While the #possible combinations is truly impressive, we don’t necessarily have to wait for the last possible combination to hit pay dirt. It could happen on the 1st combo. Or the 10th. Or after 10^200.</p>
<ol>
<li>I’m afraid your image of a single solitary molecule sitting somewhere, trying out 10,000 combinations/second is a bit puzzling. When you consider the billions and billions (sorry) of molecules on a planet, even a tiny fraction of them attempting random mutations at any time works out to a lot more than 10^4. Now multiply by the estimated #planets in the universe, and that number grows to a <em>lot</em> more.</li>
</ol>
<p>i’m guessing it’s because this time we are dealing with the origin. before we were dealing with the facts, the laws of nature, now we are dealing with the origin of the facts, and how those laws came to be… looking at it the other way, what tells us that God is definitely not scientific? How much do we know about Him to declare him as a non-scientific solution…</p>
<p>optmizerDad, it’s just an illustrative example that I, an uneducated person, can even try to understand. what i don’t understand about your post is…if it seems so easy with your second example, why are we not finding things now? maybe because molecules don’t just go through random mutation on their own? or not all molecules can work?</p>
<p>But the Big Bang is the origin, that is when the laws of nature and facts concerning them were established. Life wasnt created at the origin, even according to the bible. God isnt scientific because Divine Intervention is used as an indirect proof, however the people who forward it fail to account for all other possible scenarios, because doing so is impossible.</p>
<p>Molecules dont go through mutations, per se. Everything created after the Big Bang was done through atoms randomly hitting each other and forming larger atoms, and those atoms randomly hitting each other to form molecules, and so on. What sped up this process was the fact that all the matter of the universe was in a relatively local area, and atoms were very energetic, which resulted in many collissions. Sometimes two atoms would bounce off each other, sometimes they would stick, depending on the structure of their nucleus and e- cloud.</p>
<p>thank you for clarifying, dmk. just a thought, if it was a random process as opposed to proposed design, an orderly one, wouldn’t it be equally likely to create life and destroy the life it created?</p>
<p>although doesn’t explain my question, good point! </p>
<p>“THE RIGHTEOUS man perishes, and no one lays it to heart; and merciful and devout men are taken away, with no one considering that the uncompromisingly upright and godly person is taken away from the calamity and evil to come [even through wickedness].
He [in death] enters into peace; they rest in their beds, each one who walks straight and in his uprightness.”</p>
<p>If all things were equal, nothing would exist except for scattered atoms. But all things arent equal. Gravity is a weak attractive force with no balancing repulsive force, so over time mass formed into bodies like stars and planets.</p>
<p>Regarding the use of statistics to prove something couldn’t happen…what were the chances I would be standing at the right place at the right time to meet the woman who would become my wife? So many people, so many places…I don’t think it is statistically a likely event but it did happen. What are the chances that you would meet your spouse and have your children…pretty low if we considered it with this type of approach.</p>
<p>University of Calif. sued over creationism
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS</p>
<p>LOS ANGELES – A group representing California religious schools has filed a lawsuit accusing the University of California system of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoints.</p>
<p>The Association of Christian Schools International, which represents more than 800 schools, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday claiming UC admissions officials have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin’s theory of evolution. Other rejected courses include “Christianity’s Influence in American History.”</p>
<p>According to the lawsuit, the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta was told its courses were rejected because they use textbooks printed by two Christian publishers, Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books.</p>
<p>Wendell E. Bird, a lawyer for the association, said the policy violates the rights of students and religious schools.</p>
<p>“A threat to one religion is a threat to all,” he said.</p>
<p>UC spokeswoman Ravi Poorsina said she could not comment, because the university had not been served with the lawsuit. Still, she said the university has a right to set course requirements.</p>
<p>“These requirements were established after careful study by faculty and staff to ensure that students who come here are fully prepared with broad knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed,” Poorsina.</p>
<p>i don’t get it…because these students had a more comprehensive understanding of the origin of life by being taught the creationism part and also understanding how the theory of evolutionism can be challenged-</p>
<p>they are judged as not fully prepared with BROAD knowledge
and with no critical thinking skills?</p>
<p>…and not only that, they’ve been denied instruction in the theory that the stork brings babies, that lightning is caused by Thor’s wrath, and that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe. What an outrage!!</p>
<p>kluge, i would love to laugh but those jokes are so old. </p>
<p>i don’t know citygirlmom…my experience in highschool tells me that high school ed. does not aim at providing a full grasp regarding evol… and obviously if it’s true that they are to “challenge it”, they have to know the basics, or else the article could’ve made something else out of that instead of using the word “challenging”</p>
<p>if someone knew both the pos and cons, wouldn’t they know more than just learning it as an absolute truth? they certainly have a more comprehensive understanding than i do…i have been never been taught something weird with evol. in school.</p>
<p>ahh…you left! that’s really making me laugh</p>
<p>From the article I got the impression that the prof. and faculty reviewed the material in question, and determined it wasnt up to par, that these schools werent simply teaching pros and cons of evolution, but were giving a partial picture that favored ID.</p>