Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[manifold]

So how did life begin on this planet ?

Nobody knows for sure, so it must've been magic.

Or it could have been random chance

Why are you quick to rule out Creation ?

Who said I've ruled it out?

Certainly not me.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If it didn't occur, how did species appear millions of years apart? Gradualism is obviously not the way things work, hence "punctuated equilibrium" was postulated as the mechanism. The assumption is that numbers were initially very small making fossils hard to find, until such time as the changes created an advantage over the old form or allowed them to enter a new environmental niche with a consequent explosion in numbers. It can take many, many generations before a mutation in a single individual spreads around the population enough to see the differences in the fossil record.

Nice theory, but a mutation has a very little chance surviving in the genepool because of Natural Selection. I have posted this many times why do i need to keep repeating myself ? if i am wrong show otherwise.

I have no idea why you keep repeating yourself, because your statement is irrelevant to debunking evolution. Very little chance is not "no chance". Given enough time, "very little" can turn into "quite a bit"? If you have to keep repeating yourself, it's because you fail to comprehend the basic concept. Of course, useful changes are few and far between, but we're talking millions of years. I think you just can't wrap your mind around the concept of how long that is.

When i say very little chance, i mean it's so rare that it can't do what evolutionist say ,no matter how much time you give it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nobody knows for sure, so it must've been magic.

Or it could have been random chance

Why are you quick to rule out Creation ?

Who said I've ruled it out?

Certainly not me.

How could it of happened,a non-thinking process made life out of non-living matter.

Now that is ironic.

 

[manifold]

Or it could have been random chance

Why are you quick to rule out Creation ?

Who said I've ruled it out?

Certainly not me.

How could it of happened,a non-thinking process made life out of non-living matter.

Now that is ironic.

Are you asking me how God came into being? Because that's a really good question.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Perhaps the reason we haven't been back is because there is nothing there.

What a coincidence! Many Europeans in the Flat Earth Society said the same thing about the New World in the 1500s.

Do you understand where the flat earth got it's start ? Do you know who started that thinking ?

I know one source, a book that says you can see the entire planet from a tall hill.


Care to guess which book that is?

 

[manifold]

What a coincidence! Many Europeans in the Flat Earth Society said the same thing about the New World in the 1500s.

Do you understand where the flat earth got it's start ? Do you know who started that thinking ?

I know one source, a book that says you can see the entire planet from a tall hill.


Care to guess which book that is?

The Koran?

 

[Dot Com]

The earth was created in 7 days. I know because I went here: Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview | Creation Museum

 

[Youwerecreated]

What a coincidence! Many Europeans in the Flat Earth Society said the same thing about the New World in the 1500s.

Do you understand where the flat earth got it's start ? Do you know who started that thinking ?

I know one source, a book that says you can see the entire planet from a tall hill.


Care to guess which book that is?

Nope,do some research you will be surprised at the answer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The earth was created in 7 days. I know because I went here: Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview | Creation Museum

No one knows how long the days of creation were. The Hebrew word day means span of time that time has never been defined.

 

[Woyzeck]

It went on land? And you know this to be fact how? From everything I've read the fins could not have supported it's weight on land not being connected to the main skeleton.

I could be wrong, but it remains an example of a transitional fossil. Which was the original point of that example.



Except entirely disprove your claim that we have in fact found transitional fossils.

Continue to deny reality all you want, it won't go away no matter how much you close your eyes and wish it too.

The rest of you post needed no response. I have heard i tbefore and I still think it's a load of BS.

Face it, you are going to believe whatever scientist tells you.

To that I say read Psalms 118:8 for my response.

So you don't have actually a rebuttal when faced with someone who actually is scientifically literate with the thing you're talking about. What a surprise. I suggest again you go to your local library and pick up a book on biology. I think everyone already knows you failed high school biology.

Just because you and a few scientist claim it's a transitional fossil does not make it so. I have shown scientist that denied it being a transitional fossil. Therefore no positive conclusion can be drawn. Furthermore pictures and claims made in wikipedia are as credible as anything Obama says.

OOOOH an insult towards me and the President! How clever, you must be a riot at parties.

