There Is Evidence For God

[alang1216]

Everything in my Science posts was based on science alone, and all my quotes were of scientists.
[...]
". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

You can't mean this G.R. Taylor since that would make you a liar:

Gordon Rattray Taylor (11 January 1911 – 7 December 1981) was a popular British author and journalist​

And?

Brilliant defense! So much more erudite than "is not".

Defense???

From what?

I inferred you were a liar. OK, I'll be more clear, YOU ARE A LIAR. That better?

I never lies.


But....lying seems to be all you can offer.


Crawl away.

Yes you does.

Or can you explain how you can say "all my quotes were of scientists", in the same post as a quote from a non-scientist?

 

[alang1216]

a. the fossil record proves it incorrect

b. there has never been an observed example of one species becoming another

c. I haven't found it necessary to use my religion to dispute the religion of Darwinism.....watch:

"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275

d. No laboratory has been able to demonstrate DNA created by primordial devices.

Sorry but a. and b. are incorrect.

As for c., what 'innovation' cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps? None that I know of.

As for d., I'd ask, so what? Evolution never required DNA, only the ability to reproduce.

Sometimes a poster will make a remark so astoundingly stupid that they become the example against which all stupidity must be judged. You've managed to produce same.

"Evolution never required DNA, only the ability to reproduce."


Anyone who reads this pronouncement by you will recognize that there are garden implement that know more than you do.

Sometimes a poster will show their utter ignorance of a subject without even realizing it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. What, then, to make of the atheistic scientists, who claim that their views are ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’? They represent the ecclesiastical bull of a most peculiar church, a sort of ecclesiastical bluff. And those who propound natural selection as the only explanation for the basis of complex life are in the position of the apostles.



To account for all of the errors, unproven and disproven elements in their pronouncements, they made up the bizarre ‘Multiverse theory’….one of those children’s fables, a ‘just-so-story’ that keeps the gullible in line.

The Multiverse: there are an infinite number of universes each with a different set of laws of physics. You believe that? Sooo…..there are planets where things fall away from the planet’s center? And inanimate objects….reproduce????



Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University Leonard Susskind, writing with the kind of honesty that all of us should try to emulate, admits that if the ‘multiverse’ theory falls apart, the atheist scientists- he is one- would be between a rock and a hard place: “If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.” Interview with Lenny Susskind – Uncommon Descent


“If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true.” Alan Lightman, physicist.



Why is it more impossible for God to exist, than the multiverse????

 

[Hollie]

The shitty behavior of religious people is the single biggest factor in the decline of religiosity of Americans.

Re-post without the vulgarity and I'll provide the response you deserve.

Meanwhile......digest this: Father Jame Altman putting Democrats/Liberals in their place.
….that the Democrats are promising. Riots, murder, food deserts because the groceries have been burned and looted. Real Americans are shocked and disheartened by the encouragement and outright support looters, arsonists, and thugs have received from the major party of the United States.



But it was quite a surprise to see that shock and anger from a precinct that I’ve come to expect to be either silent or actually supportive of the ‘activists’ who are out to destroy our history, tradition, morality and values…….
Yup…..a valiant priest spoke up blistering the thugs, the Democrats, and even his superiors in the Church.

Hate filled defenders of the faith like you are the single biggest reason people walk away from your Jesus fan clubs and never look back. How's that you flaming hypocrite?

Much better.

Here's your response, Democrats/Liberals/Militant Secularists/atheists.

View attachment 359552View attachment 359554View attachment 359555



“…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, or vice versa?”
Ben Shapiro

Christianity is just organized hate when the words of Jesus carry no weight in your attitudes and actions. Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? What is the example you show to the irreligious that Christians are good people? Jesus told us to look at ourselves before we criticize others. I took a close look at my faith years ago and found that American Christianity was nailing Christ back up on the cross every Sunday to shut him up all over again.

