NOT Obama, but bring your popcorn.

I find this interesting because it is published in what was widely percieved as an arm of the former Soviet (athiest) State. Now we have the NYT, widely percieved as an arm of the Obama Administration. My how ironic.

Atheism mathematically impossible

The scientific method is used every day in forensic science to determine whether an event in a crime scene was an accident or by design and intention. Mathematical probability is a scientific argument and is frequently used in determining many issues of scientific inquiry.

The scientific method cannot be used to prove events which occurred outside of human observation. No one observed the origin of the universe by either chance or design, but scientific evidence via mathematical probability can be used to support either a chance or design origins for the universe.

If you went to an uninhabited planet and discovered only one thing, a cliff carved with images of persons similar to what we find on Mt. Rushmore, you cannot use the scientific method to prove that these images came about by design or by chance processes of erosion.

Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or over is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe.
The odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 65th power. That's just one protein molecule! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of them.

Protein molecules are made of smaller molecules known as amino acids. In order for a protein molecule to work the amino acids have to be together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. If they are not in the right sequence then the protein molecule won't work.

It has been shown that the basic building blocks of life, such as amino acid molecules, can come into existence by chance, but it has never been shown that these basic building blocks can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.

Once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic code (or program) and biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells with their own DNA and protein molecules. The problem is how did DNA, proteins, and life come about when there was no already existing directing code and mechanisms in nature.

It seems that the cell is irreducibly complex. For example, without DNA there can be no RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there can be no proteins, and without proteins there can be no DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! It could not have gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.

An amazing fact is that there are left-handed and right-handed amino acids. In life all the protein molecules have to be made up of left-handed amino acids as well as be in the right sequence. If a right-handed amino acid gets into the mix the protein won't work.

DNA, the genetic code, also is made up of various smaller molecules (nucleic acids) that have to be together in a precise sequence in order for the DNA to work. There are left-handed and right-handed sugar molecules making-up nucleic acids. In order to get a working DNA molecule the various nucleic acids have to be not only in a precise sequence but they also have to contain only right-handed sugar molecules. If a nucleic acid with a left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then the DNA won't work.

The great and well-known British scientist Frederick Hoyle showed that the probability of the simplest form of life coming into being by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power. You don't have to be a theologian to respect such numbers!

In the midst of arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened.

All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn't help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.
If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

What about natural selection? Natural selection cannot produce anything. It can only "select" from what is produced. Furthermore, natural selection can only operate once there is life and not before. Natural selection is a passive process in nature.

Even the recent news of artificial life is not creation of any life. In artificial life, scientists, through intelligent design, build a DNA molecule from "scratch" and then implant that DNA into an already living cell. Genetic engineering and artificial life projects all happen by intelligent design - not by chance. Just ask the scientists behind the projects!

Science cannot prove that we are here by either chance or design, but the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other.
It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory. No one is being forced to believe in God so there's no real violation of separation of church and state.

But, when all the evidence is presented it should show beyond all reasonable doubt that life didn't originate by chance but by design.
The Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) offers excellent articles, books, and resources from Master's or Ph.D degreed scientists showing how true science supports creation.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/mys...095-atheism-1/

[TLAM Strike]

I saw Pravda
...
I

[antikristuseke]

Their argument about the probability of a single protein molecule coming up by chance being so improbable that it might as well be said to be impossible is true ennoguh, but it is irrelevant, because only a moron would claim that only random chance was involved. The rest of the article is the same creationist dribble that has been debunked countless times. Just go to ****ing www.talkorigins.org and learn what real science says about abiogenesis and evolution, which actual cited sources from peer reviewed papers.
As for the source, anything written in Pravda should be taken with either a huge grain of salt or disregarded as complete horse**** form the start, they have about as much credibility as a source of information as Sunday Sport did.

Edit: and what the **** did any of that have to do with atheism in the ****ing first place?

[razark]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

The rest of the article is the same creationist dribble that has been debunked countless times.

Yeah, that.

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Edit: and what the **** did any of that have to do with atheism in the ****ing first place?

Because there are only two possible answers.
A. atheism
or
B. Goddidit!

Anyone who rejects B. must therefore be one of them evil atheists.

If Christine O'Donnell had dabbled in atheism would any one be laughing?

What about Nancy Pelosi, #3 for the most powerful position in the US? She is Roman Catholic, believing in the literal transmutation of bread and water into the body and blood of Christ, and must take her walking orders from the Pope, who is a former Hitler-Jugend, to be in good standing in her church.

PS VP Joe Biden is also Roman Catholic. It is only Barack Obama who is thought by 24% of the people to be muslim.

[antikristuseke]

eh?

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

If Christine O'Donnell had dabbled in atheism would any one be laughing?

Huh? And how can you dabble in atheism?

What about Nancy Pelosi, #3 for the most powerful position in the US? She is Roman Catholic, believing in the literal transmutation of bread and water into the body and blood of Christ, and must take her walking orders from the Pope, who is a former Hitler-Jugend, to be in good standing in her church.

PS VP Joe Biden is also Roman Catholic.

Huh?

And how could it be impossible for people to not believe in god, regardless of whatever tired creationist tripe "debunking" abiogenesis says?

Sorry if I confused. If you cannot observe the action directly the theory has no value. Einstien, and all real science depends on this. That which cannot be directly observed is not science,

Whithout direct observation science fails. Thus atheism fails unless it is itsself a religion.

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Sorry if I confused. If you cannot observe the action directly the theory has no value. Einstien, and all real science depends on this. That which cannot be directly observed is not science,

Whithout direct observation science fails. Thus atheism fails unless it is itsself a religion.

By that argument religion fails on the scientific level as well.

[razark]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Thus atheism fails unless it is itsself a religion.

No, atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in any gods.

Atheism makes no claims. It is merely a statement about belief. Atheism is not "There are no gods." Atheism is "I do not believe in any gods."

Originally Posted by razark

It is merely a statement about belief.

Sounds like religion. Christanity,Judaism, Muslim, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Sihkism, Cao Dai , etc; are all statements about belief.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Sorry if I confused. If you cannot observe the action directly the theory has no value. Einstien, and all real science depends on this. That which cannot be directly observed is not science,

Whithout direct observation science fails. Thus atheism fails unless it is itsself a religion.

Atheism is a lack of faith in gods, it makes no positive claims, religions on the other hand does make positive claims without presenting positive evidence. Even if the theory of evolution was to be falcified it would not make creationism in any form any more true.
Also equating the theories of abiogenesis and evolution with atheism is a non sequitur.

[razark]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Sounds like religion. Christanity,Judaism, Muslim, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Sihkism, Cao Dai , etc; are all statements about belief.

Very well, then. Atheism is a religion.

And bald is a hair color. Not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

By that argument religion fails on the scientific level as well.

But who said religion was about science? I surely did not. It is about belief and dare I say it faith in a power higher than man.

[gimpy117]

okay i brought my corn, whats up?