http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#creation_vs_evolution

Shut up Commaburst. You sighted a website that takes seriously the question of where did Cain find a wife. It must be overflowing with scientific knowledge. Goofball.

..In my own {and many other peoples'} frame-of-reference, 'SC,'
your name-calling animosity to my Web-link, can be explained by
the reaction of the indwelling negative-energy {demons} in you;
reacting {as would be expected} whenever 'light' {as in, "truth"}
is shone upon those controlling {to some} negative-spirits, when
they are confronted by God's Truth, ie., 'The Way things Are'{!}
 
{to paraphrase a Scripture passage: 'Even the demons in Hell
{secretly} believe in a God, yet they tremble'.. {at the mere
thought of such a One}.

Yes you are right. I am close-minded because I dismiss the illogical and unconfirmed too easily.
 
On your advice I plan to spend the rest of the day searching for a leprechaun and his pot of gold.
 
Science requires math, math requires intellegence, but thankfully religion requires neither.
 
--SoCo
 

The concept of creation by chance is ludicrous
 
Given enough time anything is possible. Why can't chance explain evolution and the origin of life?
 
Jacque Monod, Nobel prize-winner in biology, said, "Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution." Thus, for evolution and the origin of life, chance is orthodoxy because the only alternative is intelligent design.
 
No other factor in this debate makes evolution look more ridiculous than when we consider the impossibility of chance empowering the origin of life. Astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle said, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Interestingly, a 747 is made up of six million components. The human body is made up of trillions of cells. The information in just one cell is enough to fill 1000 books of 500 pages apiece.
 
The magnitude of the complexity of the human body was illustrated recently with the mapping of the human genome. This represented a major scientific milestone in history. Nevertheless, mapping the letter sequences of human genes is not the same as understanding the genes. Despite this wonderful achievement in science, molecular biologist Dr. Ian Macreadie "explained humbly that humanity is still only just 'scratching the surface' in such matters."
 
To point out the burden placed on chance by evolution, Allen Cornell, in the journal, "Firm Foundation" calculated the likelihood that one million monkeys typing randomly would produce the phrase "Why not creation?" If the monkeys typed at the rate of 10 keys per second, all worked 24 hours a day, all have typewriters equipped with only 30 keys {26 capital letters, three punctuation marks, and a space key} and hit the keys entirely at random the monkeys would produce the phrase once every 41 billion years. He goes on to explain, "Since sections of three subunits on a DNA {or RNA} molecule can code for any of 20 amino acids, the chance of getting a particular chain of any 20 consecutive amino acids is less than the chance of the monkeys producing the specified phrase."
 
Furthermore, he says, "Evolutionists have always been reluctant to apply mathematical statistics to determine probabilities of certain chance events." Then he points out an often-overlooked point in this debate: "The burden on chance does not just occur at the point of the origin of life. It reoccurs at every point in the evolutionary concept that demands the emergence of an entire new protein molecule. The genetic material, and the proteins that it codes for the production of, is the point where evolutionists have to place unmerited faith in chance." Not only this, but the necessity of chance in the evolution of the plant world is also often overlooked.
 
Why is it that evolutionists wallow in blissful unawareness of the magnitude of the problem that evolution has with statistics and probability? Because they have a commitment to the religion of evolution. Donald Chittick said, "There is no actual proof for evolution; it has never been demonstrated by laboratory experiment, and when all is said and done, it turns out to be a belief system. Repeated confession of belief in something for which there is no proof is a well-recognized and practiced religious device used to build the faith of the believer." {'HoM' comment: Sort of like, "the pot calling the kettle..black," ye think?!}
 
Ken Ham explains, "To believe that matter came from nowhere for no reason; to believe that matter organized itself into complex information systems against everything we know and observe obviously requires faith. Not only faith, but Blind Faith!" Christianity requires faith too, but objective faith. We have the revealed Word of the creator of the universe. We can believe in Him and have a personal relationship with Him. What we see in the universe is explained clearly without having to bend and twist the creation model of origin. Evolution, on the other hand, has to bend and twist to accommodate science and new discoveries in our universe. Evolution is empowered by chance and not revelation. Evolutionists can't have a relationship with matter.
 
