ForumGarden

Ted;1484052 wrote: One can even make a case that God supports war crimes. Numbers 31.


Numbers 31 is not describing war crimes. Rather it is a record of God's judgement against the Midianites:

Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites (Num. 31:2).

For the injury they had done them, by sending their daughters among them, who enticed them to commit uncleanness with them, and then drew them into the worship of their idols, which brought the wrath of God upon them, and for which 24,000 persons were slain. Now, though the Moabites had a concern in this affair as well as the Midianites, yet they were spared; which some think was for the sake of Lot, from whom they descended; but why not the Midianites for the sake of Abraham, whose offspring they were by Keturah? Jarchi says, they were spared because of Ruth, who was to spring from them; and so she might, and yet vengeance be taken on great numbers of them: but the truer reason seems to be, either because the sin of the Moabites was not yet full, and they were reserved for a later punishment; or rather because they were not the principal actors in the above affair; but the Midianites, who seem to have advised Balak at first to send for Balaam to curse Israel, and who harboured that soothsayer after he had been dismissed by Balak, and to whom he gave his wicked counsel, and which they readily followed, and industriously pursued.

Pahu;1484097 wrote: That's because they were. Here is his statement again:

"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.

The first sentence in his statement is accurate and agrees with what Walt Brown said: "A beginning suggests a Creator." The rest of Hawking's statement begins with but if, and he proceeds to speculate. If you are unable or unwilling to see the difference between fact and speculation it is probably due to the fact that you don't want to admit your error because it conflicts with what you want to believe.


Silly boy.

The phrase "So long as..." is also leads a speculative comment. So the whole paragraph is a speculation.

As you say, If you are unable or unwilling to see the difference between fact and speculation it is probably due to the fact that you don't want to admit your error because it conflicts with what you want to believe.


I could not have said that any better, myself. Follow your own advice.

Big Bang? 8




A big bang would produce only hydrogen, helium, and lithium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang should consist only of those elements. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none has been found (n).

n. “One might expect Population III stars [stars with only hydrogen and helium and no heavier elements] to have the same sort of distribution of masses as stars forming today, in which case some should be small enough (smaller than 0.8 the mass of the Sun) still to be burning their nuclear fuel. The problem is that, despite extensive searches, nobody has ever found a zero-metallicity star. Bernard Carr, “Where Is Population III? Nature, Vol. 326, 30 April 1987, p. 829.

“Are there any stars older than Population II [i.e., Population III stars]? There should be, if our ideas about the early history of the universe [i.e., the big bang theory] are correct....There is no statistically significant evidence for Population III objects [stars]. Leif J. Robinson, “Where Is Population III? Sky and Telescope, July 1982, p. 20.

“Astronomers have never seen a pure Population III star, despite years of combing our Milky Way galaxy. Robert Irion, “The Quest for Population III, Science, Vol. 295, 4 January 2002, p. 66.



Supposedly, Population II stars, stars having slight amounts of some heavy elements, evolved after Population III stars. Predicted characteristics of Population II stars have never been observed.

“Spectral studies of ancient [Population II] stars in the Milky Way haven’t turned up anything so distinctive [as the chemical elements that should be present], [Timothy] Beers notes, but the search continues. Ibid., p. 67.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Pahu Numbers 31 does not sound like the God we claim and the sacred scritures said "God is love" Numbers 31 describes war crimes and you are attributing that to God!. In my view that is a warped sence of what God is. We don't see that in Jesus. He would not allow them to defend him with a sword. Keeping the virgins for themselves--boy they sure knew the soldiers back then. That being said you are entitled to your opinion but that is not the God I worship. That would be a God worse then Hitler.

Ted;1484116 wrote: Pahu Numbers 31 does not sound like the God we claim and the sacred scritures said "God is love" Numbers 31 describes war crimes and you are attributing that to God!. In my view that is a warped sence of what God is. We don't see that in Jesus. He would not allow them to defend him with a sword. Keeping the virgins for themselves--boy they sure knew the soldiers back then. That being said you are entitled to your opinion but that is not the God I worship. That would be a God worse then Hitler.


God created everything and everyone. He sets the rules, which are for our benefit. When we break those rules, He punishes us so we can learn to obey Him.

Jesus is the God of the Old Testament. In John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." He was saying He was the God at the burning bush and therefor of the Old Testament. Those who heard that knew what He meant and; "Then they took up stones to throw at Him" (vs. 59).

