Forum Comments

Dinosaur DNA?
In Open Forum
burrawang
Commentator
Commentator
Oct 12, 2020
Dinosaur DNA should not exist after 65 million years. In fact Dinosaur DNA should not exist even after ten thousand years. The widely recognised and now non-disputed demonstrable fact is that it does exist! The most obvious clear straightforward explanation is that the assumption that it is 65 million years old is incorrect. The time frame outlined in the Bible is wholly consistent with Dinosaur DNA existing inside Dinosaur bones today and as the world-wide collection of Dinosaur DNA is rapidly increasing. The only rational, sensible conclusion is that Dinosaurs were alive not very long ago. Again, evolution is a falsified theory through what we now know from the science discipline of Genetics. Evolution only remains in place because and only because of the religious zeal of its adherents; i.e. those people that will defend evolution no matter what is rigorously proven that falsifies it. I believe that this is because they are not willing in their hearts to recognise that the Living God of the Bible exists and there is no other cogent alternative theory on offer, so evolution is their only choice, even after it has been falsified. Many of evolution's loyal followers refuse to accept that Jesus is the Creator, our Saviour and our Lord. They do this despite the clear implications from discoveries like Dinosaur DNA and Genetic Entropy that again clearly demonstrate that the Biblical time frame can be trusted. The evolution believers ignore the fact that the Biblical time frame is absolutely consistent with rigorously performed, repeatable operational science, empirically obtained results from the analysis of soft tissue in Dinosaur Bones that show Dinosaur DNA fragments have survived and also in Genetics that unambiguously demonstrates that the mutation rate is way far too rapid for life to have existed for as long as we are expected to believe as told by the followers of evolution that count evolution in billions of years in an attempt to make particles to people evolution plausible.
1
1
Dinosaur DNA?
In Open Forum
burrawang
Commentator
Commentator
Oct 11, 2020
windar12q, I hope that you are able to watch the whole documentary before it ends early on Monday morning in your part of the globe. In advance I apologise if this offends you but what you have written makes no sense to me at all and is clearly not based on empirical science of any shape or form. It is crystal clear to me that all people are aware of the existence of God through what has been created though denial and unbelief in God's existence causes a blindness to what is plainly seen. It is exceedingly obvious that everything has been purposefully designed but it is in man’s heart, that the denial of God manifests, such that those that choose not to believe in God’s existence will replace God with any number of alternatives to fill the void, just as long as they don’t have to acknowledge God’s existence! Many use their intellect, historical science (through a biased worldview), eastern mysticism, new age beliefs, astrology, money, greed, selfishness, you name it, whatever comes to their fancy people will use to refuse to recognise the one and only Living God who created this universe, time and us and who is holding it all in existence right now. It is a spiritual matter, the intellectual arguments can only go so far to lead a person to the truth, but in the end it is always between God and the person. God knows everyone’s heart. He alone is the Saviour of humanity, just as He is also the Creator of humanity. I sincerely hope and pray that you will come know the Lord Jesus who loves you and died on the cross for all of us and paid the penalty of death that His righteousness demands, He alone is faithful and true. Ultimately the decision to believe or disbelieve in God and His free gift of Salvation has eternal consequences for every one of us in the family of man.
0
1
Dinosaur DNA?
