DarwinPropertyInsight.com

.

Suppose a scientist conducts an experiment where he measures how much salt will dissolve in a glass of water. Does the amount of salt depend on Gods mood at the time of the experiment or does it depend on the chemical properties of water and salt?

For science to work and be effective, it must assume that the latter explanation is always correct. Thus, science assumes that the atheists are correct. And this assumption is not by choice but rather by necessity. Without this assumption science just does not work.

Most of the time, this naturalistic assumption does not create controversy. That is if the chemistry of water and salt determine how much salt dissolves in water, everyone is happy. This finding does not go against anyone’s religion. So we don’t have any controversy and science works as it should.

But what about evolution and more specifically the origin of life. When science starts to investigate these events, it can and does create controversy. In this case, science is applying the philosophy of atheism to investigate events that most believe can be attributed to Gods handiwork or will.
Now we have controversy. And interestingly enough, it is this controversy that forces science to fail. Because of the attention, scientists are no longer allowed to say we dont know. Instead, they often promote a hypothesis with no experimental support to the status of theory (for example, self replicating RNA molecules).

And they claim they know how things happened when in reality they don’t have a clue.

Furthermore, many things are just assumed true. For example, science assumes that evolution is true. This assumption arises directly from the naturalistic axiom. So when Darwin proposed his theory, science did not have to test it. Instead it just set about trying to prove it correct.

.
Yes Dear ProP…..

We could while away more than a few hours and more than a few snap~n cold suds

contemplating a riddles of the ages with to many sages,but we’ll be the one that gauges those to many sages!
ghost ceiling cat….

Assuming Intelligent design in the first place ……..it does not assume that the axiom on which it rests (theistic evolution) is correct. By using probability theory to calculate the odds of something happening, intelligent design theory can either infer design and no design. In other words, if the scientific evidence does not suggest a designer was required to create life, then intelligent design will not infer one. Thus, in my opinion, intelligent design offers a better way to investigate origin of life theories.
gotoswaitig4U………

any self replicating RNA molecule that cannot also synthesize activated nucleotides (like ATP or IMPA) will only be able to replicate in a test tube with the help of researchers who supply these nucleotides.

This leads to the conclusion that simple self replicating RNA molecules do not exist and that the RNA world hypothesis should instead be called the myth of the RNA world because it did not exist, and it does not help explain any of the mysteries surrounding the origin of life.

Dude, believe in a diety that speaks magic words and poofs everything into existence for all I care.

Now quit copy/pasting someone else’s ignorance and try asking a question. http://theory-of-evolution.net/intelligent-design-blog/

Alright, so If we apply the properties of Evolution vs. No Evolution there is a 1:1 or 50% chance that they are actually correct.

So, if the theory of evolution is correct we should expect that 1 out of every 2 monkeys should give birth to a human.

Now if we assume that we have 12000 Monkeys in captivity, and half of which are female, you have 6000 pairs of monkeys that can produce offspring. If each female gives birth 3 times, you now have 18000 Monkeys over the span of roughly 10 years.

However, none of the offspring are human. They are all monkeys.

So what we expected to be about 9000 human births from zoo monkeys, according to evolution, ended up just being 18000 more monkeys, predicted from common sense.

I now challenge anyone here to show me a legitimate, non-biased scientific article of a zoo monkey giving birth to *one* single human being, let alone the 9000 that we expected.

Therefore, we have solid, mathematical proof that Darwin did not exist.

You not only need to go back to science class, you also need to go back to math class.

There is a theory that pigs can fly. Either they can fly or they can’t. In the absence of any other information, we could say that there is a 50% chance that my theory is true, since there are two outcomes, i.e., it is true or it is false. This doesn’t mean that half of all pigs can fly.

I came upon a new kind of information lately. I am a christian, and Ive finally thought a good, and scientific question for you guys. You guys probably knew this but you do realise that there are other scientist in the world that completely and utterly believe in the existence of GOD, namely the quantum physics, and bio-physics mechanics guys. They are basically the guys that study the cosmos and its physical properties, and basically work together with large institutions such as NASA, and others. You must agree that they are notable in their intellect and I guess their reputation precedes them. Yet, unlike all evolutionary, darwin based scientists, and obviously atheists, quantum physics over the years not only has brought more light of whats going on in the universe, but constantly keeps them stating and directly commenting the existence of GOD being in the unverse and everywhere. Now, dont mix that with religion, as I also disagree with religion, but completly believe with whats written in the BIBLE being right and true.
My question however, is if why continuing on asking us to prove the existence of GOD while all along you have members of the scientific world that arent even christian, pouring theyre years and time of studies to in the end confess that GOD exists?

Hello Some Dude, try and learn how to type in English. Thanks.
Peace and Namaste!