Objective paleontologists concede that one’s interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one’s presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

He's right. See, we use the theory of evolution to make sense of the fossil record. Without the theory of evolution to make sense of it, we're left with quite the conundrum of why the fossil record is like it is, why the timeline of species is like it is. It really only makes sense in light of the theory of evolution.

We know the creationist theory isn't true, because of the varying lifetimes of organisms throughout the record. If the creationist theory were true, all modern species would have the same precise starting point, with nothing before them. In keeping with the "God did it" reasoning and their stubborn antithesis to macro-evolution.

Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):

“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460.

You accept macro-evolution now? How wonderful!

If that weren’t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

Oh he's a supporter of this neat other theory within evolution called punctuated equilibrium. Essentially he views species change as an incredibly rare event, which happens rapidly, as opposed to gradualism. That's how it explains gaps in the fossil record. The reason he says it hasn't provided evidence of phyletic evolution is because he's attempting to disprove that bit in favor of punctuated equilibrium.

But I'm not sure where the lack of transitional forms comes in, as I quote Gould at the bottom.

George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

Yeah he's the same as above, more or less. I think it's wonderful you've read upon and want to talk about differing theories of how evolution works.

I mean, it's not like you quote-mined for the specific point of trying to discredit the transitional forms you requested in the first place.

David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

Which is what I said above.

E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:


“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]

Except they aren't. We've found loads of fossils, as exhibited by the list on wikipedia.

Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:


“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

Here's a quote from Gould:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."
—Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb

So I wonder if you've been quote mining the entire time to paint a rather biased and inaccurate view of what those scientists said. You're not exactly known for your smarts when it comes to science.

By the way, I find it increasingly funny that you quote from scientists who firmly believed in evolution, with quotes and fields that promote macro-evolution just to disprove the fossil record.

 

[manifold]

So how did God come into being?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Do you understand where the flat earth got it's start ? Do you know who started that thinking ?

I know one source, a book that says you can see the entire planet from a tall hill.


Care to guess which book that is?

The Koran?

No the Koran just says the earth is level, so yes it also says the world is flat but not in the way I asked.

A good answer, but not the perfect one .

 

[Woyzeck]

Pretty much.

How you have "Logic" in your screen name and then have the balls to admit that this is what you believe. Really? In all your "logic" this is what you think?

It's not much different than believing the nonsense you believe.

Tell me, when did humans stop evolving and why? Why aren't there living transitional species that can be observed?

If you knew a damn thing about transitional species, you would realize that we are all transitional species. So long as we don't go extinct and the line ends here, we are all possible transitional species.

Humans have indulging in something called civilization for awhile. I know, it's crazy, some think it will never catch on, but it what it is. As is turns out, civilization tends to quash the effects of natural selection, especially these days when we can easily make up any possible negative mutations.

Let's say a child is born with poor eyesight. Well, we can easily provide glasses or laser eye surgery to make up for that. You see why the processes of evolution may have a tough time to act?

 

[Youwerecreated]

What a coincidence! Many Europeans in the Flat Earth Society said the same thing about the New World in the 1500s.

Do you understand where the flat earth got it's start ? Do you know who started that thinking ?

I know one source, a book that says you can see the entire planet from a tall hill.


Care to guess which book that is?

Your misrepresenting of the scriptures is noted.

Isa 40:22 It is He who sits on the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in;


It came from your side

No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat.

The idea was established, almost contemporaneously, by a Frenchman and an American, between whom I have not been able to establish a connection, though they were both in Paris at the same time. One was Antoine-Jean Letronne (1787-1848), an academic of strong antireligious prejudices who had studied both geography and patristics and who cleverly drew upon both to misrepresent the church fathers and their medieval successors as believing in a flat earth, in his On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers (1834). The American was no other than our beloved storyteller Washington Irving (1783-1859), who loved to write historical fiction under the guise of history. His misrepresentations of the history of early New York City and of the life of Washington were topped by his history of Christopher Columbus (1828). It was he who invented the indelible picture of the young Columbus, a "simple mariner," appearing before a dark crowd of benighted inquisitors and hooded theologians at a council of Salamanca, all of whom believed, according to Irving, that the earth was flat like a plate. Well, yes, there was a meeting at Salamanca in 1491, but Irving's version of it, to quote a distinguished modern historian of Columbus, was "pure moonshine. Washington Irving, scenting his opportunity for a picturesque and moving scene," created a fictitious account of this "nonexistent university council" and "let his imagination go completely...the whole story is misleading and mischievous nonsense."

