« We're Mad As Hell, And We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore! | Main | No Immortals »

A Questionable Thought, or A Thoughtful Question.

In response to Michael's beautifully profound post, "God of the Universe, Revealed" , I have a little scenario to ponder.

Say, a billion years ago there was a bucket. And in that bucket was hundreds of different, brilliant colors of paint. Fast forward about 150,000 years. Imagine someone throwing that bucket of paint onto a canvas, and out pops a picture of the painting in the Sistine chapel, in all it's intricacies, complexities and glory.

You'd say it is an absolute impossibility.

Extrapolate this to our existence. Do you really believe that we exist due to millions of years of random mishaps? Do you not think us to be more complex than a picture.

I am not a "bible-thumper" by any means. I believe in evolution, but not in the scientific way.

I do, however, believe that we were put here by something with intelligence, and an integerity, and a wish for our success.

To believe otherwise, is, well, an exercise in folly.

Boy, this muscle relaxer is kicking my ass.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/33571.

Comments (31)

I am a Bible thumper, and I... (Below threshold)
Myronhalo:

I am a Bible thumper, and I believe in creation by a supreme and loving God. I am also an Engineer and had to take a lot of science courses to get my degree. If I had used the same logic in my chemistry or physics labs as is used to defend evolution, I would have been thrown out on my ear.
I have to admit I don't have enough faith to believe that man just happened by chance.
There is no missing link in evolution, there is a missing chain.
Just a couple of questions that have occurred to me over the years:
Why does water expand when it freezes instead of continuing to contract like all other liquids? If it didn't, the lakes and rivers and oceans would freeze over and all the life in the water would die. Did that process evolve?

Why is the sea filled with salt? If it weren't, we would be overrun by all kinds of vegetation and decaying matter. The sea would be so polluted that it would be an unholy stench. Whose idea was it to put the salt in the sea?

Even if lifeforms could evolve in macro-evolution, it could never explain the complex systems of laws that govern the whole creation.

Sorry to upset the hawkers, but I'm not buying a ticket for one of the biggest scams in history.

Posting While Intoxicated i... (Below threshold)
Imhotep:

Posting While Intoxicated is never a good thing. LSD was supposed to bring us "closer to God", stop with the thoughts while "high" man.

The Annunaki came from Planet X and made man as a worker to mine gold from Africa, but man was violent and set off an atomic weapon and the Annunaki space travelers had to leave or were killed (they don't know) and now Earth awaits the re-arrival of Planet X and the Annunaki will try to save us again.

Prove me wrong.

Haha, nice comment Imhotep.... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Haha, nice comment Imhotep.

There is no reason to think the Sistine Chapel would not accidentally be painted were an infinite amount of paint randomly splattered across an infinite number of canvases. Your analogy fails because your conception of the scope of the universe is bizarrely limited. If you care to think about existence through the lens of contemporary astrophysics, the intricate and systematic nature of the universe (including all of its component galaxies, stars, planets, and lifeforms) is actually pretty unremarkable. What would be more remarkable is if something this harmonious never existed. If the odds are one in one trillion, then it's a mathematical necessity that at some point this universe of ours would come to be. Ho-hum.

The will of Zeus (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whichever deity people are worshiping these days) was the best explanation for the cosmos two thousand years ago. We can do better than that now if we choose to disavow superstition and embrace empirical science.

Why does water expand wh... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Why does water expand when it freezes instead of continuing to contract like all other liquids?... Why is the sea filled with salt?

Because on the other billion trillion gazillion planets where those did not happen, no life evolved to ponder those questions.

If you float a penny on the ocean and drop a billion ants over it from a plane, one of the ants is going to land on the penny. He'd likely attribute to a deity that the penny is solid, it was located where it was, and that it floats. But those other ants won't be so pious.

Congratulations, this post ... (Below threshold)
JSchuler:

Congratulations, this post is a classic example of "begging the question." Give yourself a hand! Of course someone would say that it would be impossible to toss a bucket of mixed paint at a canvas and create the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, for the simple reason that the ceiling did require the skill and training of a master artist and his assistants to create. So, you have assumed intelligence in order to prove intelligence. Bravo!

