Francis Collins The Language Of God 3of9

[LifeIsABigPuzzle]

So when was the original sin if all life evolved? Did the first single celled organisms sin?

[triggergnu]

Good question. When reading Genesis, the original sin seems to indicate that only humans were affected by sin. We only assume that it affected the rest of the world. The theory is that the world was already in a cycle of death, but not by sin; and that man was God's special creation (or possible evolution) that had everlasting life.

Google Reasons to Believe. It's a website for theistic evolution that has a lot of answers. It's so amazing because it doesn't really contradict the Bible at all.

[dougwrightiii]

Ever hear of "God of the gaps?"

[Sophrosyne22]

Science is making people arrogant and dumb, so much that they think they can KNOW something where there is no possible way to study it! For example what the atmosphere was like 6000 years ago!

[dougwrightiii]

This is in reaction to Sophrosyne22 because this comment really pissed me off. You are using a computer! Do you really think that people using the information from the Bible created this marvel of technology sitting in front of you? There needed to thousands of important studies conducted over hundreds of years for this machine to take form (I'm not going to count the Dark Ages). I'm not going to allow your ignorance to recreate the Inquisition that Galileo suffered. Think, it's good for you.

[Sophrosyne22]

You should give me that kind of power over you (to piss you off)! And No, I don't think that people created computers... I know that all knowledge and wisdom comes from God, so people were simply guided by God whether they believe in him or not, all ideas, all knowledge, everything.... it all comes from God! You are just too ignorant to understand, because of the darkness of your heart! Ignorance of God is what created the Inquisition, "NOT" following his word!

[dougwrightiii]

So God gave man the knowledge to build computers and the knowledge to date the Universe to 15 billion years, right?

[variag62]

It's really hard to take you seriously when you can't take the time to use proper grammar.

And science and religion are not "opposites." They don't even occupy the same spectrum. There's no reason *not* to be religious, unless you want to call ten thousand years of religious belief (besides Jesus) blind deaf and dumb.

[Sophrosyne22]

The earth is around 6000 years old! our atmosphere was just different back then so it appears older. Anyways there is no solid proof one way or the other since you cannot go back and prove what elements at what amounts were floating around in our atmosphere 6000 years ago! But I trust the Bible so I'm pretty dang confident about 6000, plus it just makes more sense with the rest of the Gods story, the Bible!

[dougwrightiii]

Being ignorant of the myriad dating techniques that scientists employ is no excuse for blindly clinging to some book that, I'm guessing, Mommy and Daddy told you was the "truth." Oh, and we can "prove what elements at what amounts were floating around in our atmosphere 6000 years ago! Let's try a little something I like to call "research." [continued]

[dougwrightiii]

"Article: "Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination." Source: Science, Volume 291, Number 5501. Date: 2001 January 5

Correlation between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperatures over 6000 years indicates Southern Ocean had important role in causing CO2 increase.

Comparison of deuterium (proxy for temperature) and CO2 indicate lag of CO2 behind temperature change by 410 years.

CO2 in the atmosphere rose from 189 ppmv to 265 in 6000 years.

[dougwrightiii]

One last point; you write that the earth is ~6000 years old. I'm going to assume that you believe in Genesis; which would mean that man and earth were created within 6 days of eachother. Humans a mixture of gases comprised mostly of nitrogen and oxygen. Now it would have been a really mean joke if God had made our dear friends Adam & Eve and left them without air to breath. Before you comment back please grant me this won favor and take the 2 minutes to google your claims.

[ogirv101]

Both of you are wrong, both Science and the Bible are right. Time is a misnomer, we experience time because of gravitational effects by special relativity, it is called gravitational time dilation. MIT Professor Schroeder has figured out that the Universe from a cosmological point of view is 6 years old, but from our point of view is 15 billions years.

Also God created Adam and Eve through evolutionary processes, by giving us mitchondrial eve and y chrmosome adam.

[dougwrightiii]

I've read a similar article relating to the "Time Dilation." It is really interesting but, one should realize that this is still just an idea; maybe it has reached the rank of hypothesis but, it certainly isn't regarded as a theory as of yet. As for God shaping us through evolution; I don't have too much of a problem with this notion but, one should note that it requires 0 proof. It's just a rehashing of the God of the gaps attached to a theory that doesn't need God to function.