But now, why did the false accounts of Letronne and Irving become melded and then, as early as the 1860s, begin to be served up in schools and in schoolbooks as the solemn truth?

The answer is that the falsehood about the spherical earth became a colorful and unforgettable part of a larger falsehood: the falsehood of the eternal war between science (good) and religion (bad) throughout Western history. This vast web of falsehood was invented and propagated by the influential historian John Draper (1811-1882) and many prestigious followers, such as Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), the president of Cornell University, who made sure that the false account was perpetrated in texts, encyclopedias, and even allegedly serious scholarship, down to the present day. A lively current version of the lie can be found in Daniel Boorstin's The Discoverers, found in any bookshop or library.

The reason for promoting both the specific lie about the sphericity of the earth and the general lie that religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society, is to defend Darwinism. The answer is really only slightly more complicated than that bald statement. The flat-earth lie was ammunition against the creationists. The argument was simple and powerful, if not elegant: "Look how stupid these Christians are. They are always getting in the way of science and progress. These people who deny evolution today are exactly the same sort of people as those idiots who for at least a thousand years denied that the earth was round. How stupid can you get?"

But that is not the truth.

Myth of the Flat Earth

 

[konradv]

The earth was created in 7 days. I know because I went here: Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview | Creation Museum

No one knows how long the days of creation were. The Hebrew word day means span of time that time has never been defined.

Really? I thought we were supposed to take Genesis literally! If it's the case that 'days' don't mean 'days', then what's the problem with evolution being God's method of creation?

 

[konradv]

Right here is the biggest hole in evolution.

The question now of course is, how could such a system [the eye] evolve gradually? All the pieces must be in place simultaneously. For example, what good would it be for an earthworm that has no eyes to suddenly evolve the protein 11-cis-retinal in a small group or "spot" of cells on its head? These cells now have the ability to detect photons, but so what? What benefit is that to the earthworm? Now, lets say that somehow these cells develop all the needed proteins to activate an electrical charge across their membranes in response to a photon of light striking them. So what?! What good is it for them to be able to establish an electrical gradient across their membranes if there is no nervous pathway to the worm's minute brain?

Now, what if this pathway did happen to suddenly evolve and such a signal could be sent to the worm's brain. So what?! How is the worm going to know what to do with this signal? It will have to learn what this signal means. Learning and interpretation are very complicated processes involving a great many other proteins in other unique systems.

Now the earthworm, in one lifetime, must evolve the ability to pass on this ability to interpret vision to its offspring. If it does not pass on this ability, the offspring must learn as well or vision offers no advantage to them.

All of these wonderful processes need regulation. No function is beneficial unless it can be regulated (turned off and on). If the light sensitive cells cannot be turned off once they are turned on, vision does not occur. This regulatory ability is also very complicated involving a great many proteins and other molecules… all of which must be in place initially for vision to be beneficial.

The Evolution of the Human Eye​

Macro-evolution sounds plausible, until you apply logic.

I'll be happy to give you more examples after you explain the one outlined above^.

It is impossible for ALL those absolutely random mutation to occur at the exact same time to allow for a light sensitive spot.

There is also no reason for the random mutations individually to be passed on as by themselves, they give no advantage for natural selection.

Explain?

You need to do some research before posting stuff like this. The evolution of the eye is EASILY explained. It starts with light sensesitive cells. Then a cup forms to improve directionality of sensation. That's just the start. For more info go to:

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're now teaching your religion.

The eye is definately a product of design not mistakes in our DNA.

But you say we have no evidence?!?! Please, at least stick to your own line of argument!

 

[konradv]

Nice theory, but a mutation has a very little chance surviving in the genepool because of Natural Selection. I have posted this many times why do i need to keep repeating myself ? if i am wrong show otherwise.

