why I chose creation/christianity

The main reasons I believe the universe was created are:1. Irreducible complexity. I have yet to see this explained away by any evolutionist.2. The mathematical improbability of life being created by chance. The amino acids which form proteins must form ordered strings which are almost like an alphabet. Very, very low probability of creation by chance. Has been compared to a tornado whirling through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a fully functional Boeing 747.3. On the religion side of things: evolution, often inadvertently, makes God unnecessary. If we are just chance products of genetic mutations, then there is no right or wrong, no morals, and we don't have to live according to how God wants us to live. Evolution can breed atheism. I'd much rather be a christian and wrong, than an atheist and wrong. The wrong Christian at least felt that they had a fulfilling life, however the wrong atheist will spend eternity in hell.4. Personal experience. I know most evolutionists will probably tell me that I shouldn't use this in a debate since it's not really provable but as a man of my word I am using it. I've talked to God before, and it's kind of hard to deny somebody who talks to you.

1)Muller 1939. Note that thats close to 60 years before Behe...2)Hear this one a lot... Fancy running some of the calculations that show it to be improbable by us? Or do you claim its improbability a priori?Oh and heres a link for you...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html3)This whole argument relies upon God actualy existing. Its also a low level restatement of Pascals wager (see the afterlife thread post 2 for my response to said wager) with some Hovindesque "Evil-ution"(TM) assertions...4)Just humour me for a second and insert "a 12 foot tall pink bunny rabit from Mars called Claude" for "God"....Does it sound at all credible?If not why is your original any more worthwhile?

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-30-2002]

[QUOTE][b]On the religion side of things: evolution, often inadvertently, makes God unnecessary.[/QUOTE][/b]If it is "necessary" to believe in God, isn't free will negated?Evolution does not rule out God, but it gives people free will by allowing that "natural" phenomena (perhaps or perhaps not themselves created/driven by God) gaves rise to ourselves and the world around us. And if evolution really happened, what is the point in arguing against the truth behind Creation? To lie to ourselves just to encourage others of weaker faith to believe in God is to still be a liar. A lie for God is still a lie, and the indemnity that goes with it is no less than any other lie. In fact if it negates the need for faith the lie hurts genuine belief more than any other and ultimately benefits evil. Hovind, take note.Also there was a time when natural phenomena had no natural explanations, they were the products of supernatural intervention in the natural world. Diseases and dementias were interventions by Satan. These explanations were simply the best that the pre-scientific people could produce, but they had a side-benefit of bolstering the faith by making the "supernatural" palpable. After all, you would have to believe in the supernatural because that supernatural was a part of daily life. The Germ Theory of disease was resisted because it removed the supernatural from daily life and replaced it with a natural explanation. Then, as today, the religious resisted the truth because they lost part of the anthill. The argument that you raise, that science should somehow "back off" because you feel it removes the necessity of faith, is no different from what science has heard over the centuries. If your faith is strong enough to move mountains, why do you fear progress, and the truth? The rejection of evolution, or any scientific principle, because of the (perceived) influence it has on the necessity of God, is a red flag announcing spiritual weakness, and the fear of the possibility that, just maybe, people need actual faith.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
1)Muller 1939. Note that thats close to 60 years before Behe...

​

---

There you have it stretch guy! Explained away in ten words! Remember never to underestimate the evolutionists ability to explain away everything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
"4)Just humour me for a second and insert "a 12 foot tall pink bunny rabit from Mars called Claude" for "God"....

​

Does it sound at all credible?

​

If not why is your original any more worthwhile?"

---

Just wondering, why do you really care what he thinks about God? I thought evolution has nothing to do with God.

My understanding of how amino acids form proteins is something like this, and correct me if i'm wrong. They have to form a string of somewhere around a hundred for one protein, and they have to be in the correct order, sort of like an alphabet. I've also read that the WRONG amino acids form bonds more readily than[I apologize for the technical difficulty with this post. The website ran out of disk space. The problem has been remedied. --Percy]

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 03-31-2002]

No problem percipient.The rest of that post:...more readily than the correct ones, therefore this increases the difficulty of life coming about by chance. So these hundreds of amino acids must form these complex strings to form these proteins, and hundreds of proteins must form to create tissues and organisms, etc. The conditions for the first supposed cells weren't as favorable as the Miller experiment contended, either - recent studies show that the early atmosphere was much like the atmosphere today, which would be entirely inhospitable to the creation of life.Sure, that argument hinges on whether or not God actually exists, but there is more proof FOR him than AGAINST him. I would enjoy seeing somebody attempt to logically disprove the existence of God.Inserting a tall bunny would be rediculous. First of all, bunnies aren't tall. Heh, just kidding, that's now how i'm gonna argue that point. The pink bunny doesn't have a Bible behind him which is considered historically accurate by the Smithsonian Institute, he doesn't have 2000 years of believers whose lives have been changed, and he hasn't affected the whole world by being resurrected from the dead, as Jesus did.And would you care to enlighten me about how this guy supposedly dealt with irreducible complexity, or am I to take your word that he did so?

"And would you care to enlighten me about how this guy supposedly dealt with irreducible complexity, or am I to take your word that he did so?"I personally find it amusing that someone would be convinced that Behe has been "disproved" based on the work of a scientist that was written before the double helix shape of DNA was known! I do not imagine that one so easily convinced would be worthwhile of debate.