Thanks Mimi!! The great thing is that no matter what, we will be able to hang out in eternity together. Until then...

In His arms.

MM:

BTW, my F also passed away in 1996. Do you think they might be hanging out together?

FH:

I can't think of a single thing 2 say 2 you after that. Only 2 repeat what I've said before - you have absolutely no understanding of my beliefs or motives. Whatsoever.

MM:

I'm saddened that you didn't have anything 2 say about my Peter Gabriel quote.

More, though, I think I understand better after reading this thread just why creationists get so animated over the issue of creationism versus evolution. They believe that scientists are attacking Christianity by pushing evolution. I'm sorry they feel that way, I truly am. I don't believe it's the case at all.

Yes, scientists are people and have biases and preconceived notions about things. But the good ones set those aside, or are willing 2, for the sake of scientific progress (if they don't, their peers and FRIENDS will quickly tear them apart, the self-correction is that good, and also FUN).

The evolutionary "picture" has pretty huge parts of "the pic2re". I don't understand your statement 2 the contrary.

I can define faith simply: the belief that something is possible or true. That applies 2 the scientific method and 2 spiri2al matters. Same word, same meaning, very different applications.

MM, I re2rn control of your thread 2 you. I still think you're a pretty neat guy, even though I do believe that I'm right and you're wrong about evolution. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

-ol' 2long

MM,

I sort of promised myself I would stay out of this thread, but I feel compelled to respond. One of the reasons I wanted to stay out is that this topic is so interesting and it will consume too much time. Further, it is the basis of the human experience, Religion, coupled with the need to "understand".

I would like to point out to you and others, that the Bible does NOT explain how God created the universe. In Genesis, there there is the statement "let there be light and there was light". Sort of reminds this scientist of the "big bang THEORY". But, what I would really like to point out, is that a being that can create a universe is way beyond our power to understand, thus any explanation this being would offer has to be "dummied down" for us humans to understand. and remember we are talking what... 5000 years ago? Here I am talking about the mechanisms of creation.

However that does not mean we cannot learn and understand how the world around us works. The essence of scince is the ability to predict and that requires understanding. That is why religion and science occupy two separate parts of our lives. They are NOT in conflict. One is the effort to understand the understandable. The other is the belief in things we cannot understand.

I will continue for just a moment. In regards to the actually topic of this thread, there is something that must be understood about the Bible and for that matter most religious documents. They come in two parts: one offers an "understandable" explanation of God's power and how the universe came to be, the other offers rules/guidelines for the social interaction between human beings. Interestingly most if not all religions encourage the development of a strong family unit. Even more interestingly most successful societies, have a focus and emphasis on a strong family unit, rather than a tribal organization. I will define successful here to mean a society able to control its "environment" to some degree and even ease the pain of and protect its members.

It seems to me what MM is going to talk about is the Bible's view of how to acheive a strong, successful and viable family. Such advice is sorely needed in our society,but it must be accepted in the manner in which it was given; To make the family successful, and not to diminish any member of the family. Families where all members are NOT respected don't function well.

So perhaps while we could debate science, the creation story, how detailed it really is, and the reality that science does in fact work, and allows predictions that are valid and useful, that is not the point here.

We could discuss the "great flood" on another thread. There is evidence that such a flood occured in the area where the story of Noah took place when an ice dam broke following the last ice age. And truely most of the world for those living in that region was flooded. The writers it must be remembered didn't know the world was even round, so their "world" was pretty small by our standards.

Nevertheless, I would like to hear MM's view on the family, and I would like to hear how this view can be seen in the modern paradigm and vocabulary.

God Bless,

JL

Very well said, JL. Looking forward to your new thread, MM

Okay...a brief blurb on Evolution...while I continue to compile the new marriage thread...

Evolution theory has splintered into several groups, as it tries to combat its weaknesses.

1. The first theory, the original theory, was random chance. A lot of scientists on the evolutionary side have left this theory, due to the findings that show that it is just impossible for life to have been created thru random chance. A couple reasons....well, first, check this out:

If we took all of the carbon in the universe and placed it on Earth, allowed it to chemically react at the fastest rate possible, and did so for a billion years, the odds of creating just ONE functional protein molecule would be one chance in a 10 with 60 zeros after it.

Wow. Takes a lot of faith to believe in something with odds that bad!! Odds like that are called a statistical impossibility. But, instead of all of those zeros, lets use those odds to get a real picture of just how crazy random theory is.

The possibility of linking together just one hundred amino acids to create one protein molecule by chance is the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand somewhere in the Sahara Desert...and doing so not just once, but three times.