Both the OT and the NT speaks of the love of God and how we should express that love. But both also speak of the judgment of God against those who will not obey Him. Revelation has a lot to say about Christ's judgement. Also:

Matthew 24:44 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. 45 "Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing. 47 Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods. 48 But if that evil servant says in his heart, 'My master is delaying his coming,' 49 and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, 50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of, 51 and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Jesus is referring to Himself as the master.

That is exactly the problem with a literal reading of the Bible. Revelation has nothing to do with the end times. It was a rant gainst the Roman empire and 666 is reference to Nero. With all due respect readding the Bible literally leads to all kinds of absurdities and nonsense. A total failure to understand the Bible. The folks that wrote the individual parts accepted the fact that there was no correct answer to any part. There were and still are multiple interpretations that are all as equaly valid. Have you made the Bible into your object of idolatry??

Ted;1484189 wrote: That is exactly the problem with a literal reading of the Bible. Revelation has nothing to do with the end times. It was a rant gainst the Roman empire and 666 is reference to Nero. With all due respect readding the Bible literally leads to all kinds of absurdities and nonsense. A total failure to understand the Bible. The folks that wrote the individual parts accepted the fact that there was no correct answer to any part. There were and still are multiple interpretations that are all as equaly valid. Have you made the Bible into your object of idolatry??


Oh, no. He has a much newer idol.

Walt Brown and his book.

Ted;1484189 wrote: That is exactly the problem with a literal reading of the Bible. Revelation has nothing to do with the end times. It was a rant gainst the Roman empire and 666 is reference to Nero. With all due respect readding the Bible literally leads to all kinds of absurdities and nonsense. A total failure to understand the Bible. The folks that wrote the individual parts accepted the fact that there was no correct answer to any part. There were and still are multiple interpretations that are all as equaly valid. Have you made the Bible into your object of idolatry??


For the most part, the Bible is literal. There are some parts that are symbolic. Consider this:



Bible Accuracy




1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:



The Rocks Cry Out

In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net



2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:



Scientific Facts in The Bible

Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki

SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Science and the Bible



3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:



100prophecies.org

101 End Times Bible Prophecy

About Bible Prophecy

Bible Prophecies Fulfilled

Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Bible Prophecy



No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

If you want to believe that its ok with me. Archaeology does not support the historicity of the Bible. In fact it refutes most of it as history. It is not science and there is no science there. A complete failure to understand prophesy. It is not in the least accurate. After the experience of Jesus some of the scribes went to the OT and added those to Jesus. He was born in Nazareth to make the story appear to follow prophesy. In my view you are wrong on all three counts..

You are wrong on all three points. In fact archaeology disproves the historicity of the Bible (Israel Finkelstein and and Neil Silberman in "The Bible Unearthed") and many other archaeologists.The Bible as science is wishful thinking. A total failure to understand the nature of prophesy. The scribes after their experience of Jesus search the OT and appended claims to jesus. Thus though he was born in Nazareth the "prophesy had to be fulfilled so he was written up as born in Bethlehem. He is called Jesus of Nazareth because that is where he was born.

I believe you to be wrong on all three. Archaeology proves the biblical historicity is not at all accurate. The Bibl is not a science book nor does it contain what we call science today. A total failure to understand prophesy. Jesus was born in Nazareth not Bethlehem. That is why he is called Jesus of Nazareth. No enrolment as in the Bible, No star, No choir of angels singing in the heavens. Wishful thinking.

Three posts. Looked like I had not posted from my end so posted again.

Ted;1484217 wrote: If you want to believe that its ok with me. Archaeology does not support the historicity of the Bible. In fact it refutes most of it as history. It is not science and there is no science there. A complete failure to understand prophesy. It is not in the least accurate. After the experience of Jesus some of the scribes went to the OT and added those to Jesus. He was born in Nazareth to make the story appear to follow prophesy. In my view you are wrong on all three counts..


Where is the evidence supporting your assertions?

Ted;1484218 wrote: You are wrong on all three points. In fact archaeology disproves the historicity of the Bible (Israel Finkelstein and and Neil Silberman in "The Bible Unearthed") and many other archaeologists.The Bible as science is wishful thinking. A total failure to understand the nature of prophesy. The scribes after their experience of Jesus search the OT and appended claims to jesus. Thus though he was born in Nazareth the "prophesy had to be fulfilled so he was written up as born in Bethlehem. He is called Jesus of Nazareth because that is where he was born.


