Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin!

Agreed on that first issue. As much as I would like to defend God, that one is about impossible to do and I have no answers at the present. Perhaps someday.

Thanks for the pointer to that book, it looks very interesting! I'll have to order that one. Right now I'm reading, Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off by Dr. Fazale Rana, Ph.D., Chemistry, Ohio University and Dr. Hugh Ross Ph.D., Astronomy, University of Toronto, and also Creation as Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/Evolution Wars, also by Dr. Ross.
There is also a book citing the famous Human Genome Project, which interestingly enough traced all DNA back to one man and one woman. (Really, I'm not making that up!) It's funny how the media does not report on those kinds of findings.

 

I have studied that theory. At one time it was kind of debunked, but has made sort of a comeback. Unfortunatley for that theory it goes in the face of the laws of thermodynamics and predictable models. There simply isn't enough energy left over when the universe collapses on itself to spark another Big Bang. However, in Biblical defense of the Cyclic Universe Theory the Bible does state that even though the universe is expanding, the universe will indeed collapse upon itself at some point in time and start all over, but better (whatever that means, the Bible states it cannot be understood by the human mind what is in store for the next universe) the next time around. The interesting thing about that is that it is commonly held that it is very likely for the laws of physics to change with the rebirth of a universe.

Reigning In Weird Cosmic Models | Reasons to Believe

The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning

 

Said the Christian: 'Don't be silly, their beliefs are absurd!'
</scorching irony>

 

Genesis 2:7
Yahweh God formed man from the soil of the ground.

​

 

Ha! Righto, Ewhanley! Who has a more absurd religion than us!? Resurrection from the dead, virgin birth, the church being Christ's bride, no sex in heaven. (Those suicide bombers are going to pissed!)

 

Is there a contest to see which religion is the most absurd? That would explain a few things.

 

I never thought that was the reason.
How much faith can you muster? Lets test that then.

 

Some new interesting reading I found. Not directly relevant to Darwin, but interesting anyways.
​

Does Scientific Evidence Today Show that God Created the Heavens and the Earth? And What Does the Bible Say About When He Created?
​

by Dr. John Ankerberg​

1. What discovery about the origin of the universe caused one scientist to say "It’s like looking at God"?
What happened on April 24, 1992, that caused the following statements?

• Stephen Hawking, Cambridge University Lucasian Professor of Mathematics: "It is the discovery of the century, if not all time."

• George Smoot, University of California at Berkeley, astronomer and project leader for the COBE satellite: "What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe." He added, "It’s like looking at God."

• Michael Turner, Astrophysicist at the University of Chicago in Fermilab: "Unbelievably important.... The significance of this cannot be overstated. They have found the holy grail of cosmology."

• Carlos Frenk of Britain’s Durham University: "It’s the most exciting thing that’s happened in my life as a cosmologist."

According to Science Historian Frederic B. Burnham, the community of scientists as a result of breaking events, was prepared to consider the idea that God created the universe "a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last hundred years." Even Ted Koppel on ABC’s Nightline in 1992 began his interview of an astronomer and a physicist by quoting the first two verses of Genesis. The physicist immediately added verse 3 is also germane to the discovery.
"Astronomers who do not draw theistic or deistic conclusions are becoming rare, and even the few dissenters hint that the tide is against them." Geoffrey Burbidge of the University of California at San Diego complains that his fellow astronomers are rushing off the join "the first Church of Christ of the Big Bang."
As Robert Jastrow has written,
"Astronomers now find that they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover."
Scientists have found that,
"...all the data accumulated in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries tell us that a transcendent Creator must exist. For all the matter, energy, nine space dimensions, and even time, each suddenly and simultaneously came into being from some source beyond itself. It is valid to refer to such a source, entity, or being as the Creator, for creating is defined as causing something–in this case everything in the universe–to come into existence. Matter, energy, space, and time are the effects He caused. Likewise, it is valid to refer to the Creator as transcendent, for the act of causing these effects must take place outside or independent of them."
2. Is there evidence that the earth is finely-tuned to allow for human life?
Scientists refer to that beginning moment of the universe as "the Big Bang." Further, instead of this explosion-producing chaos, the exact opposite is true. Science has discovered that the universe has been uniquely fine-tuned so that life can exist on earth. Today, no physicist or astronomer who has researched the question denies that the universe, the Milky Way galaxy, and the solar system possess compelling hallmarks of intentional design for human life.
Many researchers have commented over the past 20 years that it seems the universe "knew" humans were coming.
Physicist Paul Davies, in the 1980s, concluded: "[There] is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all.... It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe.... The impression of design is overwhelming."
In our nine television programs with Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. Fazale Rana and Kenneth Samples, we present some of the scientific evidence astronomers, biologists, and paleontologists have discovered. (See our catalog to order.)

3. What criteria must be met for a theory to be considered "scientific" in the usually accepted sense?
A definition of science given by the Oxford Dictionary is: "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain."
"Thus, for a theory to qualify as a scientific theory, it must be supported by events, processes, or properties which can be observed, and the theory must be useful in predicting the outcome of future natural phenomena or laboratory experiments."
4. What has science discovered about the beginning of the universe?
"Astronomers now find that they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover."
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centers of other like systems, these, being formed by the likewise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One."
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

 

Helio,

A few questions if I might;

1. Where did this article come from, who published/promulgated it?

2. Who is Dr. John Ankerberg, what is his area of special knowledge,
expertise, competance. Is he connected with any institutions of note?