I have no idea why you keep repeating yourself, because your statement is irrelevant to debunking evolution. Very little chance is not "no chance". Given enough time, "very little" can turn into "quite a bit"? If you have to keep repeating yourself, it's because you fail to comprehend the basic concept. Of course, useful changes are few and far between, but we're talking millions of years. I think you just can't wrap your mind around the concept of how long that is.

When i say very little chance, i mean it's so rare that it can't do what evolutionist say ,no matter how much time you give it.

Another assertion for which you have no evidence!!!

 

[Youwerecreated]

So how did God come into being?

Time was created by God,it only pertains to us and our universe.God is outside of time.

The Day They Found 90% of the Universe

Now, what exactly was it that these astronomers discovered? They found 90% of the universe. Any day that you find 90% of the universe is a red-letter day. What they essentially found was a new kind of matter. For a couple of years, physicists have suspected that the universe must have a different kind of matter.

Ordinary matter is the stuff that we’re used to. Electrons, protons, neutrons, everything we see here on planet Earth is made up of ordinary matter. Ordinary matter is a property that strongly interacts with radiation, so it’s rather easy for astronomers to detect the stuff.

But we found the problem, which was this: In 1990, the cosmic background explorer satellite proved that the universe is extremely entropic. In fact, the universe has a specific entropy measure of 1,000,000,000. Entropy measures the efficiency with which a system radiates heat and light, and the inefficiency in which it performs work.

The universe is by far the most entropic system in all existence. To give you a point of comparison, a burning candle has a specific entropy of two. A burning candle is something we realize is very efficient in making heat and light, and very inefficient in performing work. The universe is far more entropic than a candle, by many orders of magnitude.

But it led to a problem. If the universe has that high a degree of entropy and all matter strongly interacts with radiation, and the radiation left over from the creation event measures to be incredibly smooth, then the matter likewise should be that smoothly distributed. But it isn’t.

As you look at the galaxies and clusters of galaxies, rather than being smoothly distributed like the radiation form the creation event, it’s clumpy. Astronomers wanted to know why. We have proof that the universe was created in a hot, big, bang due to the incredible entropy, but how do we explain the galaxies?

The discovery of exotic matter explains the clustering of the galaxies. Exotic matter does not strongly interact with radiation, and because it doesn’t, it can clump independent of the radiation. Since it doesn’t really matter in gravity whether the matter is exotic or ordinary, the laws of physics still apply.

Two massive objects will attract one another under the law of gravity, and if one of those massive objects is made of ordinary matter and the other is made of exotic matter, they will still attract.

Once exotic matter clumps, it can draw ordinary matter to it, and hence we can have the universe we see today. The radiation from the creation event is still very smoothly distributed, but the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are clumped.

April 23, 1992 was the first detection an astronomer made of this type of matter. Since that time, there have been seven other independent detections of this exotic matter. If you’re interested, you can read all about it in my book, The Creator and the Cosmos , which was published a few months ago.

In this back issue, we describe the set of discoveries that established the existence of exotic matter which led to the conclusions from the scientific community that we now have conclusive proof that the universe was indeed created, and that’s why we say that we’re looking at the face of God.

On April 24, 1992, I was on the radio with three other physicists to discuss this discovery. A couple of the gentlemen were from George Smoot’s team, but the one that I was most curious about was Geoffrey Burbridge, who I had as a professor while I attended the University of Toronto, and who I knew to be an atheist.

Physicists Join “The First Church of Christ of the Big Bang”

I was wondering how Geoffery was going to respond to the news of this discovery. The first words out of his mouth were a complaint, and they were that as a result of this discovery, his peers in physics and astronomy were rushing off to join the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang.

What encouraged me about Jeffrey’s statement was that even Jeffrey, as an atheist, recognized the equation, Big Bang = Jesus Christ. If you prove the Big Bang, you prove Jesus Christ. I want to briefly explain to you how that follows and I want to reveal something to you that leads to that.

Why Big Bang = Jesus Christ

It’s something that’s probably more beautiful than anything that you’ve ever seen living here in Illinois . Or for that matter California or where I grew up, British Colombia, which I think is the most beautiful place in the world.