In Open Forum
burrawang
Commentator
Commentator
Oct 10, 2020
Hi ekrause1406, I was impressed likewise by the Adam and Eve historical timeline account in the Bible being consistent with what we are now able to see in Genetics. I also liked the section on Genome deterioration. Geneticist, Dr. John Sanford coined the relatively new term Genetic Entropy to describe the incessant build up of mutational errors in the DNA that are not removed by natural selection because most of their effects are neutral or far too small to be selected out of the population, thus they persist each generation causing an ever increasing loss of specified complexity in the genomes of all life on this amazing planet; this is the exact opposite of what is required for evolution to be a plausible theory let alone even possible. This scientifically derived irrefutable fact effectively falsifies evolution. A shopkeeper that loses money on every transaction won't stay in business very long; likewise a genome that constantly loses complex specified information at the conservative rate quoted in the film of only 100 point (single nucleotide letters) mutations per generation will become less fit quite rapidly and eventually will become extinct. This is precisely what is being observed by geneticists all over the globe. Any competent geneticist that has access to modern equipment for reading DNA code in samples can repeat the analysis and arrive at the same obvious conclusion. There is absolutely no way around this fact. Evolution is a falsified theory. Of course the devout followers of the 'evolution religion' will not accept this fact and will do as they have always done, will move the goalposts, massage the theory and try and explain it all away with yet another dreamed up 'just so story', but nonetheless the rigorously derived and repeatable scientific facts are now available for all to see. I have often wondered if the increase in the list of genetic diseases that now stands at around 250 diseases/disorders is caused by the inexorably increasing genetic burden that affects us all. If it is the case that this increase is due to the genetic entropy in our genomes, which I believe is highly likely, then the future for mankind is not at all positive from a genetic perspective. The beginning of this decay of our genetic material began at the fall in the garden of Eden. As a consequence Adam and Eve would have started out with perfect genomes, no errors at all. Since that time the genomes of all humanity has been deteriorating towards error catastrophe that lies at some point in the future and this is exactly what we are observing right now in the present; a steady decline in complex specified information on the genomes of all living things on Earth. The only solution is of course, Salvation through Jesus Christ our Creator, our Lord and Saviour. The Bible can be trusted as the inerrant God breathed Word of truth that it is from Genesis to Revelation. I'm reminded of the wonderful words in the song, "Jesus is the Answer for the world today, above Him there's no other, Jesus is the way"!!! Yes ekrause1406, geneticist Dr. Robert Carter sums it up very well, "interesting".
0
0
Dinosaur DNA?
In Open Forum
burrawang
Commentator
Commentator
Oct 08, 2020
Hi windar12q, thank you for your good wishes. I haven't as yet seen the film but it will be released tomorrow, that is Friday Australian Eastern Daylight Time at 3:00 pm, so I'll hold on any comments until after I've viewed the documentary that has been made by several well respected scientists who have large numbers of published peer reviewed papers and patents one of the scientists is a world leading Geneticist who has been a Professor at Cornell University for over 25 years. I am really looking forward to hearing the latest rigorously performed repeatable science that falsifies evolution in all its forms and permutations as an impossible process that should be relegated back to the century around the 1850's where it belongs as another of man's feeble attempts to explain origins without God; which of course is futile, because it is clear to all from what has been created that the one and only Living God exists and is right now holding the whole of creation in existence. Whether individuals admit it to themselves or not they know God exists! Natural selection is a real phenomenon, but it only results in differential reproduction within a population, it does not , I repeat does NOT create novel information. As I have stated many times previously, at best natural selection can be looked upon as having a conservative function that to a very small degree slows the inexorable loss of complex specified genetic information every generation in the genomes of all life on this planet. It cannot do anything more than that. The bait and switch usage of natural selection by evolutionists as some sort of magic bullet that, hey presto, explains evolution is a shameful and deceitful fraud that needs to be called out every time it is employed to hoodwink the masses, a ploy which it has used unfortunately successfully I must add, for far too long. This new documentary will set the record straight once and for all. Any competent Geneticist from anywhere around the world can repeat the experiments to verify the clear fact that evolution is a scientifically falsified theory.
1
1
How Did Life Originate?
In Discussion Questions
burrawang
Commentator
Commentator
Oct 08, 2020
Hi Jonathan and All, I thoroughly recommend watching this strikingly revealing film: - 'Dismantled Evolution' -- ‘A Scientific Deconstruction of the Theory of Evolution’ There will be a FREE one-time weekend premiere of this movie that can only be viewed at any time BETWEEN 3:00 PM on Friday, Oct 9 to 2:59 PM on Monday, Oct 12 (Australian AEDT) NOTE: Times for other countries are listed at the short Film Trailer link below; but in all countries it will be available to watch for free this weekend. A short Film Trailer is at: https://creation.com/dismantled-movie From the page at the link, the following text can be found: - A scientific deconstruction of evolution Education systems and the media have repeatedly told us that humans and all living creatures evolved from a single-celled organism through random copying errors in the DNA (called mutations) and the reproductive filter of natural selection. This allegedly occurred over billions of years through unguided natural processes. Furthermore, we are told that the fossil record leaves no doubt that mankind evolved from ape-like creatures. Famous atheists like Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye tell us that we need to face the facts—we’re nothing more than an organized assemblage of biomolecules: there is no ultimate basis for morality, no ultimate meaning to life, no free will, and no life after death; humans have no soul and we will never stand before God to give an account for our lives. As Dawkins says, “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” But what if the story we’ve been told about our alleged evolutionary ancestry is wrong, and the latest findings from modern genetics effectively falsify it? Would you believe it? The documentary can only be viewed for free at the same link this weekend only. https://creation.com/dismantled-movie Regards, Burrawang
0
0
Dinosaur DNA?
