Scientific explanations for creation

The correct predictions are evidence of either God's inspiration or dumb luck.

Our current existence on this planet depends upon arthropods. They are both the start, and finish, of all of our food chains. They are also responsible for the largest recycling plant on the globe, including the production of our oxygen and nitrogen atmosphere.

Yet science can map both the arrival of arthropoda, and the rapid evolution and expansion of this burgeoning life force on this planet. No mention of them (except as a locust plague) in the importance of this species in the Bible?

Did the ancients need this information?

Perhaps not, but if we fail to heed the importance of this information, will these arthropods evolve fast enough to save us?

Dude, I am not at all interested in Zakir's personality or whatever he says on his own. The comparison he did is between a divine book vs proven theories...lets focus on that and leave behind personal conflicts....

Sleep on then with your conditioned dreams.
If you could wake you might understand that there is no such thing as a "proven theory" any more than there is a "divine book". Theories are merely paradigms which "work". Your ideas merely exemplify those who seek to return to a womb of "certainty" as a refuge against the actual exigencies of an uncertain existence. Such ideas are a prostitution of the intellect.

Even if we are able to create lfe in a lab theres no assurance that it was THIS model that accounted for life on earth. We can only establish a few rules and from that , we will only be able to account for a possibility that life should be a universally common occurrence and not some statistical abberation.

So, your evidence that a God exists who created the universe and guides mankind is that somewhere in the Bible it predicts that a kingdom won't last forever that did finally fall? Your evidence that God exists is that among the thousands of things said in the Bible can be found one prediction that wasn't false? If I take a multiple choice test and mark answer "b" for every question, I'll get a few right. This, as opposed to telling scientists that their work is wrong because step 47 might be shaky? This doesn't even begin to provide enough evidence for the existence of God to justify belief that he exists. You got anything else?

The laws of chemistry have a few that are different from those of physics. As Christian de Duve said, life had to emerge quickly because chemical reactions must occur quickly or not at all. If reactions must take a thousand years to complete, then the reactants will either break down or dissipate. So deDuve said that the product of life had probably made its appearance in a few thousand years rather than billion.

Neo's prediction upon which he dotes is the fall of Babylon--which lasted for centuries and centuries after it was predicted. Right, a great city, at the crossroads of empires, will fall some day. Well duh-uh . . . that's a no brainer . . .

Babylon survived more than a thousand years, nearly 1500 years, after the prediction to which he refers. Babylon fell into desuetude after the Muslim conquest in the mid-7th century. It was then a center for Christianity and some "pagan" cults. In the "Islamification" of Mesopotamia, it had no place.

Back to basic, you have not listen to what i have shared before commenting that's not fair..

You are not saying anything. You are simply regurgitating selective self justificatory material surrounding your medieval belief system. Your statements indicate you have no clue what scientific method is about, nor of the predominant functions of a religion as a psycho-sociological conditioning device, rather than an epistemological one. You refer to the words of an eloquent manipulator who ostensibly cannot distinguish between the status of infantile conspiracy theories and established scientific theories. And you complain I am not being "fair" !
Why not answer my question regarding your imagined scenario of justifying yourself to your "big controller"? What have you and your co-religionists done for humanity as a whole ? Check out the Nobel Prize lists for example. You and your fellows are conspicuous by their absence despite your apparent claim to have a privileged access to "science" via your holy book!

I agree. But how are some able to claim evolution is a "proven fact"?

Yeah. Isaiah and Jeremiah predicted it alright.
And it happened.
Therefore Isaiah and Jeremiah must have been wrong.

The word "proof" as applied to theories refers to successful prediction (or post-diction) of observations. The word "fact," as argued elsewhere, refers to "a construction" or "directed observation". Thus both parts refer to human activities (NOT ontological statements) in which there is overwhelming confidence in the explanatory adequacy of the theory which directs them. In the case of "evolution" there is overwhelming support for Darwin's paradigmatic explanation of his observations of species on the Galapalagos Islands, and its subsequent application elsewhere, in terms of his theory of evolution. The mistake theists make in their understandable antagonism to the term "proven fact" in this case, is a straw man attack on its hypothetical lose usage, in which the human act of directed observation is ignored. Their own directed acts of observation are conditioned and proscribed by their minority beliefs in the existence a creator, i.e. an ontological assumption of their own whose absolute status in their own mind they wrongly assume is ascribed to scientific statements about facticity. Unlike theists, most scientists are sophisticated enough to understand the functional and transient nature of their paradigms and to view statements about "absolute or eternal truths" as a psychological pot of gold wished for at the end of an imaginary rainbow.

I understand the difference between ontology and epistemology. I was just questioning your reference to the idea of a "proven theory". In the end, the assertion that no theories are ever 'proven' has meaning relative only to degree of certainty. In the end, we may be forced to take Frank more seriously . . . .

NOT

No, and i've not said that. I'm just pointing out that it is a prediction akin to predicting the sun rise.

Alas..if only Frank could understand that all we call knowledge involves degrees of consensual belief.

At the time the prediction was made, Babylon was the center of the most powerful empire in the world. Predicting its total demise would have been equivalent to predicting the desolation of Washington DC.

Nonsense. Do you allege that Babylon controlled an empire more powerful than China? Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians a few years later, so alleging it to have been the center of a powerful empire is laughable. In fact, Jeremiah only entered the prophet business less than a generation before the Medes overran the Assyrian city of Nineveh (circa 616 BCE) and then turned on their erstwhile ally, the Chaldeans of Babylon. The "Babylonians" negotiated, but the Medes and Persians came back and took the city in 596 BCE.

When it comes to history, you should really not make **** up when you're talking to me. It was, in fact, the Persians who sent the Jews home from the Babylonian captivity. Babylon limped along for almost 1500 more years. Once again, predicting the fall of any city is like predicting the sunrise. If you wait around long enough, it's bound to happen.