Posted by ros [ros] on November 25, 1999 at 05:50:34 {yaNwUlwC5cdmhhsMJ.h27/SY5I9NtE}:
In Reply to: Evolution Test posted by Amazing on November 24, 1999 at 20:08:09:
ONE PERSON'S CONTENTION:
I agree with the people below who have essentially said that trying to calculate mathematical odds for spontaneous auto-creation is bogus and has no viable basis or merit, imo. However, my contention is a little different than theirs. If an occurrence is impossible, then the fact of it being impossible means there are no odds--no matter how remotely finite--of it occuring by chance. It has to be possible to begin with for there to be mathematical odds of its occurrence.
Its my contention that it is impossible for life/matter/energy to spring forth out of nothing. Therefore, there are no mathematical odds that it can occur, period.
Science has observed change in life/matter/energy, but nothing has ever been observed to spontaneously pop into existence from nothing. Even if scientists were to succeed in "creating" life in a laboratory (which they have not, contrary to some claims), that would still be via a creator (in that case, it would be via the scientists).
My basic premise, from which all other of my religious views ultimately stem, is that there must be a first cause (a Creator) or all things that had a beginning. Further, I content the Creator must be more intelligent than what It created. Until proof can be demonstrated that something of life, matter or energy--no matter how minuscule--comes spontaneously into existence from nothing, I content that the vast weight of evidence is of a Creator--even by the scientific standard of "observation."
Where did the Creator come from? How should I know? I don't even know how It made what I see and know and sense--and neither do scientists. Perhaps spiritual can be infinite. But anything finite (life/matter/energy as we know it) had a creator.
Blessings,
Ros