Where is the evidence supporting your assertions?

Ted;1484224 wrote: I believe you to be wrong on all three. Archaeology proves the biblical historicity is not at all accurate. The Bibl is not a science book nor does it contain what we call science today. A total failure to understand prophesy. Jesus was born in Nazareth not Bethlehem. That is why he is called Jesus of Nazareth. No enrolment as in the Bible, No star, No choir of angels singing in the heavens. Wishful thinking.


Where is the evidence supporting your assertions?

You're a fine one to ask for evidence. After over a hundred pages, you've failed to offer even a shred of evidence.

LarsMac;1484251 wrote: You're a fine one to ask for evidence. After over a hundred pages, you've failed to offer even a shred of evidence.


Wrong! My posts are filled with evidence. Perhaps it would help to read them with an open mind.

Pahu;1484263 wrote: Wrong! My posts are filled with evidence. Perhaps it would help to read them with an open mind.


Wrong ! Your posts have no evidence whatsoever. Nothing you produce has been peer reviewed. You and Mr Brown are desperately clutching at very short straws, otherwise the REAL scientist - not you or Mr Brown - would be all over it like a rash. They're not because what you have to say is insignificant to the point of being absurd.

Cherry picking sentences and phrases from other peoples work, in an attempt to reinforce your pseudo scientific revelations does not amount to evidence. It's why you are completely isolated, both here and in the scientific community. Even Creationists have distanced themselves from Browns lazy attempts at science.

You are delusional with nothing scientific other than what the flat earthers might recognise ie. distorted, invented, pie in the sky nonsense. None of it stands up to proper scrutiny.

Its sad and its desperate.

"Science Disproves Pahu". Yes, it's true. I read it!

Snowfire;1484266 wrote: Wrong ! Your posts have no evidence whatsoever. Nothing you produce has been peer reviewed. You and Mr Brown are desperately clutching at very short straws, otherwise the REAL scientist - not you or Mr Brown - would be all over it like a rash. They're not because what you have to say is insignificant to the point of being absurd.

Cherry picking sentences and phrases from other peoples work, in an attempt to reinforce your pseudo scientific revelations does not amount to evidence. It's why you are completely isolated, both here and in the scientific community. Even Creationists have distanced themselves from Browns lazy attempts at science.

You are delusional with nothing scientific other than what the flat earthers might recognise ie. distorted, invented, pie in the sky nonsense. None of it stands up to proper scrutiny.

Its sad and its desperate.


The only sad and desperate thing here is your evidence free denial of the facts.

You are choosing to ignore the numerous scientists, quoted by Brown, who have examined the evidence and confirm his conclusions. Here are some of them:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:



American journal of science

Astronomical journal

Astrophysics and space science

Astrophysical journal

Bioscience

Geology

Icarus

Journal of Geology

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Nature

New scientist

Physics Today

Physical review

Physical review d

Physical review letters

Science

Space science reviews

The American Journal of Science and Arts

Pahu;1484273 wrote: The only sad and desperate thing here is your evidence free denial of the facts.

You are choosing to ignore the numerous scientists, quoted by Brown, who have examined the evidence and confirm his conclusions. Here are some of them:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:



American journal of science

Astronomical journal

Astrophysics and space science

Astrophysical journal

Bioscience

Geology

Icarus

Journal of Geology

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Nature

New scientist

Physics Today

Physical review

Physical review d

Physical review letters

Science

Space science reviews

The American Journal of Science and Arts


Not evidence, my friend. this is merely a list of people and publications from which your Mr Brown has extracted quotes that may be contrived to possibly express some agreement with some notion or another espoused by Mr Brown.

All you have ever done here is post a collection of said quotes, which are usually mere speculation or opinion from a discussion on a given subject.

At best, everything you have posted is an example of a learned person's opinion.

This has yet to qualify as evidence to support your ridiculous claim that "science disproves Evolution" (Or anything else you may have claimed to date.)

A scientist's opinion is just an opinion. It's not science.

And in your last collection of drivel, you posted several people saying that there has yet to be found evidence of Specific start types.

You, of all people here should get that "lack of evidence does not disprove existence"

Pahu;1484273 wrote: The only sad and desperate thing here is your evidence free denial of the facts.

