can treat each other with respect and charity as we do so.
What would that mean in practice?
 
Recognizing the Differences
A first step is recognizing that there are, in fact, more than just two views here.
Talking as if there are only two views—creationism and evolutionism—and then using the name of the position that isn’t yours as a swear-word does not help the discussion.
It also does not respect the people you’re talking about.
It fails to recognize differences in their positions and it lumps them under a single, pejorative label.
That’s true whether it’s a creationist calling everyone else evolutionists or an atheistic evolutionist calling everyone else creationists.
 
No Shoehorning
A related step is not shoehorning everybody into one of these four categories.
If an old-earth creationist were to say, “Please don’t lump me in with the young earth creationists,” I would say, “No problem! The categories I have proposed here are purely for purposes of convenience. We can easily add new categories, based on who is participating in the discussion. Tell me what you believe and why and let’s talk about it.”
Similarly, if someone came from an entirely different religious perspective and said, “I don’t believe in any of the four views articulated here. I think that the universe was produced in a giant conflict between Apsu and Tiamat and Marduk,” my response would be the same.
The questions of how, when, why, and by whom (if anyone) the world came to be are all separate questions and can be answered different ways.
There are, in fact, a vast number of possible views, and I want to treat everyone with respect, regardless of their position.
The four positions articulated above are just four positions that happen to be common in modern American culture. They are by no means the only possible positions.
 
Good Will
Another step in treating each other with respect is presupposing each other’s good will.
It’s easy for people of different perspectives to suspect each other of having bad motives.
That’s a tendency that we have to check—and check sharply.
It is inconsistent with the Golden Rule, because if we want others to presume our good will, in spite of our disagreements, then we should presume their good will as well.
 
We’re All Human Beings
Something that may help us treat others with respect as we discuss the question of origins is recognizing the fact that we are all human beings.
None of us are members of a master race because of our view of the origins question.
There have been both geniuses and simpletons who have held each of the positions we’ve looked at in this piece. Holding a particular position does not make us innately superior or inferior to others.
Keeping that fact in mind can help us counter the tendency to look down on others because their views are different.
 
We’re All Fallible
Of course, we also all make mistakes, and that’s going to happen in the origins discussion as well.
We will, at times, use bad arguments, accept bad data, and have lapses of charity toward one another.
That’s par for the course.
But if we want others to treat us with respect and charity in spite of our lapses then we should strive to do the same for them.

What do you think?

[barrister]

It's a common misconception that all creationists believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Not true.  There are Young Earth Creationists (YEC), and there are Old Earth Creationists (OEC).

http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html
 

[rexFi]

Name Calling
Some creationists dismiss everyone who doesn’t hold their view...

HAHA.

ala lang ganyan na pala ngayon, akala ko its the other way around.

[docelmo]

HAHA.

ala lang ganyan na pala ngayon, akala ko its the other way around.

Sir,
You should see the level of name calling in foreign sites on this subject! In our thread however is more among the lines of "am more rational", "faith nothing more", "theory lang", "imagination" by and large posters here are more civil towards each other. As i suggested to someone awhile back to keep the "insult" to a minimum if he could help it and stick to the topic at hand...

[docelmo]

From Evolution News site:

ID is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.

Observations: ID begins with observations that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). (An event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.)

Hypothesis: Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.

Experiment: Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. Mutational sensitivity tests can also be used to identify high CSI in proteins and other biological structures.

Conclusion: When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity, or high CSI in biology, researchers conclude that such structures were designed. This is because, in our experience, intelligence is the only known cause of high CSI.

As Stephen Meyer explains:
Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source--from a mind or personal agent.2

Of course like any scientific conclusion, this conclusion is held tentatively, subject to future discoveries and future investigations -- investigations that ID encourages. But because ID is presently the best scientific explanation for structures with high CSI, it is entirely appropriate to infer design. In this way, ID uses the scientific method to make its claims.

[bumblebee]

^Does this have anything to do with aliens?

[docelmo]

^Does this have anything to do with aliens?

Well if you think it has something to do with aliens instead of a (irrational) supernatural cause that's your call........ either way the presence of information, language and codes points to an intelligent cause or mind.

Btw sir, my posts on the mechanisms of mutations and the BEI equation answers your previous question why natural selection does not work on mutations.

[bumblebee]

Well if you think it has something to do with aliens instead of a (irrational) supernatural cause that's your call........ either way the presence of information, language and codes points to an intelligent cause or mind.

What is your call? God or aliens? Kung God, I have no more questions. Kung aliens, may follow up. Note that I'm not interrogating you. Just want to know where you're coming from.

Btw sir, my posts on the mechanisms of mutations and the BEI equation answers your previous question why natural selection does not work on mutations.

Will backread.

[docelmo]

What is your call? God or aliens? Kung God, I have no more questions. Kung aliens, may follow up. Note that I'm not interrogating you. Just want to know where you're coming from.