And no, people would not be amazed at the "complexity" that emerged from such an occurrence, but rather the clear, gobsmackingly obvious depiction of a scene from Genesis. Honestly, take a paintball gun, load it with assorted colored pellets, and unload on a blank canvas. You will get something that is very complex. Why, I doubt you'd be able to recreate it given a trillion years. However, it would be obvious there was nothing intelligent about the end design. Take a piece of wood, turn it into a perfect cube, and there will be no complexity, but a lot of evident intelligence behind it.

Complexity does not equal intelligence.

Not to be rude or anything,... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Not to be rude or anything, but in your scenario where did the intelligent being who created us come from? And if we were envisioned from the beginning why was it necessary for a few billion years to go by before we came along? Or was their trial and error involved?

And on that last one, if true, are we sure we're the desired end state?

I believe there is a God be... (Below threshold)
mag:

I believe there is a God because, I think all of the people I deeply loved and who have passed away,I can not believe I will not see them again in another life, time and place.
I feel because human can love so deeply whether it is for a child, parent, mate, friend..than there is too a loving God. My father was a very faithful, religious man and he brought me up to accept both science and God.

mag: Do you think that athe... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

mag: Do you think that atheists are incapable of deep and committed love? If so, what exactly is going on in my brain when I look into my girlfriend's eyes and say "I love you"? Am I making some sort of category mistake? Do you think that because I do not believe in eternal souls, or any sort of afterlife, or any sort of supernatural phenomena whatsoever, that the love I feel for my friends, family, lover, and humanity in general is somehow cheaper than the love you feel for others?

Do explain.

H,Boy, do you take... (Below threshold)
mag:

H,

Boy, do you take things wrong. I am not saying you can not love, I am saying because I love I feel it so strong that this makes me believe in a God. I could not care less what you do or do not believe. It is a very personal matter. I was just stating how I feel. Not critizing anyone else.

I've been following the evo... (Below threshold)
Karl:

I've been following the evolution debate for years. One thing I've noticed is that the "insoluble problems" of one decade wind up being solved in the next, only to be replaced by new problems. The track record of "it can only have been put together by divine hands" hasn't been that stellar.

I believe evolution is the natural consequence of the laws built in to nature. Once we have a self-replicating system, it will inevitably evolve to fill all available ecological niches. (How did the self-replicating system come to be? I don't know, but my money is on natural processes. The track record thing again.)

Now:
The laws of the universe support -- even require -- evolution. Because of the laws built in to nature, evolution means that life will explore billions of possibilities, some of which will lead to organisms at least as complex and aware as we are. Maybe these laws were carefully designed into nature -- rather like some all-knowing hand arranging droplets of paint in the bucket so that they would run into exactly the right place during the splash. Or, maybe the laws have existed eternally, and no one arranged them, or had to.

I know which answer I like -- which answer appeals to me emotionally. I also know I don't know any objective way of distinguishing between the two possibilities.

Do you?

There is a God. He is not a... (Below threshold)
Mrs. Right:

There is a God. He is not an elderly man with a beard, sitting on a golden throne, although some choose to see him that way.

The true nature of God is unconditional love. Real, actual unconditional love. We are ALL his children, whether we accept him or not. Our eternal souls are part of God, but different. The best analogy I can give (which is not mine, but was given by Brian Weiss, M.D.) is ice cubes floating in water. We are the ice cubes, and God is the water. We are all connected, made of the same cosmic stuff.

I believe in God, and I believe in evolution as well. God and science are not mutually exclusive.

Karl, I tend to take a posi... (Below threshold)
Nicholas:

Karl, I tend to take a position somewhat similar to your own.

Cosmologists have long had a bit of a problem with the various constants of the universe. If the mass or spin or interaction of this or that quark, sub-atomic particle, etc were just the slightest bit more or less, the universe as we know it could not exist. Some cosmologists put the issue on the back burner, hoping that it will work itself out once they have a working Theory of Everything at some unknown time in the future. Others ascribe to the idea of multiple universes - the idea that there are a near infinite number of universes and that in each universe one or more of the constants is slightly more or less than in another universe - and that in just this one universe the constants were exactly right for reality as we know it - and us - to exist. And yet many cosmological theories currently under consideration as a prototype of a Theory of Everything do not - and in fact can not - allow for multiple universes, at least for the theory as currently understood to work.