John MacArthur sums it up best: "Blind devotion to chance is an act of defiance to reason, and more importantly against revelation.. and more importantly against God." R.C. Sproul calls chance, "the magic wand to make not only rabbits come out of the hat, but entire universes." Simply put: Chance doesn't stand a chance.
 
The impossibility of chance leaves only one alternative: Supernatural Creation. {source: creationdefense.org}

Is that all you have? What a feeble defense of creation. I could put up thousands of well researched scientific examples to demonstrate that evolution is a reality. All you have is the first sentence of the bible, typewriting monkeys and tornadoes in junkyards.

1. Why would it matter to have a "relationship" with matter? That's completely irrelevent.
 
2. Because you don't understand something you proclaim that a supreme being you have no evidence of is responsible. I'm not going to pretend to understand why the universe was created. There is no need to believe that chance played any role at all. Again, irrelevent and ridiculous.
 
3. It is true that monkeys statistically will not type their own phrases. They tend to sight ridiculous internet articles obsessently and add in tons of gratuitous punctuation.
 
--SoCo

I will agree that Gamma or his alter ego Hmmmmm does certainly have trouble building a logical case for his positions. Let me try...
 
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
 
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
 
1 Corinthians 15:39
All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.
 
That about covers it. Of course, it does depend on what credit you give to God's Word. As for me, I'll give credit to God's Word in an instant over man's silly notions. Carry on....
 
Cheers
IBIJ
 
PS: 7 statements before my response. Finally a good example of a conversation without me... there might be hope for this MISC BB afterall.

No one wants to hear your bull$hitt go away.

..I can only agree with you, 'SC'..on two points; #1 monkeys ARE {Very}
unlikely to type meaningful phrases; which actually, is a concession of
sorts, on your 'side'. {Glad to see that your logic didn't take a Complete
Holiday!}.. and, "Having a "relationship with matter" IS irrelevant; and for
that minor discovery, I'll award you 2 'brownie points.. {even if it wasn't
my own {typed} thought}.. congrats!
 
..Other than that, {quoting you}.. "Because I don't understand something"{?}
.. Speak for yourself !, since that's merely your presumed opinion, that just
because You {by your own admission} are uncertain of the reasons for 'Life'
as we know it, doesn't mean that everyone is! {I'd give you the reasons, but
given your already demonstrated antipathy to 'Scripture'-quoting, I won't}.
 
.."No reason to believe that chance played any role at all," ye say? ..Ac-
tually, the evolutionist's argument Re. "chance," IS a mainstay, or prime
component of their argument for evolution{!}; in that they claim, in so
many words; 'given enough time, {implying, 'billions-upon-billions' of years}
there is 'No Telling' what molecular transformations {including changes lead-
ing to primitive life-forms, initially} might take place!? ..If that's Not an
argument based on "chance," I {and many other Thinking-people} wouldn't
be able to tell you what that argument IS based on!?
 
.."Gratuitous punctuaction," ye say?.. In truth, I'm closer to observing the
correct punctuation, {at least as it was taught in my 1960-'63, 4th-through
7th-grade classes in the Philadelphia, Pa. public-school-system} than most
people who 'came up' later{!?} ..Don't ask me why, because I've even no-
ticed that in most of the media-outlets!?
 
..Nevertheless, I have to assume that it's a matter that you feel Both comfor-
table and self-satisfied with; since as I understand it, in your own 'little world',
if most people believe in, or practice something.. whether it be "Evolution"..
{incidentally, noticed how they've conveniently dropped that old preface-
standby, "Theory of".. most everytime when evolution is being referenced to!?}..
or accepted English punctuation; just because a concept is accepted by most
people, {even a decided majority} does Not make it correct! If that were the
case, then everytime a person ignorantly says, writes or types, the non-word-
"irregardless," amongst a number of other non-words, then if one wants to go
that 'route'.. full-bore, these non-words and minority concepts, ie., "Intelligent-
Design," would presumbly according to you, be Both accepted And 'correct'{!}
 
..Incidentally, I fully expect to be called a "Fool's Fool," by you and/or your
like-minded sympathizers.. {if you haven't already, in so many words}, but I would
only first suggest that your anticipated accusation just might conceivably be based
on your own current ignorance and non-enlightened thought processes; whom like
most non-'believers', would sooner exist in your own fanciful 'Me first' world, and
any 'Higher-Power' {Usually seen, as a mere fictional concept} 'be damned.'
 
..May your Eternity ultimately be a Happy One! ..since I would hesitate to wish
any future 'worst-case-scenario' on my hypothetical, worst enemy! { :

Try to focus.
 
You posted the article about chance, not me. I already stated that I do not know how the universe was created. You twisted that into me saying that I don't know why the universe was created.
 
The why is irrelevent; we are discussing how. Since you know exactly how your magnificent diety created all of the wonders of the universe, please enlighten me.
 
It does seem odd that the great lord would create such a vast universe when all he seems to care about is which day certain people sit on their ass and call it sabbath, but I digress.
 
Gratuitous punctuation was proven by the use of {!?}
 
I'm hoping for IBIJ's afterlife. A bunch of fundamentalist idiots get sucked from the earth, how could it get any better?
 
--SoCo
 

..To, 'SC', I know this will sound harsh, but I can even tell
by your 'tongue-in-cheek' sarcasm; ie., as in your, "since you
know precisely how your "great lord" {sic} {actually, it's al-
ways with caps: "Lord"}.. created your magnificient universe,
please enlighten me"; that there Really Is No desire on your
part to be 'enlightened' {especially from me!.. reading 'be-
tween-the-lines'}, but you merely want to display {more spe-
cifically, the 'lower-spirits' dwelling IN You, want to display}
their self-imagined artful use of a debater's technique, but
Only from a professed/pretended honest inquiry!
 
..On a semi-unrelated note, 'SC', if you happen to 'google':
Every knee shall bow..{excerpted from Scripture} it might
'dawn' on you that the day will come when Even You, will
be required to "bow" to God, aka, Jesus Christ.
 
..Ergo, it's not a question of 'My' "magnificient" God/Lord,
but rather, Everyone will be required to acknowledge that;
even those unfortunates, "Under the earth."

You found the sarcasm! Kudos. I did, however, want you to explain how god created the universe. Your precious article opines "chance waves a magic wand and pulls universes out of a hat." <--Paraphasing because I forget the exact phrase. Apparently god has total control of that magic wand.
 
You have harped about how ridiculous the "given enough time" argument is, and you put forth the "given and all powerful diety" argument.
 
How do you not see that both arguments are flawed in the same manner? Given enough powerful cheese I could explain anything as well.
 
I bet it makes you feel so good inside thinking about all of the infidels like me being judged by an angry god.
 
--SoCo
 

..Actually, I 'stand by' my previous statement, which was: 'I would
hesitate to wish a worst-case-scenario on my worst {hypothetical}
enemy.'
 
..Since you by No means qualify as that, {not sure what makes you
think that you might?!}.. Since I was merely quoting/alluding to a
Scripture passage; ie. "Every knee shall bow," has Nothing-to-do
with my 'input' in the matter, but I was simply passing-on one of
many 'givens' in the Bible, to those who might be ignorant of at
least Some of them.
 