"Where is your love for your neighbor? Where is your charity? "

I'm glad you asked.....now watch me put you in your place.


The folks on my side are far more charitable than Liberals/Democrats/Progressives.



1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.


2. Arthur Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."


3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.


4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.


5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."


6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.


7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."


8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."


"There's something incredibly satisfying, inherently, about voluntary giving,"...
The Giving Gap




Another custard pie in your ugly kisser, huh?


Here's yet another book you'll never read:

View attachment 359577

I hear no love and charity for anyone in your words and never have. Your politics are nothing except a twisted rationalization for passing by on the other side without guilt.

I proved my point, documented same with Brooks' book.....

...and the best the government school grad can do is ignore it.

There are certainty some very charitable Christians out there but you are not one of them. If you care about anyone but yourself you have never shown it, not even once.

Liberal playbook, page one: when you are defeated by the content, attack the messenger.


NEXT!

Remember in the bible when Jesus was confronting some pious asshole and ended up calling them a hypocrite? You are lost in the woods of religious orthodoxy and have forgotten the core of the faith you claim to have.

I understand your anger, your rage, at seeing your worldview destroyed.....but attempt to post like an adult, not a third grader.

Clean up the language.

All you are doing is showing me that I am correct that your twisted faith is a gigantic lie you tell yourself. Use the bible for something other than a blunt object to hit people with.

Not at all.

I'm simply using you to prove that your sort are ignorant liars who fear to confront your masters.

LOL I do not think you have ever even read the bible. You talk like some kind of Moony cultist.

Actually, I 'talk' like someone who can prove what they say.

Don't you wish you could do the same?


I bet you do.

What are you trying to prove? That you can get into heaven on hate? My bible says otherwise.

I've stated quite eloquently what I am proving.

a. Science now accepts that there was a beginning to the universe....as the Bible states
b. Science now concedes the order of events in Genesis.
c. There is no proof of the century and a half old Darwinian theory.




If you can provide a defense,......why haven't you?

a. Actually, no. The bibles describe a beginning of the universe quite unlike what science has described.

b. Actually, the order of events in Genesis are confused, contradictory and reflect a comparatively poor understanding of events.

c. Actually, Darwinian theory is among the most fully supported theories in science.

Christian extremists and the Afghan Taliban have much in common.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. In item #10 above, the atheist scientist referred to “nature’s fine-tunings.” He is speaking of this:

“The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith

By Alan P. Lightman

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720

Lightman, a scientist himself, wrote of how coincidental it is that nature’s parameters fit perfectly with humankind.

“…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.
For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.


On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.

The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it.

Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.”



Another one of those coincidences that you secularists are ordered to ignore.

 

[Hollie]

11. In item #10 above, the atheist scientist referred to “nature’s fine-tunings.” He is speaking of this:

“The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith

By Alan P. Lightman

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720

Lightman, a scientist himself, wrote of how coincidental it is that nature’s parameters fit perfectly with humankind.

“…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.
For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.


On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.

The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it.

Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.”



Another one of those coincidences that you secularists are ordered to ignore.

The nonsensical ''if things were different, things would be different'', slogan you have stolen from Christian extremist websites, ''fine tuning observed in the universe'', is nonsense. Here again, this slogan, like so many others, has been shown to be a farce. Yet you continually cut and paste these silly slogans because of your inability to offer any coherent explanation for the natural world.

As we see with regularity, explaining to you some fairly simple concepts leaves you befuddled. You just repeat the same silly slogans as if your ability to learn has been severely stunted. We live in a profoundly violent and chaotic universe, but are spared direct experience with most of that chaos because it occurs on cosmic and geologic time scales, while we exist on a human time scale. This (luckily for us) means most of us live our lifetimes in the brief moments of calm between supernovae, asteroid impact, and cometary bombardment.

Remember Schumaker-Levy? How about that little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago? These things have been pointed out to you repeatedly yet you are unable to address these issues. You do nothing more than repeat the same tired and false slogans you cut and paste from Harun Yahya.

