Replies

Just remember, there are some 10^57 atoms (higher-weight nuclei) in just our solar system alone. And every one of them had to be created, transformed inside stars, and re-ejected multiple times in just the right sequence to get re-absorbed in the next star-supernova. Then travel drifting through space just in time to get trapped into out gravitation fields to become planets, continents, plants and rocks. ....

But the miracle of creation is doubted by many.

‘Just remember, there are some 10^57 atoms (higher-weight nuclei) in just our solar system alone. And every one of them had to be created, transformed inside stars, and re-ejected multiple times in just the right sequence to get re-absorbed in the next star-supernova. Then travel drifting through space just in time to get trapped into out gravitation fields to become planets, continents, plants and rocks. .”

When I talk to kids in the desert about these things, I mention that there are 400 billion (plus or minus 50), stars in this galaxy...and the best of our telescopes have discovered at least 400 billion galaxies (that we can see).

I hear you, and believe me, I spend a hell of a lot of time in the desert thinking about such things. It is funny, when I look at things macroscopically (as in the universe and space), I find the idea of a God having creating it just too far out to really believe (ie the so large and so complex that therefore something more large and more complex must have created it, seems to me a huge fallacy).

On the other hand, when I really look into the microscopic, and at the diversity and complexity of life, and how many billions of tiny processes must happen for each organism to live, thrive, and just exist, and how atoms can combine to create cognizance and thought, and awareness, and how these chemical reactions seem to be self sustaining, and replicating, and show symmetry and structural beauty that simply self assembles, I think that to think it just happened on its own is the height of ridiculousness. It is an interesting juxtaposition. The fact that we can not just put carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and other stuff in a jar, or even cheat and put amino acids and other complex carbon chains in a jar and zap it with electricity a few times, and create self sustaining chemical reactions that replicate speaks to me in volumes.

But there are only 118 elements and their isotopes. There is a billions and billions of random chances fallacy that is quite popular with speakers opposed to evolution:

If you take a physical change between species, say a fin in one species which becomes a leg and foot in a descendent species, also let’s say there would have to be 25 inheritable changes in genes or their expression and they must occur in sequential order (1 followed by 2 followed by 3 and so on up to 25). How do you get there?

One of the major creationists illustrated it by numbering 25 wood blocks from one to 25 and put them in a box, shook the box and threw the blocks out onto the ground. Of course they came out in a random order. He then asked the audience how many times they would have to do that to get then to come out in order in one throw. Of course the odds of that happening are incredibly tiny though remotely possible.

The creationist conveniently left off natural selection. With natural selection governing the throwing of the blocks this is what would happen. You would throw the blocks until the block labeled #1 came out first. Then you would take that block out as having been selected. You would repeat the process until #2 block came out first and you would remove it as being selected and you would continue this process until the box was empty and the change complete. It would take you twenty minutes to an hour.

The universe and the chemical and physical laws limit the randomness of what happens so while certain processes may be random and there are many possibilities it isn’t a truly random process.