You are choosing to ignore the numerous scientists, quoted by Brown, who have examined the evidence and confirm his conclusions. Here are some of them:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:



American journal of science

Astronomical journal

Astrophysics and space science

Astrophysical journal

Bioscience

Geology

Icarus

Journal of Geology

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Nature

New scientist

Physics Today

Physical review

Physical review d

Physical review letters

Science

Space science reviews

The American Journal of Science and Arts


So you are suggesting that Mr Carl Sagan has "examined Brown's evidence and has confirmed his conclusions".

No such thing happened.

Sagan had forgotten more than Brown could ever know about astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, astrobiology, space science, planetary science and more importantly, something that you and your ilk have a distinct lack of, critical thinking

LarsMac;1484274 wrote: ....... All you have ever done here is post a collection of said quotes, which are usually mere speculation or opinion from a discussion on a given subject. .....
So why is this fellow is awarded with anything other than ridicule I do not understand.

I don't like to ridicule people. Generally I make a few comments and let it go at that. Pahu can believe as he wishes however the vast majority of the scientific community has shown otherwise. Of course it is not kosher to take phrases out of context. Which has been noted before by others.

Ted;1484291 wrote: I don't like to ridicule people. Generally I make a few comments and let it go at that. Pahu can believe as he wishes however the vast majority of the scientific community has shown otherwise. Of course it is not kosher to take phrases out of context. Which has been noted before by others.
Yes, I see your point. Sort of like selling sex. It is not Pahu who deserves ridicule but rather those who take the bait.

LarsMac;1484274 wrote: Not evidence, my friend. this is merely a list of people and publications from which your Mr Brown has extracted quotes that may be contrived to possibly express some agreement with some notion or another espoused by Mr Brown.

All you have ever done here is post a collection of said quotes, which are usually mere speculation or opinion from a discussion on a given subject.

At best, everything you have posted is an example of a learned person's opinion.

This has yet to qualify as evidence to support your ridiculous claim that "science disproves Evolution" (Or anything else you may have claimed to date.)

A scientist's opinion is just an opinion. It's not science.

And in your last collection of drivel, you posted several people saying that there has yet to be found evidence of Specific start types.

You, of all people here should get that "lack of evidence does not disprove existence"


So you reject what scientists say. What they say is based on their repeated observation, investigation experimentation and analysis of facts or events.

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms.

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions

Ho hum. Same old same old.

Ted;1484412 wrote: Ho hum. Same old same old.


Actually, that was the most scientific thing he has ever posted.

Big Bang? 9




Two Lithium Problems. The total amount of lithium seen in and outside our galaxy is only a third of what the big bang theory predicts (o). Also,“old stars contain one-quarter to one-half as much lithium-7 (made of three protons and four neutrons) as the [big bang] theory predicts and contain 1,000 times more lithium-6 (three protons and three neutrons) than expected [by the big bang theory] (p).

o. “Our result shows that this discrepancy is a universal problem concerning both the Milky Way and extra-galactic systems. A. Mucciarelli et al., “The Cosmological Lithium Problem Outside the Galaxy, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 444, 21 October 2014, p. 1812.

“... stars in M54 have just as little lithium as stars in the Milky Way, suggesting that the lithium problem is universal. Christopher Crockett, “Mystery of the Missing Lithium Extends Beyond the Milky Way, Science News,Vol. 186, 18 October 2014, p. 15.

p. Andrew Grant, “Lab Tests Mystery of Lithium Levels, Science News,Vol. 186, 9 August 2014, p.6.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 56.** Big Bang?

Sorry but I couldn't be bothered reading it since it came from pahu.

Ted;1484568 wrote: Sorry but I couldn't be bothered reading it since it came from pahu.


Well, the articles referenced are very interesting. Though they fail to cast as much of a pall on the BBT and his post would suggest.

Pahu;1484510 wrote:

Big Bang? 9




Two Lithium Problems. The total amount of lithium seen in and outside our galaxy is only a third of what the big bang theory predicts (o). Also,“old stars contain one-quarter to one-half as much lithium-7 (made of three protons and four neutrons) as the [big bang] theory predicts and contain 1,000 times more lithium-6 (three protons and three neutrons) than expected [by the big bang theory] (p).

o. “Our result shows that this discrepancy is a universal problem concerning both the Milky Way and extra-galactic systems. A. Mucciarelli et al., “The Cosmological Lithium Problem Outside the Galaxy, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 444, 21 October 2014, p. 1812.