Sir Frederick Hoyle stated that the probability of random chance occuring and producing ONE protein molecule is the same as a tornado going thru a junkyard and and accidentally assembling a functional Boeing 747.

Basically, the odds are ZERO for random chance!!

2. The next theory in the evolutionary realm is what is called chemical affinity. In this, scientists state that amino acids must have some kind of affinity or attraction to spontaneously link up to create the protein molecules that life is made of. It is called Biochemical Predestination. With computer modeling of all of the known protein sequences, scientists (including the man that was the proponent of this theory) have repudiated it. Amino acids were found not to have this affinity.

3. The next is self-ordering tendencies. Which in big dictionary, scientific terms, is called the Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics theory. It basically says that if energy is passed thru a system at a high enough rate, the system will become unstable and rearrange itself into an alternate and somewhat more complicated form.

This theory uses water draining out of a bathtub as an example. As the bathtub drains, it just has molecules randomly dropping down the drain. But toward the end of the draining, the exit becomes much more orderly as the molecules spontaneously form a vortex.

The problem is even the author of this theory admits that there is a huge gap between the ordering of water molecules in the bathtub scenario, and the higly complex orderign of amino acids to create life.

Basically, in order to understand what is going on here...you have to see that where this ordering goes on in nature, it is at a low level of complexity. Water molecules coming to order in the vortex is like writing "Darwin is a man," "Darwin is a man," "Darwin is a man" over and over again in a blank book. What life requires, the complexity of life requires, is not just order. In the book example, life requires a complexity where the order is of such magnitude that the book is filled with meaningful sentences that tell a story.

Again, even the proponent of this theory admits the HUGE gaps in proving it.

4. Some scientists believe life was seeded from space. First off, this theory is great in that it shows that scientists are now coming around to believe that there is no way life could have been created on this earth thru prebiology evolution. So they have to look to space now for the answers. This is where they speculate that life was planted here by asteroids or something like that.

Now first off, the question is...if life was on that asteroid, then how did it get there? How was that life made? Even if it was from a planet made up of all the right materials, that planet is still subkect to the same probablities we discussed above in random ordering of amino acids. It is just as statistically impossible there, as it is here.

The second thing is this. Even if an asteroid did bring the amino acids here...we still have to get them assembled here...into life. And we talked about that above.

5. Some have hypothesized about vents in the ocean. These vents and the material that they belch out, is said to provide the building blocks for life. And while the events do provide a source of energy for this process, this theory still does not address how you assemble these acids into the right sequence with the right connections. Which was discussed above.

6. Another theory is that life formed in clay, where the environment is supposed to be condusive for life to form. While the clay is better than water in proiding a condusive environment, we still go back to the orderign and sequencing problems above. How is the clay going to impart order and sequencing on these molecules in order to create the proteins needed for life? All the clay can impart is repetitive information...just like the book scenario listed above.

--------------

Many scientists now are admitting that they are at a dead end right now in this line. Here is a quote from one of the proponents of these theories (Klaus Dose), about the current state of the evolutionary scinetific theories:

Wow!! And that is from a proponent of evolutionary thought...not a creationist!!

Here's another proponent (Crick):
--------------------

So, if natural scientific laws cant explain the origin of life, then what is the answer??? An Intelligent Designer!! And the way you realize that the overwhelming evidence points to a Creator is using the scientific method of using analogies from things we know in order to understand things we dont.

--------------------

The Analogical Method says this: "If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, the cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause on the other, though not so obvious itself."

So using this Analogical Method, we then look at the origin of life. If the only time we see written information, on paper or a cave wall, is when there is intelligence behind it, then wouldnt that be true in nature also?? DNA is nothing but encoded, written information. We use a 26 letter alphabet. DNA uses a 4 letter chemical alphabet. These letters combine in many ways to make words, sentences and paragraphs. These paragraphs are all of the information that guide the cell in its forming and functioning.

So, when we see written languafe, we can infer that it has intelligence behind it. Legitimately, just like science does i nother areas, we can use the Analogical Method in order to that the written information in DNA had an intelligent cause. So, the question of the origin of life now moves from "what" caused it, to "Who" caused it. As Carl Sagan once said, the receipt of one message fro mspace would be enough to prove intelligent life in space. And if that single message is enough for us to conclude that there is life in space, then what about the VAST amounts of info in the DNA of plants and animals?? Each cell in the human body contains more information than all thrity volumes of an encylopedia.

----------------

In order for evolutionists to keep the Creator out of the origin of life, they have to find a way for life to be created in a way to provide this information, these volumes of written information, randomly. They have not done so.

But, the evidence overwhelmingly points that there has to be a Creator for these things to exist.

