Quote:
Originally Posted by owen06
Science's job is not to prove anything. As a matter of fact, science's main objective is to disprove various assumptions or hypotheses. These hypotheses are tested in a controlled environment and if they stand the test of time they are accepted. Scientists actually accept the fact that gravity can never be proven. They also accept the fact they cannot prove time moves forward any more than they can prove that light moves at ~3.0x10^8m/s however, they have never been able to disprove these concepts. And in the face of overwhelming evidence they conclude that these "assumptions" are correct. Indeed should an experiment ever be devised that disproves any such therory, serious consideration would be given to the experiment and revision of the theory may become necessary.
As for abiogenesis, all I wish to add to this topic is to say that various amino acids such as lysine, arginine and ~30 others can be produced via an electrical current passed through a cloud of gases. Although science has never proven that life would come from these building blocks, it is intriguing, is it not?
|
Yes you are correct I need to post my links. I am still figuring out how to manipulate text on these sites and I just got cut and paste down. I will try and remember to put links as well. Sometimes I get reallly aggravated at this word processing thing.
The list was only a partial one of scientists who believe in the BIBLICAL account of Creation. I said that 42 oercent of scientists beleive in some form of creation theory. That includes those who believe God used evolution to create the world. Which I do not. Cheifly because believing this will eventuallly lead you to the conclusion that evolution could have occured without God if you are intellectually honest. I don't bleieve any God that needs Evolution to create anything is worthy of worship. That would fall into the theory of Aliens seeding the planet.
I was hoping you would post the amino acid argument:
Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or chirality doesn't exist.
If you're in doubt as to which is correct, you are a living example of the reality of chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes could not do their job; DNA could not function at all. Without properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this earth. The reality of chirality, more than any other evidence, did more to convince me of the reality of an all-powerful Creator. I hope it will do the same for you.
I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.
Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry
And though the following link is not the site where I got the 42 % figure(I may have gotten that from a book, I'm still trying to remember) it offers many valuable insights into just which scientist believe in creation.
Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution