A leap in the dark?Elessar II said:Speaking of leaps of faith. What do you call evolution?
Of course evolutionists have to make more assumptions than creationists.Not a leap of faith? You evolutionists have more assumptions than we creationists!!
You are perfectly right. Science is just another belief.Elessar II said:Speaking of leaps of faith. What do you call evolution?
And yet, science itself has genetically traced human ancestry back to one woman whom those involved rather whimsically named "Eve". Indeed, this was a front cover issue for Time Magazine not too many years ago!Tarlanc said:You are perfectly right. Science is just another belief.
Because of my study of Biochemics and Biology I am absolutely convinced of the evolution. All pieces fit perfectly and even new found evidence (on the field of genetics for example) is found to fit. Because of that I am sure that life on earth evolved from unicellular organismas that lived billions of years ago on this planet.
But of course this is just faith. I believe in this theory. And no matter how many pieces of evidence are found, we can never be sure that this theory is correct.
But as long as nothing is found that proves that the theory of evolution is wrong (i.e. as long as noone travels back in time some 6000 years and interviews finds Avam and Eve) I will believe in it.
And I am sure that you will believe in creation with the same kind of faith. As long as noone proves without any doubt that god does not exist or that he did not create life you will believe in creation.
You also have to remember that it wasn't until the Arabs that the concept of zero was introduced. That means that large numbers were simply not in the mindset of the civilizations that existed at the time the Bible - or at least the Old Testament - was written. For instance, there were "magical" or "symbolic" numbers such as the number 40 (remember the 40 days of Noah's flood) which represented so much more than the simple result of multiplying four times ten. Therefore, when you see 40 mentioned in Scripture, it bears so much more than a mere mathematical meaning. In the same way, when Scripture says that a thousand years is as a day and vice versa, you are commenting upon not a literal number of years vs. days, but rather of a very long period of time which the Hebrews and their contemporaries would understand as being represented by the term "a thousand years".Scatha said:Ahh yes, Mrs M, we are perfectly aware that the bible also states that 1000 days are like one and one like a thousand days. However science is the contradiction of the bible.
As for you Tarlanc, 6000 years would not cover it. There are much older civilisations then a mere 6000 years old. The middle east has cities founded as old as 6000 years before christ.
Yeah, right. From the scientific point of view I agree with you. I also know that there were human bones and tools found that are 2 Million years old. But according to the creation-theory (as far as I remember) the world is not more than some 6000 years old.Scatha said:
Crick just made the assumption that DNA did not arise spontaneously. Today we do have evidence that it did not. The first life-forms were not DNA-based but were RNA-organisms. And these organisms eventually built the first DNA-molecules and proteins.Mrs. Maggott said:...was forced to admit that DNA could simply NOT have arisen "spontaneously" or by random chance even over the course of the life of the universe.
Yes, it is. To be exact it is 10^39'994 times more than a Million But it still is not impossible. Just quite improbable.Also, 10 to the 40,000 power is a heck a of lot more than a million - or even a billion or a trillion - to one!
And yet it is the position of the present day scientific community that the acceptability of any "odds" for something happening is no more than 10 to the 15th on earth and 10 to the 40th cosmically. That is not my opinion, but the "rules" by which scientists play the game. Of course, one single instance of something might arise uniquely, however, we aren't talking about one single instance but rather of an entire series of things happening which led to creation as it presently exists. And whereas one might be willing to allow for a greater possibility than 10 to the 15th or the 40th power for a single incident, I seriously doubt that anyone would abandon a specific accepted scientific principal merely to avoid the possibility of there actually being a Primary Cause for the universe and everything in it other than simple random chance. Of course, if one is truly wedding by faith to the belief that there can be and in fact is no such Primary Cause, then it may be that one will also be willing to abandon science as well as traditional religion.Tarlanc said:Crick just made the assumption that DNA did not arise spontaneously. Today we do have evidence that it did not. The first life-forms were not DNA-based but were RNA-organisms. And these organisms eventually built the first DNA-molecules and proteins.
Yes, it is. To be exact it is 10^39'994 times more than a Million But it still is not impossible. Just quite improbable.