Forums | MacLife

To put my views simply...like an equation...

I am Christian

I am Creationist by default, because of doctrine and personal belief.

I believe the Big Bang is how the universe came into being, because it is the most scientifically, mathematically, and logically sound explanation. I've studied others, and they are contradictory.

The Big Bang, when considering the logic law of Cause and Effect, must have had a Cause. What was this Cause? Was it perhaps a Beginner? I think so, but that's just me.

Possibly. We don't have the math to determine that yet. I believe so as well, and we may never have the math to know for certain

I believe in the accuracy of radiometric dating. This has been shown many, many times.

I completely reject young-earth Creation and short creation days. The belief by some christians that the earth is 6000 years old represents both their lack of scientific knowledge and their lack on understanding their own religious text.

Evidence from a christian's "rule of faith" for LONG creation "days":

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog … shtml?main

Neat text. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

I believe in microevolution, because there is irrefutable scientific evidence for it.

I question macroevolution, as there is only circumstantial evidence for it. However, I am willing to believe it if sufficient evidence supports it, which can be studied and cross-checked. To MY (and just my) knowledge, there is none

Wait a couple million years and we'll see where the polar bear is, just to name a few. (The polar bear swims incredibly well for a bear, so scientists believe that it's in the process of changing into an aquatic animal. If global warming persists, it might just happen sooner.)

There are dozens of points which directly question abiogenesis, including my favorite, the oxygen-ultraviolet paradox (No oxygen in atmosphere = ultraviolet light gets in, destroying life molecules. Oxygen in atmosphere = small amounts slow down formation of prebiotic molecules by up to 30 million times). Mounting evidence also indicates that early earth did NOT have a reducing atmosphere, but a neutral one (Nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water). Even without oxygen (an inhibitor in the forming of life molecules), prebiotic molecules cannot be formed in this atmosphere.

But what if the organisms initiated themselves beneath the surface of the water? UV has a hard time going through water, and it would be easier for a chemosynthetic organism to develop in the abyssal rifts due to the amount of chemicals there.

My point is that life did not have to develop in a puddle or near the surface of the earth, but could have developed in a myriad of habitats that existed on proto-Earth.

12carbon to 13carbon isotope ratio studies indicate (so far) that all carbonaceous molecules on earth are post-biotic. These molecules, which form some of the critical building blocks of life, have not been found to be prebiotic.

With the amount of life on earth, and the limited amount of carbon on this planet, it stands to reason that almost all of the molecules necessary for life have been processed by something at some time. That quote is like saying that there's no "prebiotic" air on Earth. Of course there isn't; something before has breathed it. Does that prove that there wasn't air on prebiotic Earth? No, just that all the air has been used for life at some time.

Biophysicist Harold Morowitz calculated that if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, chances are that under the best possible natural conditions, the cell would not reassemble. (chance is 1 in 10^100 000 000 000)...

But what if life started out with the basic amino acids? They would self-assemble into proteins, and this has been seen in labs. Given time, they would assemble into proteins that would react with elements to copy themselves, creating life.

To put it another way: If you took a car apart into all the little pieces, and then had someone with no knowledge of how a car works try to put it back together, I doubt that person would be able to do it. But if you took the engine, transmission, wheels, suspension, etc, and laid it out; they'd probably get it after a while, or they'd have a better chance at it.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to squash your beliefs. I'm trying to educate you. I know all aspects of evolution and scientific creation are true, and yet I still believe in God. They are not mutually exclusive, as many people think.

And this universal "BEST", no matter who you are, makes arguments about evolution, or bible doctrine, or mystic theory, or the latest computer, or the color of our clothes, or the language we speak pretty silly.
The question is: are you doing your best?

You speak the truth. However, when fundamentalists try to force unscientific beliefs on children in a science classroom, that's where I get upset.

Science teachers should teach what no religion developed: evolution. This solves the problem of having to teach EVERY creation myth so as not to discriminate or alienate.

If some parents have a problem with what their kid learns in science, opt your child out of that course, or send them to a private school.

Well said. I agree.