--------------

Okay, enough typing. There is a start to our discussion. I am going to back to finishing the roles in marriage thread.

In His arms.

I have no doubt!! Probably laughing at us both right now!!

Ditto.

edited 2 add: Ditto JL and FF, that is. MM and I posted at the same time.

-ol' 2long

So, MM, are you now a proponent of evolution so long as it's backed by an intelligence?

Except for Sagan, I've never heard of those people you reference.

Silly thought arguments, though. Like, given enough time, a chimp with a typewriter will type the complete works of Shakespeare. I doubt it. It would be far more efficient and feasible to teach him how to type.

JL can address the chemical arguments better than I, perhaps. But there are certainly inorganic chemical compounds that "grow" without being alive or intelligently organized. Quartz crystals, for example. It isn't 2 much of a stretch of the imagination 2 go from there, a simply molecule with the two most common elements on Earth in it, to a more complex organic molecule, behaving similarly, sorting and refining the solution it's in to a point where amino acids and other complex forms would "evolve".

Water spins down drains due to coriolis forces and conservation of angular momentum. Nothing random there at all. Or intelligent.

Beautiful, though.

-ol' 2long

Well, JL...as always I have to agree with you. You are usually the voice of reason in here.

I have posted the beginning of a discussion on the begiining of life, etc just now. So we can play with that for awhile.

But on what you said about marriage in different religions, I agree for the most part. But as I will show, what Christianity imparts on the roles and dynamics of marriage is in many ways, a huge departure from any other known religion in the world. Just as Christianity buy its definition, does not follow the mold of the major religions of the worl. The other major religions have a book, just like christianity. They have rules. Just like Christianity. They were written by dead guys...just like Christianity.

But where Christianity diverges fro mthe rest is that in order to actually be a Christian, a person must follow a live man...not writings from dead ones. Sure an argument can be made fro mnon-believers that the man we follow is dead. But we do not believe so. We believe He exists, that the Easter story is true.

In the marriage scenario also, the roles and responsibilities of husband and wife in the Christian context look similar on the surface. But in reality, it is a great departure from what the world and the rest of its religions outline.

On the family...just as marriage is not defined by man but by the one who created it, family is also defined by the one who created it. Thus, I know the complexities of families in everyday life. My oldest is not mine biologically...but he is still my son and we are still family.

But I believe you might have been referring to my answering another persons comment about homosexual parents and those families. As a Christian, I know that sex with a person of the same gender is an abomination to God. If I am to be a Christian and follow Christ, I must also believe the Bible from front to back...not just the parts I want to pick and chose from. I didnt make the rules on this. They are written. Now, people may chose to not believe in God, or believe in a different god. That is their right. But just because someone doesnt believe in something does not make it untrue. And such, if they believe in something doesnt make it true. If I believe in God, that doesnt make it true. There has to be more. And in my case, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that He does exist. And because I have accepted Him and met Him, I now know Him personally.

Let me use an example. Let's say I met a scientist that has perfected a doomsday device. One that if certain things happen with it, then the whole world explodes. Tha tscientist has imparted to me in a book, and thru our interactions, certain rules for handling this device. Now, when I show up back at home, friends of mine have never met this guy. They see the device, but they dont believe what is written...what I wrote down of what this scientist said. They might believe some of the rules, but not all of them. Remember, we are dealing with a deadly device here!!

What am I to do? Accept any theory they postulate on the use of this device? Should I "impose my beliefs" upon them in order to save them from what I know to be sure destruction? Should I stand up and speak the truth and tell them they are wrong?

Of course, there are ways of telling people they are wrong that are better received than others. I get that. But I would not be intellectually honest, nor loving, if I didnt speak the truth. And the truth is, as is written and as the "scientist" has imparted to all believers, is that His word is final. And He says there is no such thing as homosexual marriage. And that to break His rules for life is just as deadly as that doomsday device example I used above.

So, the quandry is...how to impart the truth when you KNOW it is the truth...to many that wont believe what you are saying...and criticize you for being "narrow" and only believing in one truth?

For me it just means to lay the seed out there and see where it grows. Some will never get it. Not because they cant get it...but because they wont get it. Others will take awhile. Even others will get it right away.

Again, not my problem. I just present what I know to be the truth, I look to Scripture, to prayer and to fellow believers to provide me more information so I understand the truth even more. The rest is left up to God.

Thanks again for jumping in JL. Your rational responses always tend to dampen many of the emotional, and even hysterical reactions on all sides.

In His arms.

No my friend...I do not believe the Creator used evolution. That is for another post. This last one was to just show that even the evolutionists are starting to come online to the fact that this cannot be random. But, I will show later that the Creator did not use evolution. That when He said 6 days, He meant 6 days. And why is that impossible?? If we are talking of an Intelligent Designer, who can make processes start due to Big Bang or whatever else out there turn into the complexity the universe is now...then how is it improbable that that Designer doesnt have the power to just fashion it all together in 6 days??? But again...for another post later!!

On the crystal thing...it is actually a VERY large stretch from a relatively low ordering system like a crystal to the highly organized languages of cells. HUGE!! So much so that without some intelligent designer, it is actually statistically impossible to reach that level of complexity, as I showed in the previous post.

Thanks again 2Long!!

(Almost done with the study folks!!)

In His arms.

MM:

"On the crystal thing...it is actually a VERY large stretch from a relatively low ordering system like a crystal to the highly organized languages of cells. HUGE!! So much so that without some intelligent designer, it is actually statistically impossible to reach that level of complexity, as I showed in the previous post."

But your previous post made the whole process "statistically impossible" by the way it was presented. Of COURSE a complex molecule, like DNA, wouldn't spontaneously assemble itself from an elemental soup. But I can add aluminum 2 quartz and make an alluminosillicate compound, then add something else, then something else - see what happens and add something else...

-ol' 2long

Ahhhh...but it is an intelligent designer adding that...in the right order, in the right amounts. Which wqas my argument above for an intelligent designer. That no matter what, as you said above, life could not have evolved randomly or without help. That's all. Could an Intelligent Designer take these things and whip up life? Sure. No doubt.

But I do not believe it was done that way. And there is proof that it wasnt done that way. Proof that God did not use evolution to create life. But as I said, that is the next level...the next step in this discussion. Like I wrote originally, the argument is no longer what caused life...but Who caused life. And with that, how did He (She??) do it.

And if we are searching now for Who caused life and how He did it...then we are now back to searching for God. And anyone that wants to know wha tthe meaning of life is...that IS the meaning of life!! The search for the Creator.

In His arms.

That's not what I said. The earth is made of a bunch of elements, mostly blasted in2 interstellar space by supernova explosions, that have a na2ural, dumb affinity for glomming on2 one another 2 make molecules.

Ever see an airplane made out of lithium? It's a metal, and the lightest one (besides Hydrogen under immense pressure). So it ought 2 make light structures like airplanes, right?

Trouble with lithium is it's so reactive that it tends 2 explode in contact with water, and oxidizes rapidly in our atmosphere (it's also pretty soft, you could cut it with a fork).

Organic molecules are all made of just a few elements that are common in the universe, that have a similar (though perhaps less dramatic) affinity for glomming on2 one another in particular configurations and forming molecules. What's needed for them 2 get truly complex is the right conditions - like puddles of water at the surface of the Earth (the oceans), where they're protected by its magnetic field from desintigration by energetic solar and cosmic radiation - and time.

-ol' 2long

Again, I agree with the facts you have there. But taking these processes and saying that a highly ordered system like a cell happened due to the combinations of these elements in the right order and timing is statistically impossible without someone "cooking the stew." It is too complex to write a novel based on random assembling of letters in a book. There must be a designer. Most of the evolutionary scientists now are turning towards that, as they have confronted the impossibility of evolution happening without a Designer to order it and set the conditions for it. That was all my argument was there. That there is a Designer.

Again, the next argument, once scientists finally realize that science points to an intelligent designer, is Who is this Designer...and how did He do it?

In His arms.

Well, we differ then. I have no difficulty extrapolating from simple molecule growth 2 evolution of procaryotes (single cell organisms without nuclei) 2 more complex cells, colonies of cells (organisms), Dinosaurs (birds), and people (with a lot of steps omitted for brevity).

Must there be a designer? I dont' think so. Is there a designer? Perhaps. Is it science 2 persue this avenue of thought? I think it's philisophical, or religious, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it isn't scientific.

-ol' 2long

"difference between husband and wife roles"

lalalala

I can't wait for the real discussion

Ouch!! Nothing like an impatient woman!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

HA!

don't confuse my natural enthusiasm with impatience

lalallalalalaaaaaa

Pep <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Again, you may have no problem with that...and that is fine. But you must overcome the statistical impossibilities of it. And that is a HUGE leap of faith. I have already listed some of those statistical possibilities. They are so immense, that it makes the argument for evolution with no creator no more than fantasy, because the facts do not support it, nor do mathematics. 2Long, you can accept anything you want. The issue is...what does science prove or disprove. there is no evidence that one molecule of protein has ever been created or could be created due to natural processes...on their own. Someone had to intercede. Evolutionists are all beginning to recognize that. Their positions have become unsupportable by evidence, by testing, and by statistical probabilities.

In His arms.