Personally, I tend to believe that God was involved in the constants turning out as they were. And as the constants of the universe then direct the form the various laws of nature take, and as the laws of nature - if given enough time, space, and material with which to work - necessitate the existence of evolution, and as evolution eventually lead to self-aware curious intelligent beings called humans, then evolution can be defined as part (or one) of the process(es) God used to bring about the existence of humans. It may be an indirect method, but it is an eligently beautiful method, in that it is entirely possible that numerous other forms of life exist in this vast universe.

Not everyone will agree with me, but that is life.

Mrs Right,You say, "... (Below threshold)
Myronhalo:

Mrs Right,
You say, "God and science are not mutually exclusive"

Of course not. But "Empirical science" is not the basis for the theory of evolution. True science is a seeking of information and coming to rational conclusions based on the evidence found. All good science is based on this principle and that's how we got Newton's laws, and light bulbs, and plastics, internal combustion engines, airplanes, nuclear power, etc. But true, rational science never led to the conclusions put forth in evolution. Besides, there are so many contradictions and fabrications in the "evidence for evolution" that it is not worthy of honorable mention at the high school science fair. Every honest scientist who has done his homework and applied scientific principles to the problem of man's existence knows it. The open-minded,true scientist keeps going back to the drawing board and saying, "we can't explain by science where the world came from."

God and evolution are mutually exclusive, unless your idea of god is just a little better than a super version of a human being. If however, you allow for a big and powerful God - One capable of making our universe (Have you seen the Hubble Telescope pictures?) and us as well, then there is no need to use a crutch like evolution to explain our existence. Some believe that "Evolution" is the process God used to create. I believe in a God big enough to speak the word and have instant results. I have no room for little gods - they can't help me nor deserve my reverence. But I do recognize and bow down to a God big enough to make the world in which I live and me as well. I also recognize a God of immense love, who came down himself over 2000 years ago to pay for the consequences of my rebellion against Him. I have no time for tom-foolery like the Greeks and Romans and their god-peoples, nor the Hindus with their millions of gods at every hand. But I give my life and soul to the God who created me and then rescued me from eternally living in darkness.
I'm staking my life and my future on the promises made by the Big Guy, and I'm ignoring the drivel spewed out by the little guys.

Have a wonderful Christmas as you remember that the Big Guy didn't stay at home for Christmas but made a long and painful trip because he loves us.

This is always a great subj... (Below threshold)
RA:

This is always a great subject, and one that can never really be solved.

Extrapolate this to our existence. Do you really believe that we exist due to millions of years of random mishaps? Do you not think us to be more complex than a picture.

Well, as has already been pointed out, it's a matter of numbers.

I have no problem with the idea that we are not the center of the universe, let alone the pinnacle of creation. Human history is incredibly complex and fascinating, no doubt about that. But the same thing can be said of many other species. I understand and respect your POV; I just have a different one.

I do, however, believe that we were put here by something with intelligence, and an integerity, and a wish for our success.

I respect that. I see things differently, but I respect your POV.

To believe otherwise, is, well, an exercise in folly.

I think the above statement is pretty silly though. If people don't see things as you do they are simply fools?

Note to Nicolas,Do... (Below threshold)
Myronhalo:

Note to Nicolas,

Doesn't your explanation sound a little far-fetched? What ever happened to simplicity? Wouldn't you sleep better at night just trusting that the One who made the rules isn't going to change them arbitrarily?
God makes the laws, like the Law of Gravity which works people well throughout the whole universe, and everything He made obeys it. The only part of His creation that doesn't want to play along with His authority as creator are the Devil, the fallen angels, and Man.
We don't often choose to submit to God's rules, but there are some in which he hasn't given us any choice - like the Law of Gravity, that we need air and water to live, that we can't hold our breath forever, that we can't scratch our own backs, and a few other significant laws.
It think it was Max Dupree, who when speaking about inventions and new ideas, once said something like this, "I wouldn't give you much for simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give a fortune for simplicity on the other side of complexity"
The knowledge of God is simplicity on the other side of complexity.
Nicolas, you need to go a little farther and you will find it.
I'm praying you complete the journey.

Brian,You said, "I... (Below threshold)
Myronhalo:

Brian,

You said, "If you float a penny on the ocean and drop a billion ants over it from a plane, one of the ants is going to land on the penny. He'd likely attribute to a deity that the penny is solid, it was located where it was, and that it floats. But those other ants won't be so pious."
You apparently are not a scientist. Copper pennies don't float on water. They might float on cheese.