In Open Forum
burrawang
Commentator
Commentator
Oct 08, 2020
Hi All, I thoroughly recommend watching this strikingly revealing film: - 'Dismantled Evolution' -- ‘A Scientific Deconstruction of the Theory of Evolution’ There will be a FREE one-time weekend premiere of this movie that can only be viewed at anytime BETWEEN 3:00 PM on Friday, Oct 9 to 2:59 PM on Monday, Oct 12 (Australian AEDT) NOTE: Times for other countries are listed at the short Film Trailer link below; but in all countries it will be available to watch for free this weekend. A short Film Trailer is at: https://creation.com/dismantled-movie From the page at the link, the following text can be found: - A scientific deconstruction of evolution Education systems and the media have repeatedly told us that humans and all living creatures evolved from a single-celled organism through random copying errors in the DNA (called mutations) and the reproductive filter of natural selection. This allegedly occurred over billions of years through unguided natural processes. Furthermore, we are told that the fossil record leaves no doubt that mankind evolved from ape-like creatures. Famous atheists like Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye tell us that we need to face the facts—we’re nothing more than an organized assemblage of biomolecules: there is no ultimate basis for morality, no ultimate meaning to life, no free will, and no life after death; humans have no soul and we will never stand before God to give an account for our lives. As Dawkins says, “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” But what if the story we’ve been told about our alleged evolutionary ancestry is wrong, and the latest findings from modern genetics effectively falsify it?  Would you believe it? The documentary can only be viewed for free at the same link this weekend only. https://creation.com/dismantled-movie
1
1
A few thousand not billions of years since creation.
In Open Forum
burrawang
Commentator
Commentator
Oct 08, 2020
Hi All, I thoroughly recommend watching this strikingly revealing film: - 'Dismantled Evolution' -- ‘A Scientific Deconstruction of the Theory of Evolution’ There will be a FREE one-time weekend premiere of this movie that can only be viewed at anytime BETWEEN 3:00 PM on Friday, Oct 9 to 2:59 PM on Monday, Oct 12 (Australian AEDT) NOTE: Times for other countries are listed at the short Film Trailer link below; but in all countries it will be available to watch for free this weekend. A short Film Trailer is at: https://creation.com/dismantled-movie From the page at the link, the following text can be found: - A scientific deconstruction of evolution Education systems and the media have repeatedly told us that humans and all living creatures evolved from a single-celled organism through random copying errors in the DNA (called mutations) and the reproductive filter of natural selection. This allegedly occurred over billions of years through unguided natural processes. Furthermore, we are told that the fossil record leaves no doubt that mankind evolved from ape-like creatures. Famous atheists like Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye tell us that we need to face the facts—we’re nothing more than an organized assemblage of biomolecules: there is no ultimate basis for morality, no ultimate meaning to life, no free will, and no life after death; humans have no soul and we will never stand before God to give an account for our lives. As Dawkins says, “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” But what if the story we’ve been told about our alleged evolutionary ancestry is wrong, and the latest findings from modern genetics effectively falsify it?  Would you believe it? The documentary can only be viewed for free at the same link this weekend only. https://creation.com/dismantled-movie
0
0
The Creation According To BioLogos
In Open Forum
burrawang
Commentator
Commentator
Oct 08, 2020
Hi All, I thoroughly recommend watching this strikingly revealing film: - 'Dismantled Evolution' -- ‘A Scientific Deconstruction of the Theory of Evolution’ There will be a FREE one-time weekend premiere of this movie that can only be viewed at anytime BETWEEN 3:00 PM on Friday, Oct 9 to 2:59 PM on Monday, Oct 12 (Australian AEDT) NOTE: Times for other countries are listed at the short Film Trailer link below; but in all countries it will be available to watch for free this weekend. A short Film Trailer is at: https://creation.com/dismantled-movie From the page at the link, the following text can be found: - A scientific deconstruction of evolution Education systems and the media have repeatedly told us that humans and all living creatures evolved from a single-celled organism through random copying errors in the DNA (called mutations) and the reproductive filter of natural selection. This allegedly occurred over billions of years through unguided natural processes. Furthermore, we are told that the fossil record leaves no doubt that mankind evolved from ape-like creatures. Famous atheists like Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye tell us that we need to face the facts—we’re nothing more than an organized assemblage of biomolecules: there is no ultimate basis for morality, no ultimate meaning to life, no free will, and no life after death; humans have no soul and we will never stand before God to give an account for our lives. As Dawkins says, “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” But what if the story we’ve been told about our alleged evolutionary ancestry is wrong, and the latest findings from modern genetics effectively falsify it?  