[ogirv101]

So are you saying time dilation is a hypothesis? Sir I laugh at you, time dilation is a conjsequence of Einstein's general relativity. It is not a mere hypothesis, it is a theory.

Also the belief God guided su through evolution does require proof, you're just too arrogant and too proud to accept that there is evidence to believe God shaped us through evolution, especially when the chances for the four steps to inteligent life are less than 0.001% (actually alot less).

[dougwrightiii]

A consequence of a theory isn't a theory in of itself. As for your percentage, given a long enough timeline complex systems become quite probable. Moreover I'm not saying that there is no God. Just that the facts (and the processes governed by them) don't require a God.

[ogirv101]

The consequence of the theory pretty much helps porve the theory correct, you're using real ignorant talk right now.

Also, how can you say a long enough timeline complex, when time is but a measuring tool used by humans. No matter how much time you have you need giant leaps of highly improbable events such as an organism becoming eukaryotic from prokaryotic. It relies more on probability than time, you can have as much time as you want, won't make a difference.

[dougwrightiii]

To clarify, I'm not casting any doubt on time dilation in the general sense; it has been proven myriad times using atomic clocks on super-sonic jets and whatnot. What I am casting doubt on is the idea that the Universe was created in 6yrs or 6 days (as the article I read posited). Perhaps you could send me a link or suggest a book that goes into a little more detail than "Sir I laugh at you."

[ogirv101]

Lol, sorry if i offended you, you can look up Dr. Gerald Schroder, he is a Jewish professor of Physics at MIT. Look up his work on the age of the Universe and the reconcilation of the Torah and Science.

[fctchk]

Collins is useful as a Trojan horse to sneak evolution into the rabidly religious intelligent design camp.

[Elune137]

@fctchk

Well, trojan horse sounds for me too negatively. I would just say, he's a good example of a reasonable christian who might say: I believe in this, you believe in that; but we both have common ground on the scientific evidence of evolution.

Or to say: Science is god- free but not godless. What you personally believe or not believe is a total different thing; science should never be abused for purposes on religion. So, I would say, people like him and Ken Miller make a good job.

[dougwrightiii]

Secondly, I agree that the probability of any complex organism would be extremely low. But, why can't that argument be turned onto the existence of God? How improbable is a being that can create such complex organisms, the Universe,direct biological processes, along with EVERY other thing that's going on in the past, present and future? I don't know the exact #s for the odds but, I think that they might be a bit lower than some chemical reaction forming into proteins over a few billion yrs.

[ogirv101]

God can't be calculated by statistics, we would be making assumptions (Something science doesn't do). Also then you go on saying their low, when you have nothign to base those statistics off, rather you have a sense of biased assumptions.

For all we know God can be 100% probable, there is no way to tell.

[hippo11222]

Well, according to believers God by definition outside the time and space. He would not be subject to probability. therefore a probability would be uncalcuable. Besides this is more of a philosophical issue than anything. There is really no sense arguing. You'll believe what you'll believe and vice versa. Its kinda pointless, but I understand your objections. Although to make it seem less cliche try to imagine God as an all pervading sentient force instead of a sky daddy.

[hippo11222]

I mean outside of time and space. Damn my bad grammer! lol

[pkgqat]

his research is great,nobody denied the fact but puzzle is why he believe in jesus?

[variag62]

Does that make him any less of a scientist? The guy headed the genome research project, but the instant he believes in God he becomes a "puzzle?" Why the eagerness to say even a well respected guy like this instantly loses respect just for finding God?

[pkgqat]

we know very well that science and religion are pollar opposite,sceience is evidence based believe and religion is believe,blind ,dumb and deff based ,for science may be God as in einstenian sence is acceptable but Jesus and bible and kuranic sense ???????

[dougwrightiii]

pkgqat: you need to stop writing because you're making anyone that believes in God smile at your ignorance or, at the very least your lack of grammar and spelling ability.

[pkgqat]

I accept that my grammar and spelling ability is poor, but appreciate your ability to understand my saying thats enough,

Science has a capacity do the DNA test on your god JESUS and will tell you his father was not from heaven but was resident of Jerusalem. Certainly not Joseph. That is why I m surprised why Colin dont understand this.

[dougwrightiii]

I'm an atheist.