Do you think string theory is any more far fetched than the theory of creationism?

Answer 1

No one has ever observed the creation of life from non-living matter, or spontaneous generation. Even given ideal laboratory conditions, scientists haven't been able to create life from non-living matter. Life has been found only to come from life. This has been seen so consistently that it's called the Law of Biogenesis.

Even if scientists could demonstrate spontaneous generation, it's unlikely that life on earth began this way. Two basic components of life, proteins and DNA, have characteristics that make their spontaneous generation unlikely. Proteins couldn't have evolved if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, because the parts that make up proteins, amino acids, can't join in the presence of oxygen. There had to be oxygen in the atmosphere, however. Without oxygen, there could be no ozone in the upper atmosphere and without the ozone layer, the sun's ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life. How then, can evolution explain both ozone and life?

Scientists have also found that the long chains of amino acids necessary for life cannot be formed in water. This fact seriously impacts the theory that life began in "the waters of some unknown seacoast."

The creation of DNA, the basic building block of life presents an interesting evolutionary problem. DNA cells contain thousands of genes that direct the functioning of living beings, including inherited characteristics, growth, organ and system structure. The DNA for each species is unique. Certain protein molecules or enzymes must be present for DNA to replicate, however those enzymes can only be produced at the direction of DNA -- the DNA itself has the blueprint for the specific enzymes it needs to replicate. Each depends on the other and both must be present for replication to take place. How evolution could explain this has never been answered.

Evolutionists claim that the evolutionary process occurred over billions of years, so they feel there was plenty of time to make all the necessary trial combinations and eventually get the correct ones. Let's test this theory for "Fred".

Astronomers estimate the universe to be less than 30 billion years old, which is 1018 seconds. Let's assume that it takes a billionth of a second for components to combine to form a trial 100 component "Fred". Let's also assume that the number of electrons in the universe, 1080, is representative of the number of basic components available for trial combinations of "Fred". This would allow 1078 trial combinations of 100 component "Fred" to occur at a time. With these assumptions, from the origin of the universe until today, 10105 trial combinations could be made (1018 x 109 x 1078). Unfortunately, to be sure to get a functioning "Fred" we would need 10158 combinations. The chance of one of our 10105 combinations being the correct, functioning "Fred" is approximately one chance in one hundred million billion billion billion billion billion (1 in 1053). It would take over three billion billion billion billion billion billion billion years to try all the possible combinations to be sure to create Fred. Written out, that's over 3, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 years.

Therefore, evolution is the most far fetched.

Blessings,
David

Answer 2

String theory is an attempt to understand the universe and the big bang, and everything before it. It's not easy, but some people really want to know what exactly happened, whereas creationism is just a cop out answer for lazy people who chalk up any difficult questions to "God must have done that". Creationism and theory shouldn't even be used in the same sentence.

Answer 3

String Theory is apparently losing support among those who study quantum physics. It is not good at making predictions, so every time it fails, they modify the theory to make it match the evidence. This may work a time or two, but it's happening way too often to make the theory truly attractive. The problem is that there is nothing that can serve as a unified field theory in its place.

And creationism is totally untestable, so although it may be incorrect, it is not scientific. String theory at some point will either show evidence or not. Creationism never will. It requires faith, i.e., the death of curiosity.

Answer 4

No. I don’t think it is as far fetched because it is based on scientific evidence and not some fairytales that someone made up one day. Now to be honest, I’m not the biggest fan of string theory because I don’t think it can be proven, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m an opponent either. It’s a neat idea. There are some who would say it’s more of a philosophy by definition than I science.

FYI: String theory and evolution are not the same thing.

Answer 5

You should probably read up on Stephen Hawking. He has done the most research on the correlations between string theory and creationism. He also writes alot on the Cambrian Explosion, which in the scientific community has almost single-handedly ruled out Macro-evolution.

For the longest time I was an atheist, which is why I can accept where people's speculation on creationism comes from. But the more I studied (working on my Masters now), the more I began to understand and accept what makes the most sense - to me. History and science can teach us very valuable things when it comes to our very existence. I would love to see you use them to their fullest extent.

I'll ask you this question though...if we were sitting in a room by ourselves, and outside we heard a huge explosion. You then said, "Oh my, what caused that huge explosion?"....then I said, "Oh, nothing. It just happened." You would not accept this answer. And rightfully so. So now its up to us to figure out what caused the big bad explosion. We have a couple of ideas. Some more valid than others. Its up to you to figure out what makes the most sense- a virtually impossible mathematical theory..OR...an even scarier concept: something bigger than ourselves. Tricky.

Answer 6

No experimental verification on both. I dont like when religions try to circumvent science. Evolution is much better theory then creationism and string theory. Evolution is well documented. Why do we have tails? Why do we share so much of our genetics with monkeys? I also must admit that my knowledge of quantum mechanics is very limited so maybe i shouldn't talk. :(

Answer 7

I would say that it's at least as far fetched, IMO string theory as it currently stands is not very credible.

Answer 8

Does creationism even deserve to be called a theory? A theory is the best explanation for all available evidence - evidence which certainly is in favor of evolution. Christians, before you give me a 'thumbs down', please note that I am just like you - I worship and love Jesus as much as you do. I don't like it when some Christians try to make it a "choose between God and evolution" scenario, because I believe both are compatible.

Answer 9

I think the one criticism with string theory is that while it's mathematically plausible, there isn't a way to test if it's really the way things are.

Number-crunchers can establish that it COULD have happened this way, but aren't really able to establish that it DID happen this way.

Answer 10

at least the string theory has math and measurements of gravity to back it up ....creationism has nothing measureable ...so no is the answer