Myronhalo,"You app... (Below threshold)
RA:

Myronhalo,

"You apparently are not a scientist. Copper pennies don't float on water. They might float on cheese."

Did you see that thing that just went by your head? It was the point, and you missed it.

Way to get technical with an analogy.

RA, when someone mentions "... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

RA, when someone mentions "the Devil and fallen angels" in a discussion of the nature of the universe, as though these are real things and not merely the subject of some beautiful Italian frescoes and medieval fairy tales, the only thing you can do is smile awkwardly and pat them on the head. Especially when this person has already discounted the theory of evolution as unworthy of a high school science fair.

How old is the Earth, Myronhalo? 10,000 years? What was Noah's favourite dinosaur?

Sorry folks, you're all<... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

Sorry folks, you're all wrong.

Shawn came close to understanding the correct answer, with his realization that all of the universe's complexity had to have had a Creator ... he just didn't realize how much complexity and attention to detail the Creator put forth.

The entire universe -- you and your memories, and everyone else on the planet and all of their memories, and all of the written records and buildings and other artifacts that humans make, and all the living organisms, and all the rocks with fossils in them, and all the planets and stars and galaxies and random bits of interstellar dust and hydrogen atoms, and all the energy in the universe including the light en route to us from distant stars -- was created instantaneously on August 13, 2008, at 7:36:03 GMT.

Prove me wrong.

How do I know this? I had a Revelation. Why should the universe have been created this way? I don't know. The Creator didn't choose to share that information with me.

As long as we're talking about a Creator with such vast powers as to be able to create the universe, why should my description of the universe at its creation be any less plausible than one that posits the creation of a single man and a single woman a few thousand years ago with all of human civilization evolving into the complexity we see today?

Oh, and this single man and single woman ... did they have navels?

Hey RA,"Way to get... (Below threshold)
Myronhalo:

Hey RA,

"Way to get technical with an analogy" All analogies have to come down to earth sooner or later. Yours never got off the ground even though you had lots of ants in the air.
I didn't miss the point: it missed me by several miles.

Hey Hyperbolist,

How old is the earth really? You can't say for sure because the junk science you base it on is full of holes. You can't take measurements over 50 or 100 years and extrapolate them into infinity and say that since they have been the same for the time we observed they must always be the same. That is terrible science and not good for grades in science labs.
The plain truth is you don't really have any convincing proof of the age of the earth. For every so-called proof of an old earth there is another equally convincing proof of a young earth. The problem is that you have never heard of it because you have been brainwashed. I at least know about both sides of the issue. I rather suspect that you have never even thought about the other possibility nor studied evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Thee are many feasible ways to explain why our world is the way it is, but the one that requires the greatest amount of blind faith is evolution and "it just happened that way".

Hey Mike G,

Of course they had navals. God created oranges too.

Hey Mike G,... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

Hey Mike G,

Of course they had navals. God created oranges too.

Um. No.

An orange--specifically, the sweet orange--is the citrus Citrus sinensis (syn. Citrus aurantium L. var. dulcis L., or Citrus aurantium Risso) and its fruit. The orange is a hybrid of ancient cultivated origin, possibly between pomelo (Citrus maxima) and tangerine (Citrus reticulata).

In fact, not only did Adam and Eve not have navel oranges, Noah didn't either, and neither did Jesus of Nazareth. Nobody had navel oranges before 1820, when they evolved by mutation.

A single mutation in 1820 in an orchard of sweet oranges planted at a monastery in Brazil yielded the navel orange, also known as the Washington, Riverside, or Bahie navel. The mutation causes navel oranges to develop a second orange at the base of the original fruit, opposite the stem. The second orange develops as a conjoined twin in a set of smaller segments embedded within the peel of the larger orange. From the outside, the smaller, undeveloped twin leaves a formation at the bottom of the fruit that looks similar to the human navel.

Because the mutation left the fruit seedless and, therefore, sterile, the only means available to cultivate more of this new variety is to graft cuttings onto other varieties of citrus tree. Two such cuttings of the original tree were transplanted to Riverside, California in 1870, which eventually led to worldwide popularity.

I will grant you that Noah may have had some kind of naval action going on, though, as his name is commonly associated with a large oceangoing vessel.

The plain truth is you don't really have any convincing proof of the age of the earth. For every so-called proof of an old earth there is another equally convincing proof of a young earth.