..Does God have a "magic wand"{?} quoting you, that allows Him to
'pull a universe {make that multi-universe} out of a {proverbial}
hat'? .. In a manner of speaking, He does{!} ..Only He {'JC'} does
it Much Better than that, ie. "magic," since the word magic as you
no doubt know, is Always associated with deception.
 
..On that basis, I would'nt be 'leveling' with you {or Anyone} if I drew
Too close a connection between "magic," and what I'll call, "intelligent-
design"!
 
..Although I understand that the idea of a Creator God that one can
{and Do!} have a personal relationship with, is a preposterous con-
cept to your mind; nevertheless, there Are numerous 'Givens' {if
you will} to Life as we both know it.. and sometimes Don't know it,
or for some, are unaware and/or ignorant of.
 
..It may surprise you {'SC'} that I freely admit to being ignorant of
Many things, including the specifics of how our multi-universe was
created; as in the "Big Bang" theory, favored by most, or perhaps..
Hoyle's {I think} "Steady State" theory; but why get caught up in
those alternative Creation scenarios.. since We're Here!, aren't We?!
{rhetorical question}.
..And that would include other related matters, like.. does our
planet having been created {according to Scripture} in "six days,"
a literal reference?! {Don't know, nor should that really matter to
us, in the 'here-and-now'!}.
 
..And lest I eave you 'hanging'.. ie. wanting for more 'answers'
that aren't in your normal 'world-view' of things; here's a Web-
link that I came across {some years back}, and is written by a
degreed astrophysicist {Dr. Hugh Ross}, who I suspect will be
smarter in the areas of his expertise, than you, I {or even,
"DualSpace"..'he-he'} will Ever Be!!
Ps. If the Bible 'is True' {if you will} then God/JC is more
willing to 'Reveal' Himself to you {and like-minded non-believers}
through His proscribed manner {Mainly.. but Not exclusively, by
means of your own not yet realized "faith"} than you and many
others will allow yourselves {under your own 'normal' circum-
stances} to be led by Him!
..Keep in mind that if I'm appearing quite "foolish" to you, in
my own Christian-Bible circumscribed way; then that shows that
I'm on the 'right-track' as far as my witness is concerned! ..as
even the Scripture states: "The wisdom of God is the foolishness
of {'fallen'-in-grace} man"!
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."
 
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
 
Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).
 
Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.
 
(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)
 
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
 
I can use the internet too.
 
--SoCo

Getting back to the million monkeys taking 41 billion years to randomly type the phrase "Why not creation ?" This argument assumes that evolution is the random rearrangement of countless cells, however it is not. Evolution is the random , tiny change, to a an already existing combination of cells. The requirement for the monkeys to type the phrase in one random attempt is wrong. To duplicate, the evolutionary process, the monkeys can only be asked to provide one letter at a time.In reality, in real life, if the monkeys were given "Why n , as a starter, then in no time at all, they would get "Why no. Thus, by taking one small step at a time, they would have no difficulty in eventually typing this phrase. So, perhaps "chance" is the source of all life. Personally, I think the word "options" is better. Life throws up options. Some work, and some don't. I ought to stop here, but I can't, for there has just been a program on the tv about the World Health Organization versus Malaria, which is relevant to this subject. In the 1950's the W.H.O. decided to wipe out mosquitoes and thus wipe out Malaria. So after spraying an area,the mozzies died , and the incidence of Malaria dropped .Then, evolution took over. For, out of the millions of mozzies which hatched daily, some had the genetic difference to make them resistant to DDT. Not to be outdone, the W.H.O, fought back with stronger chemicals. Again, some of the mozzies, due to a random genetic mutation were naturally resistant to the stronger chemical, and they returned to their former numbers. Ie; it was getting to the point where only a rolled up newspaper would work. The WHO gave up their effort to wipe out mosquitoes. This same process is going on in hospitals, where penicillin is proving less and less effective, as bugs with a genetic natural resistance are fighting back. Evolution seems to have a way to ensure that the hunter and the hunted both run at the same speed.