“... stars in M54 have just as little lithium as stars in the Milky Way, suggesting that the lithium problem is universal. Christopher Crockett, “Mystery of the Missing Lithium Extends Beyond the Milky Way, Science News,Vol. 186, 18 October 2014, p. 15.

p. Andrew Grant, “Lab Tests Mystery of Lithium Levels, Science News,Vol. 186, 9 August 2014, p.6.


Regarding the last entry, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/lab ... 874&tgt=nr

An underground experiment has imitated conditions from just after the Big Bang to produce the universe’s most confounding element, lithium. The experiment’s result reinforces what scientists call the lithium problem, a discrepancy between the amounts of the element thought to have been produced 13.8 billion years ago and the amounts observed in ancient stars. This discrepancy challenges theories about the universe’s earliest moments.


The researchers found that the experiment created nearly as much lithium-6 as theory predicts, and far less than is observed in ancient stars, they report in a paper that will soon appear in Physical Review Letters. “It’s a really beautiful measurement, says Brian Fields, an astrophysicist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The result, when combined with similar findings from LUNA and other laboratories about the production of lithium-7, bolsters the Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory.

Some scientific errors???

Ted;1484829 wrote: Some scientific errors???
Yes, like the one that states, "God never existed, nor could exist ... and here (once and for all) is the proof." :wah:

Big Bang? 10




Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies at such great distances, but such galaxies are seen. [See “Distant Galaxies on page 425.] Nor should a big bang produce tightly clustered galaxies (q). Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular

to the direction of apparent expansion (r).

q. “Galaxy rotation and how it got started is one of the great mysteries of astrophysics. In a Big Bang universe, linear motions are easy to explain: They result from the bang. But what started the rotary motions? William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos: A Catalog of Astronomical Anomalies (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1987), p. 177.

r. Alan Dressler, “The Large-Scale Streaming of Galaxies, Scientific American, Vol. 257, September 1987, pp. 46–54.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Lol

Big Bang? 11




For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge (s). (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies (t).

s. “It is a fundamental rule of modern physics [namely, the big bang theory] that for every type of particle in nature there is a corresponding ‘antiparticle’. Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1977), p. 76.

“If the universe began in the big bang as a huge burst of energy, it should have evolved into equal parts matter and antimatter. But instead the stars and nebulae are made of protons, neutrons and electrons and not their antiparticles (their antimatter equivalents). Kane, pp. 73–74.

“But to balance the cosmic energy books—and to avoid violating the most fundamental laws of physics—matter and antimatter should have been created [in a big bang] in exactly equal amounts. And then they should have promptly wiped each other out. Yet here we are. Tim Folger, “Antimatter, Discover, August 2004, p. 68.

t. “Within our galaxy, we can be confident that there are no stars of antimatter; otherwise, the pervasive interstellar medium would instigate annihilation and ensuing gamma-ray emission at a rate far in excess of that observed....One difficulty with the idea of antigalaxies lies in maintaining their separation from galaxies. Empty space may now separate them, but in the early universe, these regions must have been in relatively close contact. Annihilation seems difficult to avoid, particularly because we now know that many regions of intergalactic space are occupied by a tenuous gas. Interaction with the gas would make annihilation inevitable in antimatter regions, with the consequent emission of observable gamma radiation. Joseph Silk, The Big Bang (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1980), p. 115.

“Also, as far as we know, there is no appreciable amount of antimatter in the universe. Weinberg, p. 88.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

Man, you just get further, and further "Out there."

Don't you think that you should think a little bit about this stuff yourself, instead of just parroting the latest Walter Brown drivel?

LarsMac;1485514 wrote: Man, you just get further, and further "Out there."

Don't you think that you should think a little bit about this stuff yourself, instead of just parroting the latest Walter Brown drivel?


What is drivel about it?

As I've said before, nothing you post has actually demonstrated a lick of Science.

And, of course, your non-science has disproved nothing.

Besides, showing a lack of evidence can neither prove nothing nor disprove anything.

LarsMac;1485593 wrote: As I've said before, nothing you post has actually demonstrated a lick of Science.

And, of course, your non-science and disproved nothing.

