Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
Is there indeed another world and dimension -- the spirit world?
Your observation points up the saddest aspect of this zealous pursuit, which at best is a miss direction of the gifts of life and talents given these scientists by God, and at worst is fueled by a need to challege the authority of God.
I was raised by one of these zealots, and it is a real shame that people with so much ability to to something truly useful to society instead throw their lives away trying to prove a negative.
No, let's start doing real science and let's start looking at what makes life tick instead of digging up stupid bones which tell us nothing. Let's start doing real science and look at how organisms really work instead of going around counting bits of DNA and calling them homologous which tells us absolutely nothing. Let's start doing real science and let's look for the causes of things instead of asserting that random chance is the source of differences in species. If one wants to learn how life works one has to look at the whole organism not take it apart piece by piece.
And yet public schools are insulted when Flintstone Science Theories of evolution, without one single iota of proof aren't treated as the gospel truth.
Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle placed the odds of unguided abiogenesis at 10^40000 to 1. (That's 40,000 zeros.)
This means it is an exponentially greater act of faith to reject a creator than to believe in one.
If the picture were so simple, men and women should have scored the same. For instance,---
A strong, positive relationship exists between number of correctly answered questions and level of formal education, number of science and mathematics courses completed, and attentiveness to S&T. For example, those who did not complete high school answered an average of 50 percent of the questions correctly compared with scores of 63 percent for high school graduates, 77 percent for college graduates, and 80 percent for those who earned graduate or professional degrees. (See appendix table In addition, only 22 percent of respondents were able to define molecule, and 45 percent gave an acceptable definition for DNA.[10] Although the percentage of correct responses to these questions was considerably lower than that for most of the short-answer questions, it is noteworthy that the percentage of correct responses increased in the late 1990s. A higher percentage of men than women answered every question but three correctly. The gender gap was 20 or more points for four questions:
More women than men answered the following questions correctly:
For the first time, a majority of all survey respondents answered the antibiotic question correctly (although a majority of men missed it). The growing resistance of bacteria to antibiotics has received widespread media coverage during the past few years. In identifying the main cause of the problem, the overprescribing of antibiotics, it is almost always mentioned that antibiotics are ineffective in killing viruses. In addition, parents of young children, especially those prone to ear infections, have been warned by their pediatricians about this problem. Although the message still has not reached a large segment of the population, the percentage of those answering correctly has been rising, from 40 percent in 1995 to 51 percent in 2001. During most of the 20th century, probably the most contentious issue in science teaching has been whether evolution is taught or not taught in U.S. public school classrooms. The latest major dispute in this long-running battle was the Kansas State Board of Education's 1999 decision to delete evolution from the state's science standards. This event received widespread coverage in the press and sparked an outcry in the science community.[11] In addition, most of the public was not happy with the decision; 60 percent of Americans were opposed to the school board's action.[12] Moreover, most Kansans also felt the same way.[13] Thus, it was not too surprising when two board members who had voted for the change were defeated in the next election by candidates who supported the teaching of evolution. Subsequently, the reconstituted Kansas School Board reversed the decision. The attention received by the Kansas controversy may be responsible for a change in response to the "evolution" question. For the first time, a majority of survey respondents answered true to the statement "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals," representing a major change in response to this question[14] and bringing the United States more in line with other industrialized countries in response to this question (Gendall, Smith, and Russell 1995). Gallup polls taken during the past 20 years consistently show a plurality (45 percent in February 2001) of Americans agreeing with the statement: "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" (Brooks 2001). In addition, two-thirds of those surveyed (68 percent) favor teaching this belief (known as creationism) along with evolution in public schools, although 29 percent are opposed. However, 55 percent are opposed to teaching creationism instead of evolution (Gallup News Service 2000). A study conducted for the People for the American Way Foundation took a closer look at the question of teaching evolution and found an overwhelming majority of Americans (83 percent) agreeing that it should be taught in the classroom. However, there is also strong support for teaching creationism. A detailed breakdown of the survey findings shows a wide range of opinion on the issue:
Understanding the Scientific ProcessThe NSF survey also includes questions intended to determine how well the public understands the scientific process. Respondents are asked to explain what it means to study something scientifically.[15] In addition, respondents are asked questions pertaining to the experimental evaluation of a drug and about probability.[16]In 2001, 33 percent of respondents provided good explanations of what it means to study something scientifically.[17] A large minority (43 percent) answered the experiment questions correctly, including the question(s) that focused on the use of control groups. A majority (57 percent) answered the four probability questions correctly. (See appendix table
A combination of each survey participant's responses to the three items is used to estimate his or her overall level of understanding of the scientific process. To be classified as "understanding the scientific process," a respondent must answer all the probability questions correctly and either provide a "theory testing" response to the question about what it means to study something scientifically or provide a correct response to the open-ended question by explaining why it is better to test a drug using a control group. In 2001, 30 percent of respondents met these criteria. (See footnote 10, |
I find it interesting that education beyond a simple college degree only provided a 3 percent gain in "knowledge". But what is truly astounding to me is something in these numbers from the report.
