Scientists: We've found creator's tracks

LANCASTER - An evolutionist professor from Antelope Valley College on Wednesday conceded the strong probability of intelligent design in life's earliest forms.

The announcement came at the end of a 3-hour presentation at the Lancaster Performing Arts Center by scientists from Reasons to Believe, a Christian ministry that creates and tests scientific models based on the Bible.

Matthew Rainbow, a biology professor with a Ph.D. in molecular biology and biochemistry, told a crowd of several hundred that he had been persuaded to change his view of the origins of life about six months earlier, after reading books by the evening's two Reasons to Believe presenters, Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana.

Rainbow helped organize Wednesday's event in connection with a local Reasons to Believe chapter.

The professor described himself as a "flag-waving and card-carrying evolutionist and, about half the time, an atheist," but said evolutionary theory has not explained how the first living cells came into being.

"I now believe with about 60% certainty that the first living things were intelligently designed by a creator," Rainbow said.

Based on astronomical observation and calculations employing Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, such a universe has existed for roughly 14 billion years, Ross said.

His model predicts that future scientific study will produce the following results:

Evidence for a single beginning will increase.

Evidence that time is finite will increase.

Evidence that general relativity reliably describes cosmic dynamics will grow.

Space-time theorems will strengthen.

The case for a transcendent causal agent will gain strength.

Evidence for other miraculous events will be found.

"That's what a model is supposed to do, not just explain, but predict," Ross said

www.avpress.com...

(A problem for any Grade 10 math’s class.) Suppose we have a bucket in which are placed ten (10) identical discs, each numbered from 1-10. The question is: Can chance methods enable us to count from 1 to 10? If only one disc is to be selected from the bucket, noted and replaced, and we require disc 1 first, disc 2 second, etc. in the correct sequence from 1-10, what is the probability of selecting all ten discs in order?

To select all 10 in the right order the probability is 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 or (1/10)10. This means that you would select the right order only once in 10 billion attempts. Put another way ‘chance’ requires 10 billion attempts, on the average, to count from 1 to 10.

Kind of reminds me of the lottery. Getting one ticket doesn't give you much of a chance of winning. Hundreds would look like a sure thing. What is increasing are the odds of you losing.
Irreducible complexity (IC)

[edit on 26-4-2008 by Master_Wii]

Yeah, but if you have 10 billion buckets someone's gonna be a winner pretty darn quick.

The professor described himself as a "flag-waving and card-carrying evolutionist and, about half the time, an atheist," but said evolutionary theory has not explained how the first living cells came into being.
"I now believe with about 60% certainty that the first living things were intelligently designed by a creator," Rainbow said.

That is a very big percentage of unknowns, I am nothing but atheist and I have been reading about the possible begining's of intelligent lifes origin's, and that too has it's questions to some of the answers, if weare to persue such incinations of podering's, we must be prepared for the "Loose End's" of every staggering response of the answers.

There have been the on going inquiries of the origins of life, you
know "Where it began" and the all time favorite "Will it all end?".
I have been trying to get some kind of baring on the effects of the
collasal 'Big Bang Theory' and weighing towards the implications of
the current discoveries of newly discovered lost civilizations from
the Phoenicians to the christians. Even some that date back to the
very existance of the belief system's beginning's itself. There are
no 'Cut-and-Dry' rebuttles to any of the questions I have insued upon
and I am finally coming to the conclusion that our 'Intelligences'
have over come the very true existance of how and why we are even
here. We have initiated "Invention's" which have existed years and
millenia before our time, we have crouched for low flying objects and
jumped when the even lower flying one's embarked at us.
I for one think that there probably is intelligent life some where in
the Cosmos, but what the acquirements of thier structure or thier
molecular make up is (If not DNA) is a hit or miss assumption with no
real educational and practical guess in it's application of this to
be "Factual" or "Fictional" , and to make matter's even more hard
struck for thought's, we continually battle over the "Who's right and
who's wrong?" characteristic beliefs of something that was handed
down to us by peer's or the over exuberant rants of a man of the
clothe.For this matter I am posting for the possibilities of not
really finding the 'Preverbial' answer's , it is more or less to find
out why we as individuals of the same species have different aspects,
belief's and conclusions to why we are all here in the first place.
Sciences have taken off like a perverbial Rocket in the past few
decades and as I had said before , the 'New' discoveries of Ancient
Civilizations is actually rewriting the history book's for all man
kind, "But why is it so important too have this data of 'Conflict'
and 'Distortion' if it only raises more of the 'Inconclusive'
question's to be added to the already long list of 'What If's?'
already in place?"
I have mentioned Niel DeGrasse Tyson a few times in the past since I
have been a member, but the reason for the intrigue of his statements
is that there is no big 'Statement's' . And if I were to have to makea
bonofied choice this very second of my breath's, I would choose to
believe Mr. Tyson's opinion's on the very existance of life and that
we will probably by no means be able too riddle the question's that
we inquire upon. Not this topic, 'Existance and Origins' anyway.
Here is a short read for those of you that are interested in this
particular topic. It is an interview from the Public Broadcasting
Service that featured Niel DeGrasse Tyson as it's guest. Very down to
earth and very non-confusing statements and analogies by a premier
Astrophysist and his acknowledgements of what it takes to be part of
the facilitations of figuring out the 'Origins'.



