What Do Reformed Christians Believe?

Aapex · Apr 13, 2006

Quote from vhehn:

what is it with you people always wanting to prove the bible true using the bible as evidence? that is circular reasoning. dont you understand the concept of evidence? you cant take a story from the bible and use the bible to verify that story. you have to use physical evidence to try and verify the bible story.
in the case of a global flood the bible clearly says the water covered the highest mountains and killed every living thing on earth. a flood of that kind would have had to leave traces. where are those traces. the global flood story is the only bible fable that gave us enough information to falsify it in dozens of ways. I ask again which level of the geologic column did the flood lay down?
another question. what was the date of the flood described in the bible?

here is what we would expect to see if a global flood happened:
http://www.geocities.com/evolvedthinking/flood.htm
A global flood would have been such a catastrophic event that if it really, actually occurred, there would be unmistakable traces of it. It must have left clues. What would that evidence be like? What would we expect to find? The following items are a list of physical evidence that geologists would expect to find if the world was, at one time, covered by a global flood.

1. We would expect to observe a uniform, worldwide blanket of randomly sorted boulders, cobbles, sand, and silt overlain by a layer of clay. This blanket would overlie any pre-existing geologic record. Since the Flood allegedly took place a mere 5000 years ago, this evidence should still remain with very little erosion. But this worldwide blanket does not exist.

2. We would expect to see no sorting in regard to sediment type and size. The maelstrom of a flood would only permit "dumping" of transported sediment in accord with Stokes Law. Furthermore, HOW could floodwaters have deposited layers of HEAVIER sediments on top of layers of LIGHTER sediments? In other words, if there had been an ultramassive Flood, we would not expect to see limestone strata overlaid by granite. No creationist has ever explained how the Flood could have deposited layers of heavy sediment on top of layers of lighter sediment.

3. The present day land surface would be expected everywhere to show rounding of the land surfaces in the direction the waters receded. There would be mega-ripples everywhere such as are seen along the Columbia River formed by the rapid movement of the waters off the land surface. Present day landforms would be expected to show a second stage of erosion resulting from this runoff in the common form of valleys eroded below the base level of its tributaries resulting in what are called hanging valleys in glacial terrain. These would be common and not caused by glaciations.

4. There would be no segregation of fossils. If all organisms lived at the same time, we would expect to see trilobites, brachiopods, ammonites, dinosaurs, and mammals (including humans) all randomly mixed together in the worldwide blanket described in point #1. This is not what is observed. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (but inconsistent with creationism), from simple forms to more complex forms, and from creatures very unlike modern species to those more closely resembling modern species. There is not one instance of any fossils that have been deposited "out of order".

In addition, there would be no extinction events found in the fossil record. There are at least five major extinction events, a situation where fossils are abundant below a certain line within the geological layers, but totally absent above that line. The most notable extinction event is the one that killed off the dinosaurs (and 90% of all other life) 65 million years ago. There is no way to explain these geological features with a global flood.

5. If, here and there, there were preserved remnants of the pre-flood land surface, its surface would show signs of major erosion.

6. Igneous (volcanic) rocks, if they existed at all in flood sediments, would all be in the form of pillow lava, which are extruded underwater. There could be no segregation of igneous rock types. Basalt would be the only igneous rock type because all activity would have been extrusive. There would be a complete absence of volcanic layers within the strata.

In reality, there are very clearly defined volcanic layers, from which radiometric dates are obtained. How can we observe layers of volcanic rock within the strata if there was a Flood at at the time? The lava would have mushroomed up into what is known as "pillow lava", like we see on the ocean floor today. So how can we have flat layers of volcanic rock, compressed between other layers, occurring during an "ultramassive flood"?

7. Metamorphic rocks, as they are formed from previously existing rocks, would not exist in the post-Flood geological layers because the necessary heating and cooling require millions of years for large bodies.
8. All radioactive isotopes which would not have completely decayed away in, say 10,000 years, would exist in nature because those with a moderately short half-life would not have had time to decay.

9. No varves, ice cores, tree ring ensembles, coral cores, or other examples of periodically accumulated accretion should be found to extend back beyond the time of the Flood. They do. Ice cores, drilled from stable ice plains, show 40,000 years of annual layers. Varves, which are mineral deposits, show millions of years of annual layers.

10. Because of the catastrophic force of the marine environment and the lack of exposure of the land during the flood, we would expect to find no examples at all in the geologic record of the following delicate fossils or evidence for land deposition :
fossilized dinosaur nests ant nests termite nests bird nests (of a relative of the flamingo in the Green River Formation in Wyoming) fragile wasp nests complex rodent burrows animal dung left in its original position of deposition as it hardened on dry, solid ground trackways of land animals raindrop imprints fossilized mudcracks fragile things preserved as fossils, such as bird feathers (Confuciusornis) ferns (adjacent to coal beds) insects (Oligocene lake beds near Florrisant, CO), oxidized rocks layers (redbeds) because there is insufficient oxygen in the water to oxidize (bring up) the iron present.

All these fragile features are found deep in the geological record. A catastrophic flood would have destroyed them. I would especially like you to consider how raindrop imprints and mudcracks could have become fossilized in a sudden, massive flood.

(more)

you can save a lot of time if you read this and realize that it was christian scientists who discovered that the flood could not have happened and just accept it.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm
More...

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE

Itâs true that the Bible shouldnât be read as merely a scientific textbook. However that doesnât mean the Bible contradicts science (e.g., Psa. 19:4-6; Rev. 7:1). Fact is, the very foundation of the scientific method is rooted in a biblical worldview. Christianity considers the world to be knowable, observable, descriptive, and above all, orderly because it has a designer of infinite knowledge and wisdom. Based on this premise, early scientists like Kepler, Bacon, and Newton believed that by studying creation, they were obeying not only the great commission, but the cultural mandate to subdue the earth as well. Maybe the best way to put it is to âthink Godâs thoughts after Him.â

Itâs ironic that in an age of scientific enlightenment, skeptics still claim that science deals with what is observable while theology only deals with what is unobservable â especially in light of the fact that we canât even explain what science is in the first place. Not only this, but much of what is being touted today as science isnât really observable at all â things like quarks, electromagnetic fields, and even the evolving big bang theory. In fact, if weâre to consider only what is observable to be scientific, weâd still be saying that the earth is flat.

Truth is, God Himself bases his own integrity upon certain scientific premises (e.g., Jer. 31:35-37). For instance: the fact that Christ rose from the dead is testable and verifiable. To prove that he rose bodily, Jesus said to his disciples, see, touch, and eat with me (Luke 24:36-42; John 20:24-31; 1 John 1:1-4).

The point is, the Bible and science are neither mutually exclusive nor contradictory â they fit together like hand and glove.

stu · Apr 13, 2006

Quote from Aapex:

What does science actually tell us about â¦

the origin of the universe?
the purpose of the universe?
the origin of life on this planet?
the origin of the major animal groups called phyla?
the development of intelligence?

Everything that can be proven.

What does Religion/Bible actually tell us about â¦

the origin of the universe?
the purpose of the universe?
the origin of life on this planet?
the origin of the major animal groups called phyla?
the development of intelligence?

Nothing that can be proven

Quote from Aapex:

The point is, the Bible and science are neither mutually exclusive nor contradictory â they fit together like hand and glove.

More...

No. They fit like a glove on a foot.

btw. if you are going to cut & past other people's ideas, as daft as they are, shouldn't you at least have the courtesy to credit the source you are using, especially as you are obviously not thinking for yourself.

Free Thinker · Apr 13, 2006

i am willing to concede that the universe could have had a mysterious, prior Cause beyond the universe. it was Zues. prove me wrong.

Quote from Aapex:

What does science actually tell us about â¦

1. â¦the origin of the universe? From the ancients until Einstein, people who had not been influenced by the Bible assumed that the universe has existed eternally, relieving them of the burden of dealing with ultimate origins. Today, overwhelming evidence has forced over 95 percent of cosmologists to subscribe to the theory of a big bang creation event. For those who care to think about it, this theory requires a mysterious, prior Cause beyond the universe.

A universal beginning provides the most scientifically acceptable explanation for the observed expansion of the universe. As NASA satellite team leader George Smoot wrote in the foreword to my book on modern cosmology: âUntil the late 1910âs, humans were as ignorant of cosmic origins as they had ever been. Those who didnât take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning.â1

2. â¦the purpose of the universe? Of course, scientists say this topic is outside the scientific domain; yet their observations have made it difficult for them to avoid acknowledging a mysterious phenomenon called fine-tuning. It turns out that the fundamental forces of nature â the universeâs expansion rate at the beginning, the ratio of the proton and electron masses, and so on â each have values that fall within extremely narrow parameters necessary for life.

Many scientists, with no prompting from theists, speak of the âanthropic principleâ as their best explanation. The values of natureâs constants can best be predicted when scientists calculate as if anthros, or humanity, is the purpose behind them. Psalm 66:5 tells us: âCome and see what God has done, how awesome his works in manâs behalf!â

3. â¦the origin of life on this planet? The theory of evolution has nothing to offer in explaining this event. Though origin-of-life study is an active field of research, no one has come up with a scenario, let alone a theory, that most scientists are willing to accept. One of scienceâs greatest unmet challenges has been to explain the origin of lifeâs DNA code, which information scientist Hubert Yockey calls âmathematically identicalâ to alphabetic language in its specificity and complexity. The most popular hypothesis speculates that RNA-based life provided an interim step, since RNA is simpler than DNA while also using a code to specify the production of proteins; but RNA would require a predecessor as well.

Modern evidence exacerbates these problems by showing that life appeared on earth almost as soon as the planet provided the conditions for it. This leaves little time for what scientists had expected to be the most time-consuming stage of lifeâs history: the development of the cell and its genetic code.

Modern theories of self-organization and chaos have explained how interesting patterns can be created without intelligence. No theory, however, has been able to overcome the impossible odds against any natural mechanism producing information, that is, meaning.

4. â¦the origin of the major animal groups called phyla? According to Darwin (and modern neo-Darwinists), life evolved from the bottom up; that is, small changes accumulated into larger ones over millions of years. We should therefore find animal groups with the greatest differences between them (called phyla) later in time, nearer the top of the fossil strata. We should be able to categorize animals into more widely separated groups as time passes, and these groups should become more numerous.

âBut that story is not true, according to our fossil finds,â paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen told me during my visit to seven Chinese sites containing the worldâs oldest animal fossils. âThe new phyla make their start in the early days, instead of coming at the top.â Also, the number of animal phyla become fewer with time, not greater. New phyla have not continued to appear in all the ages since the early Cambrian period. Naturalistic expectations of a bottom-up pattern are unfulfilled by the evidence, while the actual top-down arrangement observed in the fossil record fits well with the concept of design.

5. â¦the patterns we find in the fossil record? Neo-Darwinism predicts a gradualistic pattern showing slow transitions from one type of life to another as small changes accumulate. The noted, recently deceased Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote about the true state of affairs: âThe extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.â2

Rather than seeing obvious connections between organisms fitting neatly into an evolutionary tree, the actual, typical pattern we find for each animal and plant in the fossil record is: (1) sudden appearance, (2) tiny changes over long periods, and (3) extinction.

Again, this mysterious pattern comes as a surprise to naturalistic theorists. We shouldnât jump to the conclusion that the Bible, by contrast, spells out all the creation details, but we can say, very conservatively, that the pattern fits what weâd expect from the hand of God as well or better than a naturalistic theory that ignores lifeâs actual history.

6. ...the development of intelligence? As evolutionary biologists see it, only one species out of an estimated 50 billion developed high intelligence on this planet after 4.6 billion years. Harvard zoologist Ernst Mayr declared that, if intelligence has such high value, we should see more species develop it.3 Stephen Jay Gould viewed the intelligence of Homo sapiens âas an ultimate in oddball rarity.â4

The biologistsâ view, however, contradicts scienceâs much cherished Copernican Principle, which tells us that we are typical, not exceptional. Faced with contrary evidence, scientists who are honest must admit that they have to give up either the observation that intelligence appears to be almost impossibly rare or unique or the view that human intelligence is typical in the universe. The Bible sides with the evidence: there is indeed something special about us.

Where did our species get the volitional ability to override our natural instincts? How does âdifferential reproductive successâ explain the human ability to write great literature, compose symphonies, create fine art, and do abstract math? We donât need these abilities to survive.

7. If our intelligence and volition were purposely created, what might be our Creatorâs purpose for us? The Creator could have made us like automatons, or like animals, to follow Him instinctively. The fact that He didnât leads us to wonder why one volitional Being would go to the trouble of creating another volitional being, particularly when we can use our wills to defy His will â unless He wants to have a personal relationship with us. The highest kind of relationship offers parties the ability to reject the relationship. Isnât it reasonable, then, that the Highest Being would want to have the highest kind of relationship â love â the relationship in which each person willingly gives himself or herself to the other?

