Creation: Mother Nature’s Plan

8 Comments

• Michelle Todd says:

  20 Dec 2009 at 12:47

  WOW I love the wooden box. It makes a very easy to understand picture.

  » Reply to this Comment «
• Gregg says:

  24 Dec 2009 at 14:30

  Thank you, Michelle. God Bless and have a Merry Christmas.

  » Reply to this Comment «
• Heresiarch says:

  25 Dec 2009 at 13:48

  Don’t leave the case for panspermia without acknowledging carbon’s business partner, silicon.

  » Reply to this Comment «
  • Gregg says:

    27 Dec 2009 at 04:44

    Hi arch,

    Thanks for the remarks. The link you sent me to refers to atoms as the “larvae of stars” and you refer to the elements of silicon and carbon as business partners. Both of those sentiments directly employ anthropomorphism, which is to attribute living characteristics — characteristics of mind — to non-living and mindless things. While fanciful, I tend to have a much more realistic take. For example, I believe that atoms are, well, atoms. I also believe that inorganic elements cannot form business partnerships since, you know, they don’t have minds or own businesses. I also understand and take into account things like light and strong atomic forces, laws of attraction, laws of motion, angular momentum, the various mass gaps and their effects on elements, and other scientific universal laws like that.

    If what you are trying to get at is that there could possibly be life forms in the vast, vast universe which are based on something other than carbon based on something like the Drake equation, then I could recommend that you familiarize yourself with the Anthropic Principle. The Drake equation started with a massively flawed premise and is now disproved. In summary, it has been shown that living things must be carbon based and must be supported by various “Goldilocks” zones in order to even exist. Discovering this was a huge disappointment to me since I loved the concept of all kinds of non-carbon based life forms from the silicon based Horta in the original Star Trek to Anne McCaffrey’s boron based dragons on Pern.

    I dismiss the “aliens did it” theories because they immediately beg the question which abandons both logic and reason. The bottom line is that for ANY form of life to have evolved on ANY planet in the universe by ANY means and based on ANY element would take trillions of trillions of years even by the most conservative calculations and the odds against it happening are well beyond mathematically impossible. It has been conservatively estimated that there is only 1 chance in 10^119,879 that the simplest theoretical life form imaginable could possibly evolve even given 10^119,841 years. That is a VAST number of years beyond 10¹⁰ years that it supposedly has existed.

    And of course, stars don’t live that long. Energy is simply transformed matter. Even assuming the 60 year old theory of stellar fusion is the cause for stars giving off heat and light — which I do not believe to be accurate — stars would last at most a few billion years. Given the more plausible and earlier solar collapse theory for starlight, stars would only last a scant few million years.

    Thanks for visiting and stop back often.
    Gregg

    » Reply to this Comment «
• melissa says:

  26 Dec 2009 at 08:52

  wow! Gregg your knowledge astounds me…thank you for sharing and explaining so us normal people can understand. this just made me really miss you! Can’t wait to see you. God Bless and see you soon!

  » Reply to this Comment «
  • Gregg says:

    27 Dec 2009 at 04:14

    Thanks Melissa. I appreciate the comments. Be sure to check in every Sunday for my tiny contributions here. I’ll be home for 3 weeks next month. See you then.

    » Reply to this Comment «
• health insurance says:

  08 Mar 2010 at 20:16

  The Scientific Method consists of observation and repeatable experimentation. Creation, by definition, was not observable by anyone within the bounds of this universe. And it is beyond our power to repeat the experiment. Therefore, the whole debate about origins is a philosophical, not scientific, debate. A basic philosophical axiom is that if your foundational assumptions are wrong, then the conclusions drawn from those assumptions are also wrong. Let’s examine the unprovable, foundational assumptions about each philosophy: Darwinism states that in the beginning there was nothing, that became something, got itself organized, gave itself life, and then made itself better. Christianity states that in the beginning there was God, who created the world and everything in it in perfect harmony. Then Adam and Eve rebelled, and sin and death entered the world. But, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” John 3:16 If you believe in evolution based on faith, because the beginning is not verifiable. I believe in the God of the Bible based on faith, because the beginning is not verifiable. Which belief system requires the greater faith? I only know of One who was there at the beginning. I choose to believe His first hand, written account, instead of placing my faith in the assumptions made by those who were not there at the beginning.

  » Reply to this Comment «
  • Gregg says:

    09 Mar 2010 at 14:28

    Well said and God bless.

    » Reply to this Comment «