Would you believe it? The documentary can only be viewed for free at the same link this weekend only. https://creation.com/dismantled-movie
0
0
EVOLUTION IS FALSIFIED - DISMANTLED DOCUMENTARY
In Open Forum
burrawang
Commentator
Commentator
Oct 08, 2020
Hi All, I thoroughly recommend watching this strikingly revealing film: - 'Dismantled Evolution' -- ‘A Scientific Deconstruction of the Theory of Evolution’ There will be a FREE one-time weekend premiere of this movie that can only be viewed at anytime BETWEEN 3:00 PM on Friday, Oct 9 to 2:59 PM on Monday, Oct 12 (Australian AEDT) NOTE: Times for other countries are listed at the short Film Trailer link below; but in all countries it will be available to watch for free this weekend. A short Film Trailer is at: https://creation.com/dismantled-movie From the page at the link, the following text can be found: - A scientific deconstruction of evolution Education systems and the media have repeatedly told us that humans and all living creatures evolved from a single-celled organism through random copying errors in the DNA (called mutations) and the reproductive filter of natural selection. This allegedly occurred over billions of years through unguided natural processes. Furthermore, we are told that the fossil record leaves no doubt that mankind evolved from ape-like creatures. Famous atheists like Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye tell us that we need to face the facts—we’re nothing more than an organized assemblage of biomolecules: there is no ultimate basis for morality, no ultimate meaning to life, no free will, and no life after death; humans have no soul and we will never stand before God to give an account for our lives. As Dawkins says, “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” But what if the story we’ve been told about our alleged evolutionary ancestry is wrong, and the latest findings from modern genetics effectively falsify it?  Would you believe it? The documentary can only be viewed for free at the same link this weekend only. https://creation.com/dismantled-movie
1
0
Win A Copy Of "The Language of God" By Francis Collins
In Open Forum
burrawang
Commentator
Commentator
Apr 14, 2020
Hi Jonathan, I am most definitely not interested in winning this book because the author has to a large degree, a compromised view of the Bible, as he is a self-confessed theistic evolutionist, which is a view that is contrary to the plain reading of scripture, such as the historical account of origins in Genesis that is demonstrably written as historical narrative, that it is plain history of what really happened when God created, and 24 hour days were literal 24 hour days.. As the Creator Himself, our Lord Jesus is recorded as believing the account of origins in Genesis as historical fact to be literally believed, I see no reason to believe otherwise. Indeed Jesus warned in, John 5:46-47 King James Version (KJV) 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? An excellent review of this book by Lael Weinberger was published over a decade ago in the 'Journal of Creation' 21 (1) pages 33 – 37 in April 2007. The downloadable pdf of this article with nearly a full page of references to the text can be found at: - https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_33-37.pdf and the article is also published as a web page at: - https://creation.com/harmony-and-discord-a-review-of-francis-collins-book-the-language-of-god This book review below is also pasted below for any who are unable for any reason to access or download this book review: - Harmony and discord A review of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins The Free Press, New York, 2006 by Lael Weinberger Francis Collins is one of the world’s leading geneticists, well known for heading the Human Genome Project (and bringing it to a successful completion ahead of schedule and under budget). He is also a Christian, who came to faith as an adult finishing his second doctorate. He has written this book out of a deep concern over the common misconception that faith and science are incompatible. Nothing could be further from the truth, he says, and begins by presenting some of his personal saga. Personal story Collins was