3 Who is the "our" and "we" in this statement:

"In our nine television programs with Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. Fazale Rana and
Kenneth Samples, we present some of the scientific evidence astronomers,
biologists, and paleontologists have discovered. (See our catalog to order.)"

 

I was curious too, did a quick Google search, here is his web site Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, John Ankerberg Show - Christian Apologetics, Jesus, Bible&Christ

 

Sorry about the confusion, I should have cited where this came from.

1. This article is from Ankerberg Theological Research Institute at ankerberg.com.

2. Dr. Ankerberg's bio is at Ankerberg Theological Research Institute - The John Ankerberg Show He is not a scientist, he merely compiled these quotations from scientists to write this article, therefore I am not citing him as relevant to any position of scientific evidence.

3. "Producer and host of the nationally televised John Ankerberg Show, a half-hour program seen in all 50 states via independent stations, the DAYSTAR Network, the DISH Network, DirecTV and on the SKY ANGEL Satellite, numerous cable outlets, as well as on the internet. The program can be seen each week by a potential viewing audience in excess of 99 million people. John presents contemporary spiritual issues and defends biblical/Christian answers."


The only web site I can provide with scientists of noteworthy institutions would be:

Reasons to Believe: Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Kenneth Samples, David Rogstad, Jeff Zweerink

Evidence for God from Science

The God and Science web site author is Richard Deem, his bio is at Richard L. Deem - work

Both sites use published articles from the scientific community as the basis of their articles.
Some other recent news articles of interest would be:

Fossils paint messy picture of human origins - Science- msnbc.com

Study: 'Astonishing richness' in polar species - Science- msnbc.com

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14737491/wid/6448213

 

I looked around but couldn't find anything about the events of April 24, 1992. A little help please?

Wildkow

 

It looks like you have to buy a "prayer towel" or something to get the answer.

 

Man was destined to create made up gods, his origin is that of any frightened creature, needing to explain your existence and what everything is. The very first time man looked up into the sky, and wondered, he needed something to explain it.

 

I have a God in my car
She can make the car go without the engine running
I like my God
She is a good God

 

I have consulted my "prayer towel" and received the answer from Divine:

April 1992, I don't know the exact date myself, but that's what the article states.
The COBE, or Cosmic Background Explorer satellite results were released. Forgive me but I swear, you people live in a test tube sometimes.
LAMBDA - Cosmic Background Explorer

I actually did find a slide show, wish I had known it existed, I would have put it on the previous post:
The Greatest Discovery (COBE, 1992)

Or, how about from one of the scientists himself, Astrophysicist and Cosmologist George Smoot:

 

Speculations about the origin of the universe have indeed gone on for, well, not eons but I get your point. It is obvious by your statement, Zenmachine, that you do not grasp the theistic implications, let alone the scientific implications, of The Big Bang. I will not even argue the point because you have shown no openness to the overwhelming preponderance of accepted scientific literature that I have referenced to evidence of design in the universe and in evolution. Remember, I never said evolution does not exist. I merely assign my beliefs to the intelligent design of both the universe and evolution because of accepted, bonafide scientific literature that points to that direction. Again, in science, by logic one should assign their beliefs to where the evidence is greater, which at times means humbling ones belief structure, even to the preposterous. Einstein did it, Stephen Hawking did it, and even the Father of Atheism Professor Antony Flew did it.

Darwinism has not passed the rigorous tests of time and science. Evolution indeed exists, but it is not a pretty straight line from hodge podge of chemical soup in primordial earth to monkey to man. It is proven, it is unrefutable science that evolution progresses, regresses, moves lateral, and is a "wayward bush," not to mention the fact that there are no proven naturalistic origins to life on this planet. (Don't even think about trying to cite panspermia, well you can, but I'll wipe out that theory as well.) I can cite The Human Genome Project, I can cite dozens and dozens of scientific literature that is accepted by the scientific community that paints evolution as a messy picture that is becoming increasingly complex. The evidence increasingly points away from a completely naturalistic evolution and again I shall point out that the Bible uses two distinct words when it speaks of evolution, one which denotes naturalistic process and one which denotes supernatural interference.

So, welcome to the Church of Faith, Zenmachine. Your own words speak against you. You believe, or have faith in, because that is what you have been told though you can provide no evidence against intelligent design in spite of the very preponderance of information that leads to the contrary. My library of science will overwhelm yours. By your statements I wonder if you have even read the information contained in the web sites I have provided over the last few weeks. I would say the most compelling sources have been from the last recent posts.

All in all, Zenmachine, I thank you for the opportunity to debate. I would have no problems sitting down and enjoying a beer with you (and hopefully discussing the Prius or something else other than Darwinism or ID).

As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17

 

Religion is a joke, and religious believers will make up any science they can to try to prove their point, doesn't make it real science though.