Besides, showing a lack of evidence can neither prove nothing nor disprove anything.


You haven't been paying attention. All of my posts show scientific evidence that science disproves evolution. Here is one example:



Sexual Reproduction



Figure 16: Male and Female Birds. Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?

If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.

a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two at any stage would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.

b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible.a

c. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical,b and electricalc compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.

d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes that scientists can describe only in a general sense.d

e. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.

f. This remarkable string of “accidents must have been repeated for millions of species.

Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.

Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals.e

Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction.f But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?

If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. Many organisms have reproductive systems that last a lifetime

Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that could reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle.g

Pahu;1485622 wrote: You haven't been paying attention. All of my posts show scientific evidence that science disproves evolution.






Sorry, but no, all your posts, or at least a significant majority of them show opinions, many of them from scientists, about aspects of the natural world, which some idiot has decided supports the idea that evolution cannot have happened and yet, evolution has, in fact happened. Proof could be offered, but you would simply reject it as "Speculation" so in keeping with your style, I shall offer no science, either. I wouldn't want to spoil the thread by doing that.

And none of your opinions are, in fact, science. They are just opinions.

Here we go gain.

LarsMac;1485663 wrote: Sorry, but no, all your posts, or at least a significant majority of them show opinions, many of them from scientists, about aspects of the natural world, which some idiot has decided supports the idea that evolution cannot have happened and yet, evolution has, in fact happened. Proof could be offered, but you would simply reject it as "Speculation" so in keeping with your style, I shall offer no science, either.


What I have shared is more than just opinions of scientists but actual scientific facts. Probably the reason you can't accept those facts is they conflict with what you want to believe. Here is what some scientists say about evolution:



SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1



Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.

" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.

"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

[continue]

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1

[continued]

"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].

"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

Scientists Speak About Evolution

Pahu;1485699 wrote: ...Probably the reason you can't accept those facts is they conflict with what you want to believe...

...




Coming from you, those words are priceless.

And the rest of your response just proves my point.

I'll be going now.

Have a nice day.

As usual, Pahu's contribution is an array of quotes from scientists, some of who may or not be Creationists.

And as usual, they are quotes, often taken out of context.

Hello ! Havent we heard this before ? Isn't this a common ploy from Messrs Brown and Pahu ?

Quote #70

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation." (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)


A more complete quotation of would be:

Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law. They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter? And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened, and, furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening. Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability. Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe. No scientific evidence precludes that possibility.

But while scientists must accept the possibility that life may be an improbable event, they have some tentative reasons for thinking that its appearance on earthlike planets is, in fact, fairly commonplace. These reasons do not constitute proof, but they are suggestive. Laboratory experiments show that certain molecules, which are the building blocks of living matter, are formed in great abundance under conditions resembling those on the earth four billion years ago, when it was a young planet. Furthermore, those molecular building blocks of life appear in living organisms today in just about the same relative amounts with which they appear in the laboratory experiments. It is as if nature, in fashioning the first forms of life, used the ingredients at hand and in just the proportions in which they were present.


Jastrow certainly isn't arguing in favor of creation.

This was taken from The Quote Mine Project. Because Mr Brown and Pahu are adept at attributing quotes to people, with the relevant substance that surrounds it missing

Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"

Snowfire;1485725 wrote: As usual, Pahu's contribution is an array of quotes from scientists, some of who may or not be Creationists.

And as usual, they are quotes, often taken out of context.

A more complete quotation of would be:

Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law. They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter? And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened, and, furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening. Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability. Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe. No scientific evidence precludes that possibility.

But while scientists must accept the possibility that life may be an improbable event, they have some tentative reasons for thinking that its appearance on earthlike planets is, in fact, fairly commonplace. These reasons do not constitute proof, but they are suggestive. Laboratory experiments show that certain molecules, which are the building blocks of living matter, are formed in great abundance under conditions resembling those on the earth four billion years ago, when it was a young planet. Furthermore, those molecular building blocks of life appear in living organisms today in just about the same relative amounts with which they appear in the laboratory experiments. It is as if nature, in fashioning the first forms of life, used the ingredients at hand and in just the proportions in which they were present.


Jastrow certainly isn't arguing in favor of creation.


Nor was that suggested. He is simply stating the fact that, "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation." The context confirms that statement.

Lol

Ted;1485750 wrote: Lol


He's a keeper, ain't he?