And one of the most important questions challenging your extremist ideology is how you can remain so decidedly certain in your ignorance but call it ''religious belief''. Yet you ignore all of this in your daily and stupendously stupid crusade against knowledge and rationality.

Other than your personal crusade to promote fear and ignorance, we still have nothing from you regarding how it is that the gods managed such a violent and chaotic universe religious extremists claim is fine tuned

 

[Hollie]

11. In item #10 above, the atheist scientist referred to “nature’s fine-tunings.” He is speaking of this:

“The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith

By Alan P. Lightman

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720

Lightman, a scientist himself, wrote of how coincidental it is that nature’s parameters fit perfectly with humankind.

“…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.
For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.


On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.

The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it.

Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.”



Another one of those coincidences that you secularists are ordered to ignore.

"Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.''

Rhetorical question, but...... are you really that a'stupid?

We don't need no steenkin' stars when we got them-there gawds.

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. When forced to admit that either they have no answers, or that the answers that they usually give are false, what do atheist scientists do?



Back to Dr. Stephen Hawking, who also admits the mathematical improbability of our universe:
"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."
"In fact, if one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense."

Wow....that's gotta hurt the Darwin cultists.


"Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size."
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life ..."
Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking

"...very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life ..."
By whom or what??? There's really only one possible answer.



“The odds against a universe like ours emerging of something like the big bang are enormous… I think clearly there are religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe.”
Yup......it was Stephen W. Hawking.
John Boslough, "Stephen Hawking's Universe," p. 121

Uh oh! Hawking making the argument for God.

And....here's the money quote:
“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
And, yes.....it had a beginning.


So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."



And even atheistic scientists finally cop to it: God must exist.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Unbeknownst to themselves, dummies decry traditional religion while bowing their head to their own religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.



1.We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldn’t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. You’d see ‘em walkin’ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, we’d miss out on a lot of humor, and also, the inspiration to dash off responses, sometimes impolite ones.

Sometimes those dummies open the door to the discussion.


2. The other day, one of the dumbest was irate that I posted criticism of a saint in his religion, Darwinism, and he wrote this:

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!”
Real Science…Not Darwin

BIG LETTERS!!! He sure was mad. But, he did cause me to consider if there is any evidence for the existence of God.



3. And he represents many of those who, no doubt, vote Democrat, and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, you know, the ‘tolerant’ folks. And they get really nasty if you don’t bow down to their god.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
Scientists should be humble, not arrogant



4. Funny thing is, lots of actual scientists write critical papers disputing Darwinism, and many are religious folks, as well.
"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
…the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

[As for Darwin himself, the] concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??


5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.

I thank you for putting your anti-Darwin, anti-evolution, and anti-science writings where they belong, the 'Religion and Ethics' thread instead of 'Science and Technology'.

Actually, this idiotic thread belongs in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Unbeknownst to themselves, dummies decry traditional religion while bowing their head to their own religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.



1.We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldn’t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. You’d see ‘em walkin’ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, we’d miss out on a lot of humor, and also, the inspiration to dash off responses, sometimes impolite ones.

Sometimes those dummies open the door to the discussion.


2. The other day, one of the dumbest was irate that I posted criticism of a saint in his religion, Darwinism, and he wrote this:

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!”
Real Science…Not Darwin

BIG LETTERS!!! He sure was mad. But, he did cause me to consider if there is any evidence for the existence of God.



3. And he represents many of those who, no doubt, vote Democrat, and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, you know, the ‘tolerant’ folks. And they get really nasty if you don’t bow down to their god.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
Scientists should be humble, not arrogant



4. Funny thing is, lots of actual scientists write critical papers disputing Darwinism, and many are religious folks, as well.
"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
…the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

[As for Darwin himself, the] concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??


5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.

I thank you for putting your anti-Darwin, anti-evolution, and anti-science writings where they belong, the 'Religion and Ethics' thread instead of 'Science and Technology'.

Actually, this idiotic thread belongs in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

Yup....Darwinism belongs in Conspiracy Theories......certainly not in Science.

I wouldn't have guessed that you knew that much.

You've never evinced anything but a two digit IQ before.



. "But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature
claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria,
the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study,
with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after
18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there
is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in
spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical
and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess
extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for
species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not
surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to
eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher
multicellular organisms." The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
SECTION: BOOKS; BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE; No.1483; Pg.29
HEADLINE: Scant Search For The Maker

 

[Hollie]

12. When forced to admit that either they have no answers, or that the answers that they usually give are false, what do atheist scientists do?



Back to Dr. Stephen Hawking, who also admits the mathematical improbability of our universe:
"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."
"In fact, if one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense."

Wow....that's gotta hurt the Darwin cultists.


"Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size."
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life ..."
Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking

"...very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life ..."
By whom or what??? There's really only one possible answer.



“The odds against a universe like ours emerging of something like the big bang are enormous… I think clearly there are religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe.”
Yup......it was Stephen W. Hawking.
John Boslough, "Stephen Hawking's Universe," p. 121

Uh oh! Hawking making the argument for God.

And....here's the money quote:
“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.
And, yes.....it had a beginning.


So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."



And even atheistic scientists finally cop to it: God must exist.

Oops. The xtian Talban will need to declare a cut and paste gee-had.


“When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe,and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.”

― Stephen Hawking




The scientist took a pragmatic view of what happens to the brain and body after death.

“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail,” he told the Guardian. “There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”



“Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” he wrote in The Grand Design. “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”



“Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation,” he said. “What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”

 

[meaner gene]

Yup....Darwinism belongs in Conspiracy Theories......certainly not in Science.

I wouldn't have guessed that you knew that much.

You've never evinced anything but a two digit IQ before.

The problem with the bible is that it's taken as a book of faith instead of a book of science, because it's full of stories of the miraculous. But like any book, you can best understand it by making sense from the beginning.

Start with Genesis, and the question that every sunday school kid asks, but is never given the answer to. Who did Cain marry? And why was it necessary to give him the mark of Cain?

If you can answer that from Genesis, you'll finally understand.

But only do cut and past of others thinkings and can't think for yourself. But there is hope.

 

[edthecynic]

It is gratifying to me, and must be embarrassing to the other side, that none of them can argue that Genesis of the Old Testament didn't predate modern science's view of the order of creation.

among the asinine things you post, that takes the cake!!!!
Only a homeschooler is STUPID enough to believe that the evolution of plants took place before the evolution of the Sun!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Prager's comment that, now, the fact that there was an origin to the universe, and the Bible always claimed, is accepted by even atheistic science.....

neither Prager nor the bigot's bible of hate can cope with the fact that science has proven that energy always existed!
IOW, energy existed before man created God.

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12


But only those steeped in the religion of Darwinism claim that there is proof that the accumulation of tiny modifications can be shown to produce a new species.

“That natural selection can produce changes within a type is disputed by no one, not even the staunchest creationist. But that it can transform one species into another — that, in fact, has never been observed.”
― Robert J. Sawyer, Calculating God





Many believers in traditional religion accept that organisms are not simply the ones we see now. But there is no problem in considering that God planned a cavalcade, and we see one picture of it today.


For many who doubt Darwin's theory, the natural 'evolution' from zygote to adult as a natural phenomenon is considered no threat to a belief in a creator. Nor is the notion of a naturally evolving solar system. Why not the idea of a skillful cosmic architect setting up a series of laws, which we call 'natural causes,' as every bit as effective as done directly via acts of agency? Louis Agassiz: "What is the great difference between supposing that God makes variable species or that he makes laws by which species vary?"
David L.Hull, "The Metaphysics of Evolution," p.69

And there is as much proof for his view as for Darwin's.
The key term is 'proof.'