I want to show you something that far transcends the beauty of even the scenery that we see on this planet Earth. [Shows Einstein's singularity equation.] But, then what could possibly transcend the beauty of equations of physics? For those of you who are starting to break out into a cold sweat, this will be gone in less than a minute and I’ll never show you another one again.

I thought that you might be curious of the equation that convinced Albert Einstein that God exists, that God created the universe. This equation falls under the theory of general relativity. For those of you who have a background in calculus, you’ll recognize this term here as an expression for acceleration.

What Einstein had done was to drive the equation for the acceleration of the entire universe. On the other side of the equation, you see four physical constants. I don’t really have to explain them to you, except to point out that they all have positive values.

Four well-known physical constants with positive values, yet there’s a minus sign in front. That immediately tells us that the entire universe experiences negative acceleration. The universe is decelerating. That was a tremendous challenge to the theology of his day because in the 200 years previous to Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity, academic scientific society was operating on the premise that the universe was static.

Belief in a Static Universe Led to Darwinian Evolution

That was really what fostered the birth of Darwinian evolution, the idea that the universe is static, infinitely old and infinitely large. Static, in that it maintained the conditions essential for elements to assemble themselves into living systems, as Emanuel Kant reasoned, long before Charles Darwin came up with a theory.

Emanuel Kant longed to come up with a theory of biological evolution but he didn’t have the biological data to develop it. Nevertheless, he laid the philosophical foundation that if the universe is infinitely old and infinitely large and static, maintaining the ideal chemical situation for life chemistry to proceed, then one can posit that the dice of chance is thrown an infinite number of times and in an infinite variety of ways.

If you have infinite throws at the dice of chance, then any matter of complexity would be conceivable – even something as complicated as a German philosopher. But this equation challenged that very notion by saying that the universe is not static; it decelerates.

Einstein was well aware that the term for pressure (P) in the universe is rather tiny compared to the term for mass density (represented by the Greek letter Rho ). It’s divided by a huge number – the velocity of light squared. You’ve got this extremely small number divided by a huge number. This means that for all intents and purposes, we can ignore that “3P/C²” relative to the density. We can drop that term out, and then we have something much simpler to solve.

Proof that the Universe is Not Static, but Expanding

It’s still a non-linear differential equation, so it’s not all that easy. But Einstein was able to perceive and demonstrate that, according to this equation, the universe not only decelerates, it positively expands. Hence, the Big Bang. How so? Normally, I demonstrate this for audiences by bringing a grenade, but they no longer let you take grenades on airplanes.

I only do that demonstration when I’m on TV or in California, so you’re just going to have to pretend that I’ve got a grenade here in front of me. If I were to pull the pin from the grenade, you’d feel a few effects. One being that the pieces of the grenade would expand outward from the pin. That’s positive expansion.

Those outwardly expanding pieces of the grenade would inevitably bump into obstacles into this room. When they collide with those obstacles, they slow down. That’s deceleration. After a grenade has exploded, a physicist could make measurements of the positions and the velocities of the pieces of shrapnel, and through the equation Velocity = Distance/Time, he could calculate the moment that the pin was pulled on the grenade.

We can do the same thing with the galaxies in the universe. We can measure their positions and their velocities and calculate the moment that the “pin” was pulled on the entire universe.

As Einstein pointed out, the significance is that the universe has this moment of pin pulling. It has a beginning. Through the principle of positive fact, if the universe has a beginning, it must have a beginner, hence the existence of God.

To his dying day, Einstein held to his belief that as the result of the verification of his theory of General Relativity, God exists. (Good book on Einstein’s extensive discussions of religion and theology: Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology by Max Jammer -Ed ) God created the universe and God is intelligent. Today, we don’t deny that God is personal. Einstein died too soon.

If he had lived to the late 1980′s, he’d have seen direct scientific proof for the personality of the creator. But he acknowledged as a result of the confirmations of his equations and his theory that God is transcendent. That God exists, he is intelligent, he is creative and he is responsible for the universe.

But he didn’t know the details of that transcendence. The details of that transcendence had to equate to a deeper solution of those equations of General Relativity. They are non-linear, which means they’re hard to solve.

Stephen Hawking and Friends Solve The Equation

By 1970, three British astrophysicists had combined to produce a deeper solution of the equations of General Relativity. They culminated the paper, The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology, published in 1970. You should all go get it – its exciting reading.

