RE: Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)
October 3, 2013 at 3:13 pm
(October 3, 2013 at 2:59 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:(October 3, 2013 at 2:52 pm)Zazzy Wrote: It's not that God is not allowed, it's that God is not a useful experimental concept. I know many very good, smart theistic scientists (Christians. Muslims, Buddhists), and God is important to them, but it just isn't something that is useful when you're trying to discover how something in living cells works.
Why do you keep asking members when so many of us have pointed out to you that we don't know? Can you move on?
No concrete evidence, no- but much that is rich for further study, if you look at the very good papers I have linked here. You seem to be suggesting that scientists should simply throw their hands up and not try to explain it. Imagine how much worse off we would all be if that was the response of scientists faced with a difficult question. So let's get on with it, then. Is there another point of yours in your VERY long OP that you would like me, as an evolutionary biologist, to address?
Pointless. Since we don't know how many Goldilocks planets are in the universe, and all the possible forms life could take, that cannot be done. So why waste your time on a question no one can answer? There is clearly much you do not know about the mechanisms of genetics, let alone evolutionary biology, so why not learn it instead of throwing out red herrings? It belittles your argument. Let's see some good, answerable, substantial questions.
The odds show that it does not matter if the universe were many trillions of years old and if you allowed the miracle anywhere in the universe. It just never happened.
Atheistic origin science is relying on a multitude of miracles.
It contradicts itself.
Your estimate of probability is way off.
There were hundreds of millions of years and trillions and trillions and trillions of possible opportunities every second for even very unlikely events to occur.
Your intuition or judgement of the likelihood of the formation of self-replicating molecules is simply not to be trusted. Nor is mine.
But I can estimate it using mathematics, and the answer is that it is not an unlikely occurrence given the time and the opportunities.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.