not raised in a ‘religious’ home—even when he was sent to a local church choir to learn music, his parents admonished him to beware of the theology! Indifference toward religion matured into outspoken scepticism in college. After completing a doctorate in chemistry at Yale he went on to medical school, and there decided to research the topic of religion, to make sure his atheistic beliefs were well grounded. He came in contact with the writings of C.S. Lewis, and for the first time encountered a reasoned case for faith. He came away from his study with the opinion that it was more reasonable to believe than to disbelieve in the existence of God, and that agnosticism was simply fence sitting. Collins rests his personal story at this point, and goes on to consider the arguments regarding God’s existence. Moral Law The argument which most impressed Collins was Lewis’ exposition of the ‘Moral Law’ case for the existence of God. The argument runs something like this: (a) All men have some sense of right and wrong. (b) Naturalism cannot explain (a). (c) Therefore, something outside nature is responsible for (a). Collins spends most of his time defending (b). He focuses on the issue of altruism and sociobiology’s claim to naturalistically explain this phenomenon. Even if sociobiology is correct that altruism among ants is with the purpose of preserving their own genes, Collins suggests that this same argument breaks down when applied to complex populations (p. 28). ‘Furthermore, for the evolutionary argument about group benefits of altruism to hold, it would seem to require … hostility to individuals outside the group’ (p. 28). While there is room for debate both as to Lewis’ formulation of the case and Collins’ supporting arguments, it is nevertheless good to see such a prominent figure as Collins willing to present arguments against sociobiology’s reductionism.1 Objections and answers Collins uncritically accepts the standard evolutionary account of the cosmos, except that he suggests that the addition of God into the story may help solve additional questions about ‘what came before the Big Bang’. This sounds curiously like the god-of-the-gaps theology he later (inaccurately) accuses creationists of holding to. Collins next responds to several objections to belief in God, which were important for him in his life. He responds to the notions, first, that God is a delusion for wish fulfillment, and second, that God is discredited by evils committed in the name of religion. Collins’ answers are good, but lack detail because at this point he is merely defending a general belief in God, not Christianity in particular. Third, Collins tackles the problem of pain and suffering. He settles rather uncomfortably on the position that suffering is necessary to build moral character. This fails to answer the basic problem, why would a good God create us in such a way as to require suffering to achieve moral perfection? This problem can only be answered by a proper interpretation of the Fall, which recognizes that pain and suffering were not created by God as part of his ‘very good’ creation, but were rather a consequence of the Fall. Sadly, ‘suffering is necessary’ is the position that theistic evolutionists are often forced to adopt, showing how a failure to appreciate the historical Fall of man in Genesis 3 cripples effective apologetics. Fourth, Collins deals with whether miracles are rational. Collins rightly points out that ‘a discussion about the miraculous quickly devolves to an argument about whether or not one is willing to consider any possibility whatsoever of the supernatural’ (p. 51). An atheistic worldview by definition rejects the possibility of miracles,2 and the opposite is true for theists. At this point, Collins fails to note a key point as to why an atheist and a theist can agree about some science (such as the cause of the tides) and yet disagree over other scientific issues (how old the seas, beaches and moon are)—there is a difference between operational science and origins science. Creationists can agree with Collins’ comments on miracles where he cautions, ‘… it is crucial that a healthy skepticism be applied when interpreting potentially miraculous events, lest the integrity and rationality of the religion perspective be brought into question’ (p. 51). But it would have been helpful if Collins had pointed out that there is a difference between accepting God’s authoritative revelation when it speaks of specific miracles on the one hand, and applying scientific (as well as biblical) evaluation to uninspired claims of supernatural activity on the other hand.3 Failure to distinguish these situations causes confusion because it tends to mix origins science with operational science.4Confusion on this point is typical of anti-creationist literature,5and hints at problems to come. Big bang Using the topic of miracles and natural law6 as a bridge, Collins dives