|
1988 |
1990 |
1992 |
1995 |
1997 |
1999 |
2001 |
All adults |
2,041 |
2,033 |
1,004 |
2,006 |
2,000 |
1,882 |
1,574 |
Male |
958 |
964 |
486 |
953 |
930 |
900 |
751 |
Female |
1,084 |
1,070 |
533 |
1,053 |
1,070 |
982 |
823 |
Less than high school graduate |
530 |
495 |
215 |
418 |
420 |
403 |
116 |
High school graduate |
1,158 |
1,202 |
623 |
1,196 |
1,188 |
1,111 |
834 |
Baccalaureate and higher |
353 |
336 |
203 |
392 |
392 |
368 |
614 |
Attentive public to science and technology |
233 |
229 |
105 |
195 |
288 |
216 |
195 |
Your observation points up the saddest aspect of this zealous pursuit,
No, it does not. My response explained why amino acid experiments will NEVER produce life. They will not because they have it backwards as I said. The CENTRAL DOGMA of biology is DNA codes for RNA, RNA builds amino acids and through certain intervening processes such as cutting and pasting it produces proteins. As you can see from that, the Miller-Urey pseudo-scientists have it completely backwards. When you wish to learn a little biology instead of atheist fairy tales you will learn the truth.
As someone who has been lurker/poster on the forum for a few years now, I'd like to take this opportunity to say that YOU BLOW ME AWAY!
I think he underestimated the odds. They are much greater than even that. There is much proof against it and the odds are impossible. That is why no serious scientist can even propose a materialistic theory of abiogenesis that fits the known scientific facts. First proof of all is Pasteur's that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem).
The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.
Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle placed the odds of unguided abiogenesis at 10^40000 to 1. (That's 40,000 zeros.)
This means it is an exponentially greater act of faith to reject a creator than to believe in one.
To both you and I, Creationism is the only logical and obvious explaination for life -- when the heart hardens, nothing appears obvious...
Hey -- I tacked on a few extra zeros at the end, then I got too tired :-)
The evolutionist realizes his only chance at discrediting God's Creationism is by "proving" evolutionism. Ain't never happenin'.
As Sgt. Friday used to say 'just the facts ma'm'!
Although I feel no need to learn biology to the extent necessary to refute those so impressed with their "knowledge" in the the manner you so capably do, (and I'm greateful for your knowledge and time sharing it here), I also am not interested in "atheist fairy tales."
I repeat my opinion, which I am entitled to despite my being biologically challenged, that the saddest part of so many talented people feverishly seeking to prove evolution is that their talents could be much better used.
While naturalists and evolutionists claim themselves to be scientists, they hold on to the anthropic principle for dear life. The anthropic principle which basically says that the Universe exists because it exists is the exact opposite of science. Science is about 'how' and 'why', it is about causes and effects. The anthropic principle just says that existence is proof of materialism when of course it proves no such thing. All it proves is that they have no rational explanation for their statements.
Do take us through your step-by- step fantasy from the very moment that random bolt of lightning crashed into that randomly created droplet of water, creating....what exactly??
I'm very glad that Physicists, Mathematicians and Information Theorists have broached Molecular Biology. We are sure to benefit from the likes of Luis Rocha!
That pretty much sums it up. One of the big complaints about intelligent design theory is that by saying "God did it" research comes to a halt - so instead, when a fact which points to design is found, it is placed in the "anthropic principle" bucket and research comes to a halt. Ironic.
Ian's Cosmic Matters has an interesting collection of these in layspeak.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.