New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Youwerecreated]

Not exactly new, but fully supported by science.My views will need to be adjusted just a little. I will post the link where you can listen to the audio version which i enjoyed thouroughly or you can read the entire article.


New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God


A Seminal Presentation by Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, given in South Barrington, Illinois, April 16, 1994


Hugh Ross - Origin of the Universe

This crap isnt supported by any Science. I was a born again Christian BTW. Nothing this guy said has any legitimate science to it. He making crap up and giving his opinion.

I'm interested in you saying you were a born again Christian. If it's ok...can I please ask you a few of questions?


1 - What happened when you were born again; and/or what was revealed to you from God?

2 - Who was Jesus Christ to you? (please explain in detail anything/everything he was to you)

3 - What do you believe now?


Hope you see this. If you do, please feel free to pm me or something so I can see your reply.
Thanks for your time.

.




.

I have exp contentment, and a since of urgency to share what i know with others.

He was the creator and my savior. That he reavealed himself in many forms.

I believe i am questioning how old the earth and universe are.

Sorry for the short answers, but i am kinda in a hurry for a Doctors appointment, with a Doctor that believes we were created

 

[Youwerecreated]

Which presuppositions are those?

For removing the possibility that everything is the result of creation relying on random chance as the answer for how.

If a scientist just accepted that everything is the result of random chance, then the scientist's job would be done. All peer-reviewed papers would be the same: "Look, more random chance."

That is the problem with evolutionists, and they're not losing their jobs over it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No..............he agreed with my post that showed evolution/natural selection/mutation was the reason gonorrhea had acquired pieces of human DNA.



So he's saying they're right, you're the one saying those who don't deny science are wrong.

Only some of their explanations. Let's not get derailed here.

Well if he understands the theory of evolution, he would understand that the Neo believer needs new information for Macro-evolution to be possible .and he would know they try to prove that information comes from mutations mistakes in the DNA.

Horizontal gene transfer takes care of that.

Another aspect of evolution

I think he's confused as to who is doing the evolution denying here.

 

[Si modo]

For removing the possibility that everything is the result of creation relying on random chance as the answer for how.

If a scientist just accepted that everything is the result of random chance, then the scientist's job would be done. All peer-reviewed papers would be the same: "Look, more random chance."

That is the problem with evolutionists, and they're not losing their jobs over it.

I really have no idea what you are going on about.

You said their [scientists] presuppositions are wrong, I asked what those presuppositions are. You said that they presuppose that everything relies on random chance. That's not what scientists do, as the results of their work would be absurd, as I illustrated.

Scientists investigate why seemingly random events occur and through observation and experiment, they explain that there is more than random chance for the event. Their presupposition is that the seemingly random events can be explained with scientific concepts and mechanisms.

At this point, I really suggest you understand what science is and what the logic of scientific discovery is. You've demonstrated that you understand neither.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well i will be back later, have a great day everyone.

 

[Marie888]

Well i will be back later, have a great day everyone.

Thanks, you too. But just wanted to point out the question I had was for the Giant Noodle, not you. I hope I replied with my question correctly, lol.

 

[Si modo]

Well i will be back later, have a great day everyone.

You too.

 

[edthecynic]

Bottomline, i just want the truth. I have given my many reasons why i reject the idea of random chance because random chance would have to be orderly because that is what we see in the universe ,and the conditions on this planet.

Except the universe is chaotic and disorderly. You constantly have things colliding and exploding in the universe. The fact that you see order in the chaos should tell you there exists a relationship between the two!

 

[edthecynic]

That is why their presuppositions are wrong. That is why they have glaring holes in the theory.

Which presuppositions are those?

For removing the possibility that everything is the result of creation relying on random chance as the answer for how.

Except the chance is not so random, as has been pointed out to you on other threads. molecules do not form at random, but according to the valence electrons. As Si pointed out, DNA structure is not determined by a mind but by chemical processes. The valence electrons determine that A pairs with T and not with C or G. There is no "mind" involved at all, and since A pairs only with T it is not random either.

 

[Si modo]

Nothing in there supports your claim in (1) that the sequence of nucleotides is a language.

(1) still fails.

Nothing in there supports your claim that nucleic acids are created by a 'mind' rather than a series of biochemical reactions.

(2) still fails.

And, as (3) is a conclusion based on the veracity of (1) and (2), (3) fails by default.

You have summed it up quite capably, my friend. Creationists think the process of DNA/RNA transcription is "THE WORD OF THE LORD" coming into the antenna of the cell. Even though this process has been chemically replicated trillions of trillions of times on planet Earth in the last 4 seconds while people read these words.

These creationists: their belief in a Heavenly Father who does all this behind their backs, who damands respect and praise, who condemns those who do not respect and praise...these creationists......stuck in their own fairy tale, unable to comprehend the vastness of the universe, of their planet, of their environment, of their body. They always want a daddy managing things, threatening punishment for non-belief, and actually showing blessings upon a few, damnation upon the many who do NOT agree with their fairy tale. Talk about random luck!!!