into science and origins. Collins uncritically accepts and summarizes the standard big bang story (pp. 71–78),7 then discusses the Anthropic Principle. Collins suggests that there are essentially ‘three possible responses to the Anthropic Principle’: (1) there exists a virtually infinite number of universes (a ‘multiverse’), and we happen to live in the one suited to life; (2) we live in a lucky universe suited for life; or (3) we live in a universe precisely tuned for life by a creator.8 Collins certainly prefers option (3) and throws out a few arguments against the first two, but tries hard to avoid dogmatism. He concludes that ‘… there is nothing inherently in conflict between the idea of a creator God and what science had revealed. In fact, the God hypothesis solves … questions about what came before the Big Bang, and why the universe seems to be so exquisitely tuned for us to be here’ (p. 81). The problem is that the big bang is incompatible with what God has said that He did, and Collins brings up the Genesis-as-poetry position, a theme he returns to later. Origin of life … the only people who invoke a ‘god of the gaps’ argument are evolutionists knocking down creationist straw men; creationists actually appeal to what we do know about chemistry, biology and information theory. Collins continues the mainstream evolutionary story of the origin of life. He believes faith was needlessly damaged when science produced a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe. He says faith should not be shaken by the revelation that modern biology can explain life naturalistically. However, not only is it untrue that the universe is ‘explained’ by naturalism9 (Collins himself was cognizant of at least a few of the gaps left by the big bang), but, as we find out from Collins’ discussion, the origin of life is far from having a naturalistic solution. Collins’ account includes the Miller–Urey experiment10 and amino acids on meteorites11 as the high points of origin-of-life research: ‘Beyond this point, the details become quite sketchy’ (p. 90). As both of the high points are quite unhelpful toward explaining a naturalistic origin of life, the rest must be ‘sketchy’ indeed. Collins concludes that no ‘naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is at hand’, but he warns against inserting God into the gap of scientific knowledge, as he expects the gap to be closed sometime in the future (pp. 92–93). However, the only people who invoke a ‘god of the gaps’ argument are evolutionists knocking down creationist straw men; creationists actually appeal to what we do know about chemistry, biology and information theory. Fossils Collins gives a cursory overview of the fossil record, claiming that the order is what you would expect from evolution,12 and that ‘missing links’ are not good arguments against evolution because they are arguments from ignorance. He does not consider that the choppy fossil record is exactly what a creation model would predict, or that Darwin thought that the fossil record should be full of the links, and agreed that their absence was a serious objection to the theory. Collins claims that whales are an example of a species where the transitional fossils have filled in the gaps, but he does not respond to creationist criticisms of the proposed intermediate sequence.13 Evolution and DNA Collins marvels that Darwin proposed natural selection before the discovery of its mechanism, DNA, and states that this is a remarkable confirmation of evolution. Actually, this was a confirmation of natural selection, and natural selection only. Creationists of course accept natural selection.14 Collins goes on to give a description of DNA—his specialty—and concludes that there are more reasons than ever to be in awe of God’s work in nature. That is certainly true; but what is inspiring is the true (operational) science of DNA, not molecules-to-man evolution, for which Collins has provided no new arguments. Collins tells the story of his own work in genetics in chapter 6, culminating in the Human Genome Project. We can rejoice with him in the great new window this opened for him on God’s creation. Unfortunately, Collins takes this opportunity to fill the rest of the chapter with standard Darwinian arguments. He views the similarities between genomes and the genetic phylogenies as great confirmations of evolution, pseudogenes as problems for creationists and non-functional (‘junk’) DNA stretches as evidence of common descent (but by the same reasoning, it is curious that theistic evolutionists are never bothered that their god left junk DNA and faulty genes in the genome). On this last count, Collins does cautiously note that perhaps ‘our discounting of them as “junk DNA” just betrays our current level of ignorance’ (p. 136). These so-called pseudogenes likely have much more functionality than was originally supposed;15 but, even supposing that much of the ‘junk’ DNA does turn out to be nonfunctional, this could simply be the result of decay since the Fall,16 and thus cannot be conclusive either for or against evolution. The genetic phylogenies argument for evolution (including the similarities in pseudogenes or ‘silent genes’) is also problematic, for sometimes the genetic phylogenies cross the evolutionary phylogenetic lines.17 Getting the facts straight After establishing his strong belief in evolution, Collins sets down several possible ways to react to the interface of science and faith. Before he gets into the specifics, we already know where he’s heading: he frequently quotes Augustine (pp. 83, 152, 156), claiming him for a ‘loose’ interpretation of Genesis, and also mentions Galileo and the geocentric controversy in several places (pp. 59, 85, 153–156) as a lesson against literalist construction of Scripture. First, it should be pointed out that Augustine was a convinced young-earth creationist even though he did allegorize other aspects of the creation account,18 so he does not quite fit the role into which Collins is pushing him. Second, the Galileo example has problems as to both the history and the theology that Collins is referring to. From a historical perspective, the geocentric controversy was more the result of an unhealthy reading of Aristotle into the Bible than it was the result of misreading Scripture itself,19 and the conflict between Galileo and the church was not on biblical grounds at all.20 From a theological perspective, Collins has set up a straw man, making it appear as if creationists have no understanding that there are metaphors and poetry in the Bible; we certainly recognize this, but we argue that a proper hermeneutic requires that Genesis be understood as history rather than poetry.21 Atheism The first option for dealing with evolution and Genesis is atheism, which is when ‘science trumps faith’, Collins says (p. 159). Collins ends up quoting none other than Stephen Jay Gould to the effect that science is not able to adjudicate the question of God’s existence. The problem with Gould (which Collins glosses over) is that he reaches his conclusion only by stating that religion (God) never interacts with the physical world. Ironically, a profile of Collins himself, in the anti-Christian Scientific American, praised him because he ‘strives to keep his Christianity from interfering with his science and politics’22 (but they never have a problem when antitheists let their atheistic religion dictate their science and politics). Creationism Collins joins a host of other writers in citing Galileo’s conflict with church leaders as a warning against allowing Scripture to influence science. However, a careful examination reveals that this popular form of the Galileo story is not historically accurate. The second option is young-earth creationism (YEC), which is when ‘faith trumps science’, according to Collins (p. 171). Collins appears superficially familiar with YEC arguments: fossils formed during the Flood, radioactive decay rates have not been constant, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics precludes evolution (p. 173). Collins brushes off all these arguments without argument, and without as much as a footnote for more in-depth treatment. Obviously, he is not to be bothered by actually refuting creationist arguments, perhaps indicating that he is not well-read on the subject. Within a few pages, he states that YEC proponents have spent the ‘last half century’ attempting to refute evolution, and in frustration, ‘some YEC advocates have more recently taken the tack of arguing that all of this evidence has been designed by God to mislead us, and therefore test our faith’ (p. 176). Once again, Collins’ lack of references is annoying, for I would be intensely curious to see to whom Collins is referring. Certainly there is no one who says this in the mainstream of creation research and ministry; it sounds more like Neo-Platonists23 than any creationists I have ever heard of. Tossing in a bizarre minority position, with no evidence that anyone holds this, appears to be a ‘guilt by association’ and ‘poisoning the well’ tactic for marginalizing creationists as a whole into a lunatic fringe. Intelligent Design The third option is Intelligent Design (ID), which is when ‘science needs divine help,’ according to Collins. Collins takes ID’s arguments seriously, and delineates three propositions which he believes are basic to ID. First, evolution is atheistic and theists should oppose it; second, evolution cannot account for the ‘intricate complexity of nature’; third, if evolution cannot explain the complexity of nature, then there must be a designer ‘who stepped in to provide the necessary components during the course of evolution’ (pp. 183–186). (ID advocates would object to the arrangement of these points, as it tends to emphasize the religious rather than scientific side of ID.) Collins