Also, "Please do reply with your own expierience of how you came to
be the way you are with influences and just your preprogrammed up
bringing's if you have different views of the current 'Status Quo'."
It's only my 2 cents worth.

Originally posted by lonemaverick
Yeah, but if you have 10 billion buckets someone's gonna be a winner pretty darn quick.

Well not really...

In a game of chance, the cards - or in this case the buckets - have no knowledge of any previous outcomes (please no one go all quantum mechanics on my posterior - my head already hurts!)

So your 10 billionth draw has exactly the same odds as the first, or the 999th.

Considering some of the places we've found life right here on Earth (i.e. the perimeter of "smokers" at the bottem of the Atlantic Ocean, or embedded in ice a half mile below the surface ice at the Poles.) and now after discovering what is possibility bacterium fossils in meteors, I'd say the odds of life in one form or another existing practically ANYWHERE are pretty darn good!

Is it by intelligent design? Well, maybe that's WHY we can find it practically anywhere!

reply to post by Master_Wii


This stinks of just more right wing christian hogwash to me. More elementary school style 'scientific explanations', more dubious quotes, more wierd and whacky nonsense....

J.

while it's certainly not an academically published peer reviewed "gate-keeper" publication in which this article is published, I certainly stand behind what this man is saying.

The odds of I.D. are fairly attractive to lend further digging.

Yes, while the rest of us open-minded followers of theoretical science just sit back and watch while this fellow proclaims that there is I.D behind our earliest form of life.

Honestly, it's like saying that there's no such thing as a truly chaotic universe.

The professor described himself as a "flag-waving and card-carrying evolutionist and, about half the time, an atheist," but said evolutionary theory has not explained how the first living cells came into being.

" evolutionist " is a stock tag from the creationism camp - i have never seen a real scientist who actually studies evolutionary therory describe themeslves as ` evolutionists `

second - evolutionary theory does NOT explain or atempt to explain origins of life - that is the abiogenisis theory

the distiction between the two should be obvious to a scientist in the feild

reply to post by Master_Wii

Title:
"Scientists: We've found creator's tracks"

Content:
"Scientist: I read this book you guys wrote"

Evolutionary biology doesn't try to explain the origins of life. Neither does, say, cardiology. These sudy the systems by which life operates.

Congratulations, Creationists, you've landed another guy who somehow got a PhD while being unable to tell [a cabbage from a brick].

[edit on 28-4-2008 by TheWalkingFox]



Edited to replace anatomical comparison with cabbages and bricks

[edit on 28/4/08 by masqua]

reply to post by Master_Wii


To select all 10 in the right order the probability is 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/10 or (1/10)10. This means that you would select the right order only once in 10 billion attempts. Put another way ‘chance’ requires 10 billion attempts, on the average, to count from 1 to 10.

With the vastness of just the known universe...those would be good odds!


Surely with the high degree of symmetry that rules the cosmos albeit fractal in nature. It is hard to think the universe to be random. And by far it is a finer job then anyone of us could accomplish....but intelligent...well let’s see. No doubt that once intelligence came to be. Then indeed how intelligent a thing…to breathe life into beings like us... hey I call that intelligent.(most of the time).
But if the now was known then. To what degree of intellect does it take to win the lottery if you got the winning numbers? However if you have the winning numbers it would be unintelligent to not "play" them. Hmmmmm.
Or maybe we are like ants...not really even aware of the true immensity of the "play"

....................................................................................................
signature

"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." —Niels Bohr