This is "creation science"... a threat to those who don't believe, and a promise of nothing to those who swear their allegiance, obeisance, and praise. And thousands upon thousands of "preachers" worldwide, spreading the message and asking for donations. Quite a con game, if you ask me.

Dr Ross, primary practitioner of this con game, if you ask me!

Maybe Dr. Ross has an ex with large spousal support payments? I don't know, but he is making more money on his books and talks than he would at a university. He has a ready audience willing to buy the oil.

As I said earlier, he can try to disguise the basis of his talks with plenty of scientific accuracies, but that basis still remains classic circular reasoning.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If a scientist just accepted that everything is the result of random chance, then the scientist's job would be done. All peer-reviewed papers would be the same: "Look, more random chance."

That is the problem with evolutionists, and they're not losing their jobs over it.

I really have no idea what you are going on about.

You said their [scientists] presuppositions are wrong, I asked what those presuppositions are. You said that they presuppose that everything relies on random chance. That's not what scientists do, as the results of their work would be absurd, as I illustrated.

Scientists investigate why seemingly random events occur and through observation and experiment, they explain that there is more than random chance for the event. Their presupposition is that the seemingly random events can be explained with scientific concepts and mechanisms.

At this point, I really suggest you understand what science is and what the logic of scientific discovery is. You've demonstrated that you understand neither.

If you remove all the anecdotal explanations ,that has never been observed ,that supports the theory, the theory would crumble. But new discoveries are taking care of that. Random mutations show more harm to orgamnisms then benefit, anyone who denies that fact are not looking for truth.

First, scientists have never witnessed random mutations to DNA lead to the creation of a new species with a new DNA structure. Scientists have never proven that a set of random mutations to DNA can lead to the creation of a new and improved DNA structure. In short, they have never seen evolution create a new species.

But the fact is that scientists have never observed a new DNA structure form!! They have assumed they have seen new DNA structures form, but they have never actually observed such a phenomenon.

Scientists assume that macroevolution has occurred, but they have never observed macroevolution actually happen!!

Another example, human DNA has been studied for several decades and yet scientists have virtually no clue how a single human fertilized egg can morph into a human baby via the instructions on the DNA inside the fertilized egg.

So another assumption from opinion not observed evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Bottomline, i just want the truth. I have given my many reasons why i reject the idea of random chance because random chance would have to be orderly because that is what we see in the universe ,and the conditions on this planet.

Except the universe is chaotic and disorderly. You constantly have things colliding and exploding in the universe. The fact that you see order in the chaos should tell you there exists a relationship between the two!

Yeah i believe you're correct and i have no explanation for that for the collisions,but Dr.Ross touched on 42 evidences that any of them were off life would not exist. Example,if our days were any longer or shorter than the 24 hour cycle,life on this planet would have a very difficult time surviving the natural disaters.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Which presuppositions are those?

For removing the possibility that everything is the result of creation relying on random chance as the answer for how.

Except the chance is not so random, as has been pointed out to you on other threads. molecules do not form at random, but according to the valence electrons. As Si pointed out, DNA structure is not determined by a mind but by chemical processes. The valence electrons determine that A pairs with T and not with C or G. There is no "mind" involved at all, and since A pairs only with T it is not random either.

Mutations are random,they're mistakes in transcription. They result in the loss of the origional information. And they are rearranged information that in most cases result in harm to the organism ,even if it provides temporary benefit in some way. Mutations weaken organisms.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No,that is what is being addressed.

Trust me, i am a very logical person, that allows evidence to shape my logic.

That is why i reject the atheists religion.

Trust me, i am a very logical person,

Trust has to be earned, not offered to those who beg and show no evidence of worthiness of trust.

Atheism is NOT a religion, and has nothing to do with doing science with integrity. Even people of ALL religions on the planet can and have done actual scientific research and publication. This is not a debate about making atheists the ONLY people who can do science! Science is an equal opportunity teacher and employer, inviting those of ALL beliefs to venture into following the rules of the discipline. Science is like speed swimming, ice skating, or doing math, you either CAN or CANNOT perform in the discipline, according to the rules. Skaters who do not believe ice freezes at 0 degrees Centigrade, or swimmers who believe water boils below 100 degrees, C. They will not do well in the sport, nor will mathmeticians who think that 2+2 doesn't always equal 4.

I don't beg for anything.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Maybe Dr. Ross has an ex with large spousal support payments? I don't know, but he is making more money on his books and talks than he would at a university. He has a ready audience willing to buy the oil.

As I said earlier, he can try to disguise the basis of his talks with plenty of scientific accuracies, but that basis still remains classic circular reasoning.

If I wanted to use my two M.S. degrees to make money, I could package my (somewhat limited but not bad) knowledge of science and speaking and writing to write and publish a book, all on my own, claiming Jesus is proved by evolution, and make 1,000,000 people who love Jesus buy the (not peer reviewed) essays about Jesus, and make a few million.

