Ordinary Ignoramuses

It never ceases to amaze me how godless evolutionists think. While reviewing the book Ordinary Geniuses by Gino Segre, a biography of two great physicists John Cockcroft and George Gamow, Jeremy Bernstein prefaces his review of this book in the WSJ with this warped reasoning:

quote:

---

Imagine that when the first life form appeared there was a superintelligent freak. If this freak had had a complete knowledge of the laws of physics, what could it have predicted? Quite a lot. All atomic nuclei consist of neutrons and protons, and the number of protons determines each element’s chemical nature. Knowing this, the freak could have predicted all the elements that could possibly exist, along with their respective characteristics. Suppose that it also knew all the laws of biology, including the central dogma, which explains how genes are expressed as proteins. Even so, it could not have predicted the existence of giraffes, nor even the fact that my brother and I share only half our genes. Both of these are evolutionary accidents. If it had not been for random mutation there would be no giraffes, and my brother and I might have shared all our genes, as males bumblebees do. Biology is not like physics.

---

Source, from message 3.So in the beginning when the first life form appeared, a superintelligent freak knowing the laws of physics could have predicted all the elements that could possibly exist and their characteristics, but could not possibly predict how life could evolve into millions of life forms and eventually to humans. Jeremy’s warped reasoning is based on his belief that lifeless matter is just a possibly matter of the number of protons and neutrons (and a number of other subatomic particles which he fails to mention), while life must evolve by random mutation. Therefore, even a superintelligent freak could not possibly know all the possibilities of how life could mutate. I wonder if this superintelligent freak could have known about fission and fusion of some elements, or about dark matter where the elements have concentrated into matter which is basically solid protons & neutrons?No, the problem with the Jeremy’s of this world is that they will allow themselves to consider mutation as the reason why life could evolve from the first life form to where we are today, but totally reject the truth that only a Divine Creator could create the universe and all life therein, and only a Divine Redeemer can sustain His creation.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Put quote in a quote box.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add "source, from message 3" line.

I suspect you got that quote from some website (maybe even the Wall Street Journal). How about a link to the source?By the way, I'm going to put that quote in a quote box, rather than just having it enclosed in " marks.Adminnemooseus

Book Review: Ordinary Geniuses - WSJ

Panda did the PNT review for me: I would ask "Why need God be brought into the discussion?", and "Why do you find that the acceptance of the random mutation concept is a denial of a creator God?".Your response?Adminnemooseus

This is precisely why you don't get very many folk of faith to come to this forum and discuss evolution. You don't seem to understand "Why need God be brought into the discussion?"Show us those evolutionists on this forum that allow themselves to consider that only a Divine Creator could create the universe and all life therein, and only a Divine Redeemer can sustain His creation. Instead, you rely only on mutation as the reason why life could evolve from the first life form to where we are today.Where is your open-mindedness?You may be willing to consider that an impersonal God out there somewhere said "Bang" sometime in the past, but are unwilling to consider that He guided it every step of the way. By not allowing God into this discussion is censorship which you do very well.

This site exists to consider the claim that creationist theories are legitimate science. Are you basing your claim that God is deserving of consideration as science upon a scientific foundation? If so then you need to outline this foundation.

"GOD has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end."True science is coming to an right understanding of how GOD created and sustains His creation.Since Godless science is your god, I wish you all the best in your endevor to "fathom what God has done from beginning to end."

I could promote a thread discussing the nature of science to the Is It Science? forum, but you would have to support any claims you make with real-world evidence. Let me know if that's what you'd like to do. This isn't really relevant, but just to make correct information available let me say again that I am not an atheist, and science doesn't play any role in my religious beliefs.

Since true science is coming to an right understanding of how GOD created and sustains His creation, coming to know and fellowship with the God of all creation has everything to do with one's religious beliefs. What you call real-world evidence is clouded in your belief that God had/has nothing to do with creating or sustaining His creation. I'm very sorry that you, and most others at this forum, can't see ANY relationship between true science and one's religious beliefs. The personal attacks by most at this forum against Christians who have a personal relationship with our Lord God, yet try to explain science from God's viewpoint, speaks volumes. I have no desire to try to explain or defend God-science to those have no desire to know that there is Creator God who is also our Redeemer.Peace