"Convincing"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


Hey Mike G,Good po... (Below threshold)
Myronhalo:

Hey Mike G,

Good post. I didn't know the history of naval oranges. I accept that the naval orange is a mutation, but not that it was a product of evolution. It may have been a grain of sand in the orange just like the grain of sand in an oyster causes a pearl. Based on what you said, the only evidence is that it happened - we don't know the cause. Good science must say, "until we get further evidence, we can't come to far-fetched conclusions.

"Convincing" is a word that should apply to science. The evidence has to be convincing enough to allow for reasonable conclusions.

However, convincing is not a word we can use outside of science. Many, Many people can't be convinced of something if they don't want to, regardless of the amount of evidence to support the proposition. So, what is convincing for one person won't move another because his will does not allow him to change his beliefs. Evidence will not overcome the will of the reluctant.

One of the gravest errors of the people who believe in evolution, or the Big Bang, or any explanation of life's existence without an outside force is the elephant in the room. They propose all kinds of explanations of how inert masses turned into living organisms. Even Darwin, who I understand to be a true scientist looking for real answers did not begin to answer the question in his "Origin of the Species." He tried to explain the process, but he never addressed the origin.

The unanswered question is where did mass and space come from? In a compendium of time and space we must understand that there was a beginning, and there must be an origin. Those who believe in evolution and similar theories do not even attempt to explain where it all came from because they can't. So, they talk about the subsequent processes which "could" have taken place. But, if they have no explanation for the origin of things nor take that into account when they try to understand, they are just whistling through the graveyard.

One blogger said, "To believe otherwise, is, well, an exercise in folly".
It really is if we don't factor in "the elephant" when trying to find the answers.

Did you know that the nucleus of the atom is held together by some unknown and so far scientifically unexplainable force? The protons should blow apart because they are all positively charged and repel each other. Nevertheless, they hold together except in a few isolated cases where man has managed to split the atom and wreak pandemonium.

Did you know that mass does not really exist? As scientists delve farther and farther into the parts of the atom, they find that there is nothing there except energy. Pure power made in such a way as to create the appearance of something solid. Where did this power or energy come from? Did it evolve, and if so from what?

I like science and am a practical person. I'm not from Missouri, but I like their state's motto: "Show Me". The evidence clearly indicates outside intervention in the origin of the world. That clearly convinces me that there is someone there, and someone obviously a lot more powerful than anything in this world.

Just another thought or two:

Did you know that science, last time I checked, could not explain how Aspirin works, but millions of people use it every day and it gets results.

How much faith can you put in science if the "scientists" approach the evidence with their minds already made up? Isn't that what happened with global warming, and now we are seeing the backlash as many other scientists are speaking up against it? Even people in Las Vegas are beginning to doubt it.

Science is ok, but unfortunately it depends on human beings who we can't often trust to keep their biases out of the conclusions.

Take time today to enjoy a ... (Below threshold)
Vincehalo:

Take time today to enjoy a sunset or sunrise. Look up tonight into the sky and appreciate the stars laid out before you. Google landscapes and appreciate the beauty of your world. Take a peek at anything under a microscope and be amazed by the beautiful complexity of what you see.

Now, where did that appreciation of "beauty" come from? Did it evolve? What's the purpose? There isn't a benefit to our survival.

I understand the benefit of seeing beauty in the opposite sex and in our children (procreation and survival of the species), but there is no corresponding advantage to being overcome at the sight of a litter of puppies.

Why do we have museums? Aren't we marveling at the skill and imagination of the Van Goghs, Rembrandts, and Picasso's of this world? We are appreciating something that was "created".

If there is no reason for "beauty" to have evolved, is it such a stretch to imagine that a Creator built in this appreciation for "beauty", in order for us to recognize Him and His works? Maybe all we have to do is open our eyes and look for Him instead of searching for alternatives.

I've posed many questions, one's that I'll let you answer for yourselves but I have one last thought. Why do the majority of our popular art forms mimic what we already see in nature? Van Gogh's landscapes, Michelangelo's David, even architecture often uses nature as it's muse. Why are we so fascinated by the world we live in?

Vince: why shouldn't we be?... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Vince: why shouldn't we be? What evolutionary disadvantage is there to appreciating our planet? Seems obvious to me that an appreciation for our habitat could be said to have clear evolutionary advantage. I would assume, though, that aesthetic appreciation is an accident of evolution, along with human consciousness and other strange phenomena.