The Bible tells how the God who is beyond our universe entered His own creation in order to demonstrate His love for us in the most dramatic, personal way possible. âGreater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friendsâ (John 15:13).
More...

Free Thinker · Apr 13, 2006

Quote from Aapex:

Truth is, God Himself bases his own integrity upon certain scientific premises (e.g., Jer. 31:35-37). For instance: the fact that Christ rose from the dead is testable and verifiable. To prove that he rose bodily, Jesus said to his disciples, see, touch, and eat with me (Luke 24:36-42; John 20:24-31; 1 John 1:1-4).

.
More...

prove it. what testable and verifiable test can you propose to prove that jesus rose from the dead without using the bible? people like you can never get past "the bible proves the bible true".
if you can prove jesus rose from the dead without using the bible you will have all of mankind on their knees.

Free Thinker · Apr 13, 2006

Quote from jem:

Vhehn and others first off I am not arguing that you must take every word of the bible litterally. That arguments is for others.

But two things. One I cited you to sites that critiqued your geologic layer concern. The layer itself is sort of speculation.

But more importantly, I pointed out that I do not even know if your tranlation of a world wide flood is correct.

Frankly, it is not a big concern to me. But, like I said, if you think you can do it, go for it, show that the bible said world wide flood and prove it incorrect. I am still waiting.
More...

well, we are getting somewhere. you admit that the bible is not inerrant and some of the stories like the global flood are not literal. i agree with you. i think none of the supernatural events are literal.

"Frankly, it is not a big concern to me".
so you are saying that even though one of the most important stories in the bible is just a fable it does not concern you? you are willing to just overlook that bit of truth. let me ask you a question. how many of the other bible stories have you thought through in detail?
Beliefs should be a search for truth and understanding, not denying reality so you can have faith in a compendium of books written by unknown authors over hundreds and hundreds of years complied much later by other fallible men, as 100% literally correct. That is a faith that is truly blind.

ZZZzzzzzzz · Apr 13, 2006

"....especially as you are obviously not thinking for yourself."

Okay, if you believe he is not thinking for himself, why on earth are you arguing with "his" thinking?

LOL....

stu, good to see you are still on the same track....

<img src=http://www.mythandculture.com/weblog/man_hamster_wheel_lg_nwm.gif>

Quote from stu:

Quote from Aapex:

What does science actually tell us about â¦

the origin of the universe?
the purpose of the universe?
the origin of life on this planet?
the origin of the major animal groups called phyla?
the development of intelligence?

Everything that can be proven.

What does Religion/Bible actually tell us about â¦

the origin of the universe?
the purpose of the universe?
the origin of life on this planet?
the origin of the major animal groups called phyla?
the development of intelligence?

Nothing that can be proven

No. They fit like a glove on a foot.

btw. if you are going to cut & past other people's ideas, as daft as they are, shouldn't you at least have the courtesy to credit the source you are using, especially as you are obviously not thinking for yourself.
More...

Free Thinker · Apr 13, 2006

Quote from Aapex:

What does science actually tell us about â¦

3. â¦the origin of life on this planet? The theory of evolution has nothing to offer in explaining this event. Though origin-of-life study is an active field of research, no one has come up with a scenario, let alone a theory, that most scientists are willing to accept. One of scienceâs greatest unmet challenges has been to explain the origin of lifeâs DNA code, which information scientist Hubert Yockey calls âmathematically identicalâ to alphabetic language in its specificity and complexity. The most popular hypothesis speculates that RNA-based life provided an interim step, since RNA is simpler than DNA while also using a code to specify the production of proteins; but RNA would require a predecessor as well.

Modern evidence exacerbates these problems by showing that life appeared on earth almost as soon as the planet provided the conditions for it. This leaves little time for what scientists had expected to be the most time-consuming stage of lifeâs history: the development of the cell and its genetic code.

Modern theories of self-organization and chaos have explained how interesting patterns can be created without intelligence. No theory, however, has been able to overcome the impossible odds against any natural mechanism producing information, that is, meaning.

4. â¦the origin of the major animal groups called phyla? According to Darwin (and modern neo-Darwinists), life evolved from the bottom up; that is, small changes accumulated into larger ones over millions of years. We should therefore find animal groups with the greatest differences between them (called phyla) later in time, nearer the top of the fossil strata. We should be able to categorize animals into more widely separated groups as time passes, and these groups should become more numerous.

âBut that story is not true, according to our fossil finds,â paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen told me during my visit to seven Chinese sites containing the worldâs oldest animal fossils. âThe new phyla make their start in the early days, instead of coming at the top.â Also, the number of animal phyla become fewer with time, not greater. New phyla have not continued to appear in all the ages since the early Cambrian period. Naturalistic expectations of a bottom-up pattern are unfulfilled by the evidence, while the actual top-down arrangement observed in the fossil record fits well with the concept of design.

5. â¦the patterns we find in the fossil record? Neo-Darwinism predicts a gradualistic pattern showing slow transitions from one type of life to another as small changes accumulate. The noted, recently deceased Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote about the true state of affairs: âThe extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.â2

Rather than seeing obvious connections between organisms fitting neatly into an evolutionary tree, the actual, typical pattern we find for each animal and plant in the fossil record is: (1) sudden appearance, (2) tiny changes over long periods, and (3) extinction.

Again, this mysterious pattern comes as a surprise to naturalistic theorists. We shouldnât jump to the conclusion that the Bible, by contrast, spells out all the creation details, but we can say, very conservatively, that the pattern fits what weâd expect from the hand of God as well or better than a naturalistic theory that ignores lifeâs actual history.

More...

things like this must totally ruin your day:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12286206/

Fossil discovery fills gap in human evolution
âWe just found the chain of evolution, the continuity through timeâ
April 12, 2006
WASHINGTON - The latest fossil unearthed from a human ancestral hot spot in Africa allows scientists to link together the most complete chain of human evolution so far.

The 4.2 million-year-old fossil discovered in northeastern Ethiopia helps scientists fill in the gaps of how human ancestors made the giant leap from one species to another. Thatâs because the newest fossil, the species Australopithecus anamensis, was found in the region of the Middle Awash â where seven other human-like species spanning nearly 6 million years and three major phases of human development were previously discovered.

âWe just found the chain of evolution, the continuity through time,â study co-author and Ethiopian anthropologist Berhane Asfaw said in a phone interview from Addis Ababa. âOne form evolved to another. This is evidence of evolution in one place through time.â

Aapex · Apr 13, 2006

Quote from vhehn:

things like this must totally ruin your day:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12286206/

Fossil discovery fills gap in human evolution
âWe just found the chain of evolution, the continuity through timeâ
April 12, 2006
WASHINGTON - The latest fossil unearthed from a human ancestral hot spot in Africa allows scientists to link together the most complete chain of human evolution so far.

The 4.2 million-year-old fossil discovered in northeastern Ethiopia helps scientists fill in the gaps of how human ancestors made the giant leap from one species to another. Thatâs because the newest fossil, the species Australopithecus anamensis, was found in the region of the Middle Awash â where seven other human-like species spanning nearly 6 million years and three major phases of human development were previously discovered.

âWe just found the chain of evolution, the continuity through time,â study co-author and Ethiopian anthropologist Berhane Asfaw said in a phone interview from Addis Ababa. âOne form evolved to another. This is evidence of evolution in one place through time.â
More...

This proves abosolutely nothing.
just because some psudo-scientist thinks up a story does not prove it to be true.

There is no evidence of Macroevolution in the fossil record.
Never has , Never will be.

You speak as though evolution is a proven fact? However you are only appealing to microevolution. Of course there are mutations and adaptation of species, but have we any proof of macroevolution? Can one species transform into an entirely different one? Be honest. The answer is âno.â So while you might be able to breed a Chihuahua with a Great Dane and get a new species of dog, you canât breed two dogs and get a cat, a mouse, or a whale. There is simply no sufficient evidence for macroevolution.

I'm sure that you believe that science deals with the natural, while creationism deals with the supernatural. But not all scientific endeavors can be explained by natural laws. Belief in the big bang is just one example of this. Many evolutionists fail to make a distinction between operation science and origin science. Operations science generally refers to observational and repeatable events, while origin science deals with nonrepeatable events such as creationism and macroevolution.

Nevertheless, we can construct a scientific model for creationism by combining matter, energy, and information â such as that found in the genetic code â and produce life. This model is both observable and repeatable. Now in order to get programmed information, you need a Designer. Information does not come by random evolution, but from an intelligent Creator.