It closes with the Space-Time theorem of General Relativity, which states that if the universe is governed by the equations of General Relativity, not only are we faced with an ultimate origin, we are all of the matter in the universe, and all of the energy in the universe. But we’re faced with a coincident ultimate origin for even the dimensions of length, width, height and time.

Even Time Itself Was Created

As Steven Hawking, one of the three authors, boasted many years thereafter, we proved that time was created. We proved that time has a beginning. But through his contacts with certain Christians like his wife Jane, who’s an Anglican, as a friend of mine from Cal Tech, Don Page, who had daily Bible studies with Steven and Jane Hawking while he was doing research pointed out, if you prove that time has a beginning, that it was created, it eliminates all theological possibilities but Jesus Christ.

Of all world religions, only Judeo-Christian theology says Time has a beginning

Why? Because if you were to open up the Holy books of the religions of the world, only one of them would describe God as a being that creates the universe independent of time, space, matter and energy.

The other Holy books describe God as creating within time. The Bible states that God creates independent of time. That’s the difference.

Some verses that you might be familiar with: The first verse which states, “In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth…” The Hebrew words for heavens and Earth literally refer to the entire physical cosmos of matter, energy space and time. The universe.

Hebrews 11:3 makes it more specific stating, “The universe that we detect was made from that which we cannot detect.” We can make detections within matter, energy, length, width, height and time, but not beyond.

Eight places in the Bible tell us that God created time. I’ll give you two examples: 2 Timothy 1:9 which states, “The Grace of God that we now experience was put into effect before the beginning of time” and Titus 1:2 which states, “The hope that we have in Jesus Christ was given to us before the beginning of time.”

The three things that the Apostle Paul was saying in those two verses were that time is beginning, that God created the time dimension of our universe and, most importantly, that God has the capacity to operate through cause and effect before the time dimension of our universe even exists.

Your friendly neighborhood physicist will tell you that time is defined as that dimension or realm in which cause and effect phenomena take place. What the Apostle Paul is telling us in these two places and in the six other portions of Scripture, is that we are confined to a single dimension of time.

In fact it’s worse than that. We’re confined to half of a line of time. Time, for us, is a line that goes forward only. Have you ever noticed that you cannot stop or reverse the arrow of time? No matter what you do, it just keeps going forward in one direction.

Any entity confined to half of the line of time, must have a beginning and must be created. I can walk home tonight, and that’s it. It’s the simplest, most rigorous proof of the existence of God.

We’re confined, and the entire universe is confined to half of the line of time. Therefore, the universe must be created and we must be created. But God is not so confined.

When I present this evidence to atheists, their most frequent response is the same one I got from both of my sons when they were three years of age. It’s, “If God created us, then who created God?”

God: Not Confined by Time

My sons and the atheists are assuming that God is confined to time in the same way that we are. But the Bible and the equations of General Relativity tell us that the entity that brought the universe into existence is not confined in time like we are, or the way that the universe is.

God can move and operate in at least two dimensions of time. In two dimensions of time, time becomes a plane, like a sheet of paper, length and width. In a plane, you can have as many lines as you want and as many directions as you want.

It would be possible for God to dwell on a time line running through a sheet of paper that’s infinitely long, and that never crosses or touches the timeline of our universe. As such, God would have no beginning, no end and he would not be created. Sound familiar?


See rest of article here.

Hugh Ross – Origin of the Universe « Cosmic Fingerprints

 

[Divine Wind]

Do you understand where the flat earth got it's start ? Do you know who started that thinking ?

I know one source, a book that says you can see the entire planet from a tall hill.


Care to guess which book that is?

The Koran?

Answers to Creationists

 

[Youwerecreated]

The earth was created in 7 days. I know because I went here: Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview | Creation Museum

No one knows how long the days of creation were. The Hebrew word day means span of time that time has never been defined.

Really? I thought we were supposed to take Genesis literally! If it's the case that 'days' don't mean 'days', then what's the problem with evolution being God's method of creation?

You are thinking like a human it was not a human providing the story.

And there are many things that are not literal in the bible.