Why do we waste our time with you??? Your information is wrong - just the
statement "Need I remind anyone that
we've disproved spontaneous generation for hundreds of years?" speaks volumes about the knowledge you lack. I would be happy to see a single proof for this statement. Perhaps your idea of spontaneous cell formation does not make sense, a cell did not "pop" into existence spontaneously, if that's what you think it is. For your odds you completely ignore time and the sheer quantity of molecules involved. the book Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition and Other Confusions of Our Time_ by Michael Shermer, describes the basic flaw in your reasoning quite well. Evolution, science, all of these models take time into consideration and build upon the past. You are holding a single cell so high and difficult to reconcile because you dont like the idea that there is no divinity about life. The correct molecules, the billions upon billions of them that were on the Earth, had a billion years or so to combine and grow before the first protiens came into existence. Your 1 in 10,000,000 odds become a sure thing in this kind of scale. So basically your odds argument is a proof for "spontaneous" generation, not against.
On Friday, May 07, 1999 11:42 AM, Snow Leopard [SMTP:email@example.com]
> >There is a difference between an open mind and a wise one. Anything
> >goes doesn't wash.
> >Most of us have arrived at atheism through science, reason, and the
> >processes of elimination.
> >When Christians use the same arguments we may have thought through a
> >billion times we are not being intolerant to reject it out of hand, we
> >are wisely standing against what we consider superstition and ancient
> >anachronisms. We may have been there too, at one time.
> >Evolutionary Biology and Cosmology have lots of information that
> >Christians ignore. Why not teach these if we can.
> You're right, and I was very much incorrect when I said "evolution"
> I meant as an explaination of the origin of life. Need I remind anyone
> we've disproved spontanious generation for hundreds of years? The first
> "Simple" cell and its formation were the odds I was referencing.
> Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com