Posted on 05/06/2005 7:36:09 PM PDT by DouglasKC
Pascalian Wager. That's a dangerous bet.
You might as well say 10^50 protons and 10^50 electrons.
"In the universe the difficult things are done as if they were easy." - Lao Tsu ( quoted by Timothy Ferris )
Agreed. They're clinging to a theory birthed at a time when modern scientific discoveries were unheard of.
Pingdom Come!
It's not that some issue or another remains unexplained in full detail.
It's that the FUNDAMENTAL concept of Evolution is so uterly and obviously incapable of producing the complexity of life.
In a sense you're right. It's time to stop trying to figure out life on your own, based on man's ideas, and ask the creator what's going on.
And next you'll be telling us that flies are caused by spoiled meat.
Which right off the bat is wrong. Crick was an Atheist and a hard core one at that
It then gives a direct quote where he *admits* that an HONEST man (not deceitful, not malacious) ARMED WITH ALL KNOWLEDGE THAT SCIENCE HAS NOW...WOULD CONCLUDE THAT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IS ALMOST A MIRACLE.
Which continues
But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.
What part of "fairly ordinary" don't you understand?
You can draw your own inferences, but obviously the man felt that there wasn't sufficient scientific evidence to prove that that the beginning of life was anything but a miracle.
Here is a real quote from Crick's book What Mad Pursuit
The second property of almost all living things is their complexity, and in particular, their highly organised complexity. This so impressed our forebears that they considered it inconceivable that such intricate and well-organized mechanisms would have arisen without a designer. Had I been living 150 years ago I feel sure I would have been compelled to agree with this Argument from Design. Its most thorough and eloquent protagonist was the Reverend William Paley whose book, Natural theology -- or Evidence of the Existences and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of nature, was published in 1802. Imagine, he said, that crossing a heath one found on the ground a watch in good working condition. Its design and its behaviour could only be explained by invoking a maker. In the same way, he argued, the intricate design of living organisms forces us to recognize that they too must have had a Designer.
This compelling argument was shattered by Charles Darwin, who believed that the appearance of design is due to the process of natural selection. This idea was put forward both by Darwin and by Alfred Wallace, essentially independently. Their two papers were read before the Linnean Society on July 1, 1858, but did not immediately produce much reaction. In fact, the president of the society, in his annual review, remarked that the year that had passed had not been marked by any striking discoveries. Darwin wrote up a "short" version of his ideas (he had planned a much longer work) as The Origin of species. When this was published in 1859, it immediately ran through several reprintings and did indeed produce a sensation. As well it might, because it is plain today that it outlined the essential feature of the "Secret of Life". It needed only the discovery of genetics, originally made by Gregor Mendel in the 1860s, and, in this century, of the molecular basis of genetics, for the secret to stand before us in all its naked glory.
and even more
An atheist, Crick once said he entered the field of molecular biology because he hoped to expunge from biology the last traces of "vitalism." This 19th century theory, advocated by some religious scientists, held that living organisms possess some special, metaphysical spark that distinguishes them from ordinary matter.
To the contrary, Crick replied: Even the most complex living organism, the human brain, contains no spirit, no "ghost in the machine," as philosophers have called it. Rather, it's just a machine composed of atoms and molecules. He argued this view throughout his life, most notably in his 1994 book, "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul," which opened by informing readers that the soul doesn't exist: "Your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."
Crick is not on your side, To even suggest such a thing is disingenuous at best
And in the beginning there was a big mess of hydrogen .... so what ? It was not complex to have hydrogen.
Ahem... Some physicists spend their whole careers trying to figure Hydrogen atoms out.
http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0504033
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0503203
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0504015
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504193
CLANK ! Sound of mind closing rapidly.
It isn't a case of saying DNA is complex. It's a case of saying that DNA is so mind boggling, astoundingly, unfathonabley, unquestionably complex, that Evolution has absolutely ZERO chance of being true.
It's right there in front of you, but you REFUSE to see it.
Just stating the obvious...we all will find out, one way or another, no matter what you believe, and that is a fact, people don't live forever
What if the creator turns out to be Mithra and he's really mad at Christians for stealing his birthday and copying much of his religion? Then who is screwed?
Does this mean we can celebrate Christmas again?
THAT'S WRONG,everybody knows it was 10pm
mind boggling, astoundingly, unfathonabley, unquestionably complexThose are awfully scientific terms. Counting to 100 seemed extremely complex when I was 5. Then we later realize that there are ways to manage that complexity and deal with it. Science can deal with some pretty large numbers.
I wasn't suggesting that. I was pointing out that Crick said an honest man, based on ALL available scientific EVIDENCE would conclude that the origin of life is ALMOST A MIRACLE.
Now if you want to include Crick's theories and idea as scientific evididence than fine. But it doesn't obviate the quote or its use in the story. The point of using it was that it highlighted the fact that an atheist admitted that there's little in the way of scientific evidence to support anything other than miracle as the origin of life.
Wouldn't it make MORE sense, to recognise that the case for intelligent creation is FAR stronger than Evolution. And then investigate what the implications of THAT are?
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.