Naturally for me that intelligent cause is…..GOD!

For several reasons, the discovery of laws like thermodynamics, presence of language, codes, information, finite universe…….all point to a cause outside the limits of the universe. This is also in agreement with the Law of cause and effect, which simply states that: for every effect there is a cause and Everything which has a beginning has a cause.

Alien creating life here on earth will have several “minor” hurdles to overcome before they can even start creating life here.

First of all is there a greater probability of life arising elsewhere in the universe. How? Evolution again? As previously posted the probability of life appearing by natural processes on earth is so small! Then then probability of life arising elsewhere is even smaller!

Next are having earth-like planets or planets that would sustain life. Since we know that the universe is composed of elements such as carbon, hydrogen, helium, oxygen etc…then these “aliens” should also be composed of the same matter or at least a combination of the same elements. Who created the aliens? This question is not infinite since the Universe is not infinite as well…..ultimately these aliens were created by a being outside of the confines of the universe and its laws.

Next is the limits of time which is related to the previous reason, unless the current knowledge of the age of the universe is wrong then this third reason is irrelevant. However if the current age is accurate then it puts more strain on natural selection in “evolving” another life in another planet in another galaxy.

IMHO, these limitations further lessen the probability of aliens creating life on earth……

[sharkey360]

Creationists lost!

Federal Judge Rejects Anti-Evolution Lawsuit Concocted By Kansas Creationists

Conservative “Christians” must be fuming in Kansas after a federal judge nixed their latest effort to ban evolution in schools.

In response to all Kansas school districts adopting a standardized science curriculum known as Next Generation Science Standrads that includes the teaching of evolution, creationists across the state threw a collective temper tantrum, with one right-wing group even going so far as to file a lawsuit to ban evolution based on the claim that it promotes atheism.

Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE) actually had the nerve to argue that teaching evolution amounts to teaching atheism, and therefore should be banned as a religious point of view in the classroom. But as Americans United For Church And State explained, the argument is complete bullsh*t.

Everything about that argument is flawed. Contemplating the origin of life on this planet is not an inherently religious question that is unfit for children to ponder. And science has done a fine job of unlocking the mysteries of the universe – despite COPE’s claim to the contrary. Evolution may be a theory, but no legitimate scientists question its validity. Thus learning the facts of that theory is not “indoctrination.” It’s called education.

US District Judge Daniel Crabtree apparently agreed, because he threw out the case.

The question of whether creationism should be taught in school has been long settled for 30 years, since the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that religious doctrine does not belong in science class. The reason for the new standards in the first place is because educators are making a push to improve the math and science scores of American students so that they can compete with the rest of the developed world. Evolution is not a religion, it’s a fact that is backed by mountains of evidence. To view some of that evidence, just watch this video explaining how multiple fields of scientific study agree that evolution is real.

That ought to enrage conservatives just as much as this court decision.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/05/federal-judge-rejects-anti-evolution-lawsuit-concocted-by-kansas-creationists/

[heisenbergman]

^ Excellent. It's great to hear news like this

[barrister]

Creationists lost!

Federal Judge Rejects Anti-Evolution Lawsuit Concocted By Kansas Creationists

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/05/federal-judge-rejects-anti-evolution-lawsuit-concocted-by-kansas-creationists/

It's just the COPE (Citizens for Objective Public Education) who lost.
 
COPE wanted to ban the teaching of evolutionism and global warming in Kansas public school science classes.
 
It's only right that COPE should lose because it's a silly idea.

[docelmo]

" Evolution is not a religion, it’s a fact that is backed by mountains of evidence."

Now this is a BOLD claim, and the attach video's "Best evidence" is.........whale evolution!!!


We've already discussed the fossils of pakicetus and ambulocetus which were both "liberally illustrated" to conform to the view that these are early whales by also naming them walking whales......assumptiion lang! an even older fully aquatic whale fossil was discovered predating its supposed ancestor in the whale evolution!

DNA, Population Genetics have shown that natural selection acting on random mutation would not produce new information to produce new parts. futhermore there is NOT enough time for all the changes to take effect in the organism from a fully land animal to fully aquatic whale from a mere "blink of a eye" in geological time scale.

Mountain? Baka naman molehill lang.....

[sharkey360]

‘Noah’s Ark’ Theme Park Loses $18 Million In Tax Rebates After It Refuses To Hire Non-Creationists



Ken Ham, the Christian fundamentalist behind the religious non-profit organization, Answers in Genesis, just lost a whopping $18 million in tax rebates because he refused to not discriminate against non-creationists in his new business venture.

Ham, best known for his extremely silly “Creation Museum” alternative to history museums and for getting demolished by Bill Nye the Science Guy in a debate on evolution, has apparently forfeited his huge tax breaks because he couldn’t bear to work with a person who didn’t share his creationist beliefs.