Nice try vhehn:eek:

Aapex · Apr 13, 2006

Quote from stu:

Quote from Aapex:

What does science actually tell us about â¦

the origin of the universe?
the purpose of the universe?
the origin of life on this planet?
the origin of the major animal groups called phyla?
the development of intelligence?

Everything that can be proven.

More...

Ok then:
What does science tell us of the origen of the universe?

What is the purpose of the universe?

What is the origen of life on this planet?

What is the origen of the major animal groups called phyla?

What is the origen of the development of intelligence?

You said that everything can be proven?

Prove it!

Quote from vhehn:

things like this must totally ruin your day:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12286206/

Fossil discovery fills gap in human evolution
âWe just found the chain of evolution, the continuity through timeâ
April 12, 2006
WASHINGTON - The latest fossil unearthed from a human ancestral hot spot in Africa allows scientists to link together the most complete chain of human evolution so far.

The 4.2 million-year-old fossil discovered in northeastern Ethiopia helps scientists fill in the gaps of how human ancestors made the giant leap from one species to another. Thatâs because the newest fossil, the species Australopithecus anamensis, was found in the region of the Middle Awash â where seven other human-like species spanning nearly 6 million years and three major phases of human development were previously discovered.

âWe just found the chain of evolution, the continuity through time,â study co-author and Ethiopian anthropologist Berhane Asfaw said in a phone interview from Addis Ababa. âOne form evolved to another. This is evidence of evolution in one place through time.â
More...

You speak as though evolution is a proven fact?
However you are only appealing to microevolution. Of course there are mutations and adaptation of species, but have we any proof of macroevolution? Can one species transform into an entirely different one? Be honest. The answer is âno.â So while you might be able to breed a Chihuahua with a Great Dane and get a new species of dog, you canât breed two dogs and get a cat, a mouse, or a whale. There is simply no sufficient evidence for macroevolution.

I'm sure that you believe that science deals with the natural, while creationism deals with the supernatural. But not all scientific endeavors can be explained by natural laws. Belief in the big bang is just one example of this. Many evolutionists fail to make a distinction between operation science and origin science. Operations science generally refers to observational and repeatable events, while origin science deals with nonrepeatable events such as creationism and macroevolution.

Nevertheless, we can construct a scientific model for creationism by combining matter, energy, and information â such as that found in the genetic code â and produce life. This model is both observable and repeatable. Now in order to get programmed information, you need a Designer. Information does not come by random evolution, but from an intelligent Creator.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Watches, machines, computers â all examples of intelligent design. And like them, the universe also exhibits evidences of intelligent design. Well is this proof of a Cosmic Designer?

The argument known as the âargument from designâ (teleological) reasons that evidence for complexity and purpose in the universe points to a cosmic designer. Well, is this a good argument or not?

Letâs look at the human brain. Scientists have called the human brain the most complex mechanism in the known universe. The brain contains at least enough information to fill 20 million volumes. And then, of course, thereâs the DNA molecule, it exhibits astounding evidence of design. A single DNA molecule is estimated to carry as much information as one large volume of the encyclopedia.

How do we know that the brain and the DNA molecule didnât just happen by chance? First of all, chance doesnât create. The probability that the brain or DNA molecule would arise by natural forces alone is truly incredible. If you doubt this, remember that the probability of forming a simple protein molecule by random processes would take somewhere in the vicinity of 10257 power years. If youâre not a mathematician, that would be one with 257 zeros behind it, a number which is incredibly large. Forming a simple cell by random processes would take around 10119,000. That is a number so large itâs incomprehensible. Of course, scientists such as A.E. Wilder-Smith and others have argued persuasively that the Darwinian theory of matter, energy, and time combining to produce life is not only improbable, it is indeed impossible. Life can only emerge when thereâs a code and this code has to come from an intelligent creator.

The more we learn, the more we have to echo the words of the psalmist who wrote: âThe heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands (Psa. 19).

Nice try stu & vhehn

stu · Apr 13, 2006

Quote from Aapex:
"You said that everything can be proven?"

Aapex,
with all due respect, try stop reading INTO stuff, instead I suggest you read what is actually said.

"What does science actually tell us about â¦"

I said:
Everything that can be proven.

Quote from Aapex:

Ok then:
What does science tell us of the origen of the universe?

What is the purpose of the universe?

What is the origen of life on this planet?

What is the origen of the major animal groups called phyla?

What is the origen of the development of intelligence?

You said that everything can be proven?

Prove it!
More...