"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not."
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the fanatics so afraid of??

 

[PoliticalChic]

Prager's comment that, now, the fact that there was an origin to the universe, and the Bible always claimed, is accepted by even atheistic science.....

neither Prager nor the bigot's bible of hate can cope with the fact that science has proven that energy always existed!
IOW, energy existed before man created God.

What a stupid claim.
But....exactly what one would expect from you.

 

[Hollie]

13. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12


But only those steeped in the religion of Darwinism claim that there is proof that the accumulation of tiny modifications can be shown to produce a new species.

“That natural selection can produce changes within a type is disputed by no one, not even the staunchest creationist. But that it can transform one species into another — that, in fact, has never been observed.”
― Robert J. Sawyer, Calculating God





Many believers in traditional religion accept that organisms are not simply the ones we see now. But there is no problem in considering that God planned a cavalcade, and we see one picture of it today.


For many who doubt Darwin's theory, the natural 'evolution' from zygote to adult as a natural phenomenon is considered no threat to a belief in a creator. Nor is the notion of a naturally evolving solar system. Why not the idea of a skillful cosmic architect setting up a series of laws, which we call 'natural causes,' as every bit as effective as done directly via acts of agency? Louis Agassiz: "What is the great difference between supposing that God makes variable species or that he makes laws by which species vary?"
David L.Hull, "The Metaphysics of Evolution," p.69

And there is as much proof for his view as for Darwin's.
The key term is 'proof.'



"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not."
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the fanatics so afraid of??

"But that it can transform one species into another — that, in fact, has never been observed.”


The xtian Taliban are education denied so of course they are ignorant about science matters.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

 

[Hollie]

"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not."
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the fanatics so afraid of??

So... your post indicates that the majority of scientists do not believe in the xtian gods.

Thanks.

 

[Crepitus]

Unbeknownst to themselves, dummies decry traditional religion while bowing their head to their own religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic

There is far more evidence for the God of the Bible. Examples on this thread.



1.We don’t often think about it, but we are lucky on this board to have some of the dumbest human beings around, folks for whom it wouldn’t be uncharacteristic to put the opposite shoes on their feet. You’d see ‘em walkin’ around, oblivious, as they are about even important things. Anyway, we’d miss out on a lot of humor, and also, the inspiration to dash off responses, sometimes impolite ones.

Sometimes those dummies open the door to the discussion.


2. The other day, one of the dumbest was irate that I posted criticism of a saint in his religion, Darwinism, and he wrote this:

“there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!”
Real Science…Not Darwin

BIG LETTERS!!! He sure was mad. But, he did cause me to consider if there is any evidence for the existence of God.



3. And he represents many of those who, no doubt, vote Democrat, and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, you know, the ‘tolerant’ folks. And they get really nasty if you don’t bow down to their god.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
Scientists should be humble, not arrogant



4. Funny thing is, lots of actual scientists write critical papers disputing Darwinism, and many are religious folks, as well.
"According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.
…the public does not share scientists’ certainty about evolution. While 87% of scientists say that life evolved over time due to natural processes, only 32% of the public believes this to be true, according to a different Pew poll earlier this year.

[As for Darwin himself, the] concluding sentence of “Origin of Species” speaks of a “Creator” breathing life “into a few forms or into one.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times


Is that what the Darwinist fanatics so afraid of??


5. Here’s an interesting point from Dennis Prager:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



And that’s not the only corresponding point between modern science and a belief in God….

And the Darwinists cannot abide by it.

Lol, point one was obviously a self portrait.

Prager is a lying sack of monkey nuts.

There is no objective proof of goD's existence. In fact I'd go so far as to say there's plenty of evidence against it.

 

[meaner gene]

What a stupid claim.
But....exactly what one would expect from you.

Simple question. To GOD, how long is a day?
Especially since he created everything in six days, with all the creatures and man on the sixth day.