After a major fundraising push, Ham amassed millions of dollars from conservative Christian investors for a brand new theme park based around the biblical story of Noah’s ark, called Ark Encounter. Unlike his ministry, Ham planned on making this venture of the for-profit variety so he could work on further expanding his creationist empire. Unfortunately, the caveat for running a business and not, say, a religious organization, is that federal and state laws are pretty strict about discrimination in the work place.

According to The Courier-Journal, the state of Kentucky decided that Ham’s (pardon the pun) ham-fisted way of forcing his religious ministry into every facet of the theme park’s operation, has forced them to rule that he would be using state money to “fund religious indoctrination.” That would be a Constitutional no-no.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/11/noahs-ark-theme-park-loses-18-million-in-tax-rebates-after-it-refuses-hire-non-creationists/

[barrister]

 
Ken Ham is a Young Earth Creationist.  His Noah's Ark theme park is blatant religious propaganda.  And taxpayer's money should not be allowed to be used to subsidize religious propaganda.

It's only right that tax rebates should be denied.

But evolutionism is still a fairy tale... 

[docelmo]

Wow! Evolution proves Everything......even in the absence of it!!!!

Consider this conclusion from  the authors of this piece:

(Alexander J. Werth and William A. Shear, "The Evolutionary Truth About Living Fossils," American Scientist, Vol. 102:434-443 (2014).)

Despite their apparent resistance to change, living fossils, like all organisms extant and extinct, serve as proof that evolution continues unabated as the driving force behind the tremendous diversity of life on Earth, in the past as well as in the present.

So apparently nothing can disprove evolution!

[docelmo]

Astronomer Robert Jastrow in his book: "God and the Astronomers" had this to say...

"The Scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.
He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak, as he pulls himself
over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

[leomarley]

The Creationist Cosmos

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/8u6b

[docelmo]

Sorry, the video is not even remotely funny and has many inaccurate and misleading statements..

Now if you want a logical straight forward video on the current knowledge of the Cosmos watch this it would only take 6 minutes of your time...
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/ring_in_the_new092411.html

[docelmo]

-from "The Wall Street Journal"

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?
By
Eric Metaxas

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for His existence comes from a surprising place-Science itself!

"Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life -- every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth's surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

    Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn't assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

    There's more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces -- gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces -- were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction -- by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 -- then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

    Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all "just happened" defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?"

[dpogs]

well... kung meron nga raw nananlo ng lotto... paano pa kaya ang pagkakabuo ng mundo ... malamang lamang sasabihin lang naman nila... in BILLION OF YEARS... all things is possible ...

[leomarley]

Typical ID/creationist argument. I can't explain therefore, God.

[docelmo]

Typical ID/creationist argument. I can't explain therefore, God.

Typical evolutionist statement revealing a refusal to understand, denial and just plain misunderstanding of what the data suggests...

The Constants and Quantities such as Gravitational constant, cosmological constant, plancks' constant etc etc were all  products of scientists' research, studies and experiments! These scientists are not ID/creationists proponents by any measure! These numbers are not products of "inventions or imaginations" of ID/creationist proponents. These numbers have been calculated to such a degree that scientists conclude that any minute changes the universe would not exist.

Can evolutionist honestly say that all these precise numbers happen by chance or necessity?

Sabi nga ni sir dpogs....baka mas malaki pa chance mo manalo sa lotto, kesa ang chance magkaron ng universe o earth o buhay!

[leomarley]

Typical evolutionist statement revealing a refusal to understand, denial and just plain misunderstanding of what the data suggests...

The Constants and Quantities such as Gravitational constant, cosmological constant, plancks' constant etc etc were all  products of scientists' research, studies and experiments! These scientists are not ID/creationists proponents by any measure! These numbers are not products of "inventions or imaginations" of ID/creationist proponents. These numbers have been calculated to such a degree that scientists conclude that any minute changes the universe would not exist.

Can evolutionist honestly say that all these precise numbers happen by chance or necessity?

Sabi nga ni sir dpogs....baka mas malaki pa chance mo manalo sa lotto, kesa ang chance magkaron ng universe o earth o buhay!

What the data suggests? Those are not even data to suggest that there's a designer present. You're just interpreting it as evidence for an intelligent designer. Just because you can't move one factor a smudge to the left or to the right doesn't mean there's an intelligent designer. I'm not saying there isn't but you can't be sure that there is simply because of that. Same as how atheist say there isn't a creator simply because there's no data for it. From the billions and billions of galaxies out there, you really think that we're the only ones? That's what that video suggests.

To answer your question, yes it can. And no matter how small the chances are, as long as there is a chance for life to develop, life will develop. With or without the help of an intelligent designer.

[dpogs]

definitely by fatih