Myronhalo: the Earth is billions of years old and anybody who thinks otherwise has no business criticizing contemporary scientific truths (e.g. that the Earth is billions of years old).

The truth is there is so ... (Below threshold)
mf:

The truth is there is so much that is still unknown, unproven, and things that occur that are not explanable at this time. It doesnt mean it didnt happen and it doesnt mean the unexplained doesnt exist.

I notice that none of you p... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

I notice that none of you people have even attempted to refute my One True Explanation for life, the universe, and everything. You therefore must be conceding defeat, right?

I'm convinced, Mike. Start ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I'm convinced, Mike. Start a religion and tithe my ass to the tune of whatever percent you think is fair.

Did you know that scienc... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Did you know that science, last time I checked, could not explain how Aspirin works, but millions of people use it every day and it gets results.

Check again.

ASA binds to an enzyme called cylooxygenase-2 in cells. This is produced in large quantities in cells which are damaged and so cause pain. Without the presence of ASA this enzyme makes chemicals called prostaglandins which send messages to the brain that part of the body is in pain. They also cause the area that has been damaged to release fluid from the blood so that it will swell up or inflame. This protects the damaged cells from further damage by creating a cushion. When aspirin is taken the enzyme is no longer able to make prostaglandins and some of the pain messages don't get sent to the brain, so we feel less pain. Also the areas don't inflame as much and inflammation is reduced.
Hey Brian,Great in... (Below threshold)
Myronhalo:

Hey Brian,

Great information. Obviously, I hadn't checked on Aspirin for a few years. But still, your article only says that when Aspirin is taken, the enzyme is no longer able to make postglandulins, but it doesn't say how Aspirin makes that happen.

Hey Hyper-bolist,

You say, "Myronhalo: the Earth is billions of years old and anybody who thinks otherwise has no business criticizing contemporary scientific truths (e.g. that the Earth is billions of years old)."

You seem so convinced but the evidence is not conclusive. Have you looked at the evidence to the contrary? Have you looked at the magnetic field of the earth and its rate of decay? If we assume that the rate of decay has been constant, then the earth would be about 6,000 years old. Of course, it may be completely to make the assumption that it has not changed - on the same par as assuming that Radioactive carbon half-life has been constant for billions of years.
I suspect you've never even admitted to the possibility of a young earth. A true scientist must eliminate his bias if he wants to discover the truth.
I like empirical science, but I don't like people misusing "science" to prove their errant theories.

Many people can't be con... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

Many people can't be convinced of something if they don't want to, regardless of the amount of evidence to support the proposition. So, what is convincing for one person won't move another because his will does not allow him to change his beliefs. Evidence will not overcome the will of the reluctant.

Metaphysician, heal thyself.

Hi Mike G,Absolute... (Below threshold)
Myronhalo:

Hi Mike G,

Absolutely! We all make decisions about what we will believe. Belief in God or in a no-God is not based on "empirical evidence" nor insurmountable proof. It is a decision we make. I made it, and you made it, and everyone else makes it in some way or another throughout their lives.
So, how can I heal myself of something which every man (created with will, intellect and emotions)is infected with? I can't do it completely, but I can minimize the risk by looking at the evidence and finding the most reasonable explanation. I believe I have done that in regards to God's existence and how he has revealed Himself. The conclusions reached are the best explanation for the situation in which we humans find ourselves.
The theory of evolution doesn't stand a horse's turd in a nuclear explosion's chance of explaining the existence of man and our world. So I discount it as irrelevant because it ignores the elephant in the room. It doesn't address the issue of origin, nor do any of the other theories put forth which try to explain our world without an outside influence.
When I admit to a superior being's existence, then I begin my quest to find out who or what he or she is. But if I don't start at this point, I will never get the right answers. If I program my computer to believe that 2+2 is 5, I can't get right solutions no matter how hard I try. Years ago in computer programming we had a phrase for bad programming "Garbage in, Garbage out". If your program was bad, your results were worse.
Mike, have you looked at the evidence on both sides? What are you doing about the elephant in the room? Neither the age of the earth nor the process by which life formed is important or relevant until you solve the genesis of our world.
Who or what set the world in motion? Answer that and many other answers will start to fall in place.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy