Evidence for God from Science

Murray wrote:O well, I didn't even realize who that man was.....

That's ok, Murray. Hovind is quite well known on these boards. It just shows that we need to be careful as to what we link, to help make an argument. I did the same thing a while back. While searching, I came upon an article that backed up a point I was trying to make. I didn't realize what other "stuff" the author was involved in. Just be careful and diligent when searching for answers.

Well i didnt really use him as an example, just kinda stated the number he said was far far far larger than the scientific number i posted (600 compared to 119,000)

Can somebody explain to me who Kent Hovind is?

Murray wrote:Can somebody explain to me who Kent Hovind is?

I could, but it would probably be better if you googled him, to see for yourself.

Murray wrote:Can somebody explain to me who Kent Hovind is?

Basically, he makes Ken Ham look like a good man.
No, really... part of me despises Kent Hovind. He's a quick talker, ignorant snappy wit, random sources, and has an annoying voice.

spartanII wrote:

Murray wrote:Can somebody explain to me who Kent Hovind is?

Basically, he makes Ken Ham look like a good man.
No, really... part of me despises Kent Hovind. He's a quick talker, ignorant snappy wit, random sources, and has an annoying voice.

Spartan, please be careful not to personally attack Mr. Hovind. It's one thing to call into question his methods and tactics, but please don't make it personal. While you or I may not agree with Ken Ham or Kent Hovind regarding their young earth beliefs, they are Brothers in Christ.
This is coming from someone(me) who has pointed out their errors in the past. So I do understand your feelings towards them.

RickD wrote:

spartanII wrote:

Murray wrote:Can somebody explain to me who Kent Hovind is?

Basically, he makes Ken Ham look like a good man.
No, really... part of me despises Kent Hovind. He's a quick talker, ignorant snappy wit, random sources, and has an annoying voice.

Spartan, please be careful not to personally attack Mr. Hovind. It's one thing to call into question his methods and tactics, but please don't make it personal. While you or I may not agree with Ken Ham or Kent Hovind regarding their young earth beliefs, they are Brothers in Christ.
This is coming from someone(me) who has pointed out their errors in the past. So I do understand your feelings towards them.

I understand, sorry. :/ I'm getting better with that. my bad.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Who says DNA appeared randomly?

So, then, it was created by God?

1over137 wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Who says DNA appeared randomly?

So, then, it was created by God?

I think my question is straight forward.
Who is claiming that DNA appeared randomly?

Let's drop the word randomly.

Do you think DNA appear through natural unguided processes?

And natural selection cannot be a factor in any way since there was no 'life' per se for natural selection to 'select' for. So what is left then other than complete randomness or (gasp!) the unthinkable?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

1over137 wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Who says DNA appeared randomly?

So, then, it was created by God?

I think my question is straight forward.
Who is claiming that DNA appeared randomly?

Oh, Sorry. I've just found the pdf on the web by SC Meyer: DNA and the Origin of Life. The answer to your question may be found on page 14 and the following pages. More on that later.

1over137 wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

1over137 wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Who says DNA appeared randomly?

So, then, it was created by God?

I think my question is straight forward.
Who is claiming that DNA appeared randomly?

Oh, Sorry. I've just found the pdf on the web by SC Meyer: DNA and the Origin of Life. The answer to your question may be found on page 14 and the following pages. More on that later.

So, some quotes from that pdf.

"... origin of life researchers have proposed three broad types of naturalistic explanation to explain the origin of specified genetic information: those emphasizing chance, necessity, or the combination of the two." (p.14)

"In 1954 the physicist George Wald, for example, argued for the causal efficacy of chance in conjunction vast expanses of time. As he explained, "Time is in fact hero of the plot. ... Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. Later in 1968 Francis Crick would suggest that the origin of the genetic code ... might be a 'frozen accident'." (p.14)

"While outside origin-of-life biology some may still invoke 'chance' as an explanation for the origin of life, most serious origin-of-life researchers now reject it as an adequate causal explanation for the origin of biological information. ... many calculations have been made to determine the probability of formulating functional proteins and nucleic acids at random. ... these calculations often assumed extremely favorable prebiotic conditions, much more time than was actually available on the early earth, and theoretically maximal reaction rates among constituent monomers. Such calculations have invariably shown that the probability of obtaining functionally sequenced biomacromolecules at random is, in Prirogine's words, 'vanishingly small ... even on the scale of ... billions of years'." (p.14-15)

Now something about self-organizational scenarios.

"... most origin-of-life theorists after 1960 attempted to address the problem of the origin of biological information in a completely different way. Researchers began to look for self-organizational laws and properties of chemical attraction that might explain the origin of the specified information in DNA and proteins. Rather than invoking chance, these theories invoked necessity. ... At that time, several researchers began to propose that deterministic forcers (stereochemical necessity) made the origin of life not just probable, but inevitable. ..." (p.21)

... to be continued ... in case of questions.

jlay wrote:Let's drop the word randomly.

Do you think DNA appear through natural unguided processes?

By unguided, you don't mean natural laws and predictable cause and effect.

I know that I do not know the origin of DNA.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I know that I do not know the origin of DNA.

Have you read The Language of God? It offers a hint.