Dr Ross has chosen than path with his Ph.D. He has no nee to be peer-reviewed for publication in the USA. He has a need to make a few million dollars, publishing books, going on speaker tours, claiming to be a scientist, but not submitting his publication for worldwide peer review before publication.

This is a scheme 100's of pseudo-scientists will do for the next 100's of years, as they have done in the past, from the authors of the Bible, to the priests and preachers of the reformation, to the Sunday morning services of Christian preachers today, they are all in the game, to one extent or another. All in it to make a living, none of them really concerned with the concept of seeking the truth. They just want a pay check, the biggest and best possible, and have found a scheme to get it!

Sorry,we are not concerned with your opinions unless they';re based in fact, it's clear you don't like people of faith so please stay on topic.

Do you know of any code,language,or form of communication that came about absent of the brain ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nothing in there supports your claim in (1) that the sequence of nucleotides is a language.

(1) still fails.

Nothing in there supports your claim that nucleic acids are created by a 'mind' rather than a series of biochemical reactions.

(2) still fails.

And, as (3) is a conclusion based on the veracity of (1) and (2), (3) fails by default.

You have summed it up quite capably, my friend. Creationists think the process of DNA/RNA transcription is "THE WORD OF THE LORD" coming into the antenna of the cell. Even though this process has been chemically replicated trillions of trillions of times on planet Earth in the last 4 seconds while people read these words.

These creationists: their belief in a Heavenly Father who does all this behind their backs, who damands respect and praise, who condemns those who do not respect and praise...these creationists......stuck in their own fairy tale, unable to comprehend the vastness of the universe, of their planet, of their environment, of their body. They always want a daddy managing things, threatening punishment for non-belief, and actually showing blessings upon a few, damnation upon the many who do NOT agree with their fairy tale. Talk about random luck!!!

This is "creation science"... a threat to those who don't believe, and a promise of nothing to those who swear their allegiance, obeisance, and praise. And thousands upon thousands of "preachers" worldwide, spreading the message and asking for donations. Quite a con game, if you ask me.

Dr Ross, primary practitioner of this con game, if you ask me!

Maybe Dr. Ross has an ex with large spousal support payments? I don't know, but he is making more money on his books and talks than he would at a university. He has a ready audience willing to buy the oil.

As I said earlier, he can try to disguise the basis of his talks with plenty of scientific accuracies, but that basis still remains classic circular reasoning.

Or maybe the atheist's that guides the theory of evolution.You know cats like darwin,miller,and the ever impressive dawkins. Now i am still waiting for an answer to the atheist riddle.

Oh by the way, Dawkins could not answer this question.

 

[edthecynic]

Bottomline, i just want the truth. I have given my many reasons why i reject the idea of random chance because random chance would have to be orderly because that is what we see in the universe ,and the conditions on this planet.

Except the universe is chaotic and disorderly. You constantly have things colliding and exploding in the universe. The fact that you see order in the chaos should tell you there exists a relationship between the two!

Yeah i believe you're correct and i have no explanation for that for the collisions,but Dr.Ross touched on 42 evidences that any of them were off life would not exist. Example,if our days were any longer or shorter than the 24 hour cycle,life on this planet would have a very difficult time surviving the natural disaters.

That's pure BS because our days are getting longer, by 1 thousandth of a second every day, which is about a second every 3 years. So using your 6,000 year old Earth, a day was about 23 1/2 hours long during creation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I will ignore all posts that are not trying to answer the question.

I already won the debate on evolution, don't want to keep repeating myself or educating the ones defending the theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Except the universe is chaotic and disorderly. You constantly have things colliding and exploding in the universe. The fact that you see order in the chaos should tell you there exists a relationship between the two!

Yeah i believe you're correct and i have no explanation for that for the collisions,but Dr.Ross touched on 42 evidences that any of them were off life would not exist. Example,if our days were any longer or shorter than the 24 hour cycle,life on this planet would have a very difficult time surviving the natural disaters.

That's pure BS because our days are getting longer, by 1 thousandth of a second every day, which is about a second every 3 years. So using your 6,000 year old Earth, a day was about 23 1/2 hours long during creation.

Well wait til we hit to the 25th hour.

I only am interested in the one question I posted, that only one person has attempted to answer and failed miserably, respectfully.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not exactly new, but fully supported by science.My views will need to be adjusted just a little. I will post the link where you can listen to the audio version which i enjoyed thouroughly or you can read the entire article.


New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God


A Seminal Presentation by Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, given in South Barrington, Illinois, April 16, 1994


Hugh Ross - Origin of the Universe

FYI anything from 1994 ain't new anymore.

And there is either scientific evidence or there isn't. You have just pulled the "little bit pregnant" card out of your ass on that one and like anything else that comes out of your ass, it is crap.