then focuses in to critique ‘irreducible complexity’, a concept he believes confuses the ‘unknown with the unknowable’ (p. 188). Collins’ arguments (discussing blood clotting, the eye, and the bacterial flagellum) are mostly based on the unreliable Ken Miller.24 Collins theologically objects to ID in that it, first, creates a ‘God of the gaps’, and second, implies the Creator must have been ‘clumsy’ to have to keep intervening throughout geologic time to make his creatures turn out right. From a YEC perspective as well, theological grounds are the weak spot for ID, because by intentionally avoiding the identity of the ‘designer’ they have nowhere to turn for answers. When we are operating from a biblical standpoint, however, the geologic timescales disappear, and the ‘God of the gaps’ problem evaporates. As Alvin Plantinga has explained, the ‘God of the gaps’ is deistic, not Christian, for it postulates a basically naturalistic world and only invokes God at certain awkward points (a ‘large scale hypothesis to explain what cannot be explained otherwise, i.e. naturalistically’25). ‘BioLogos’ Collins finally considers theistic evolution, which he believes is ‘science and faith in harmony’. He thinks that theistic evolution would be much more popular if it only received as much publicity as the more ‘divisive’ creationists and ID advocates, and Collins suggests a new name, ‘BioLogos’, to improve theistic evolution’s appeal (p. 203). He says that he has found theistic evolution a ‘satisfying’ and ‘consistent synthesis’ of faith and science (p. 200). Collins reports that this view avoids the pitfalls of the other views, such as ‘God of the gaps’ arguments, by dealing with the questions which science was not intended to answer anyway (p. 204). He fails to note that a robust theism which allows God any involvement in His creation will impinge on the realm of science at some point; Collins’ own Moral Law argument, for example, intrudes into the realm of sociobiology. There is no way to relegate religion and science into separate domains of ‘respectful noninterference ’26 without turning God into something even less than a deist’s deity. The only question is, will we accept God’s revelation of where He has directly acted in the world, or will we arbitrarily pick and choose where we can accept God’s action (for example creation of a Moral Law, but not of man’s mind itself)? Collins does not deal with the perennial problems for theistic evolution, namely, the problem of death before sin, and the problem of theodicy for a deity using evolution.27 Collins does address the objection, ‘Doesn’t a compromise of Genesis 1 and 2start the believer down a slippery slope, ultimately resulting in the denial of the fundamental truths of God and His miraculous actions?’ (p. 209). He responds, ‘While there is clear danger in unrestrained forms of “liberal” theology that eviscerate the real truths of faith, mature observers are used to living on slippery slopes and deciding where to place a sensible stopping point’ (p. 209). But then the question becomes whether it is ‘sensible’ to stop where the theistic evolutionist Christian stops. Can one consistently reject the Genesis account as history while still holding to such a basic essential as the Resurrection, for example?28 Collins also fails to explain how the rest of the Bible treats the people, events, timeframes and sequences as real history, not myth or allegory.29 This is a serious problem for Christian theistic evolution proponents. Personal message In his final chapter Collins returns to his personal odyssey. After coming to the conclusion that there was a God, Collins recalls, ‘I spent considerable time trying to discern His characteristics’ (p. 219). After some time of considering his options, he was finally most impressed by the perfection that God must possess, and Collins’ inability to meet that standard of perfection. ‘Into this deepening gloom came the person of Jesus Christ’ (p. 220). Collins then explains the claims of Christ, His redemptive sacrifice, and the way it all fit together to make sense to him (although overlooking the connection of ‘the Last Adam’ coming to conquer death, ‘the last enemy’, brought by ‘the first man, Adam’ in 1 Cor. 15:21–22, 26, 45). Collins concludes with a personal note to readers. He encourages believers that science and faith are compatible and that faith makes sense; he challenges sceptics to consider the arguments for God and faith. ‘Don’t put off a consideration of these questions of eternal significance until some personal crisis or advancing age forces a recognition of spiritual impoverishment’ (pp. 132–133). Conclusion All Christians, creationists included, can find much to like in The Language of God. Collins’ personal story is fascinating. His intention in writing the book is excellent: to spread the word that faith is reasonable. Like Collins, we want to see an end to the widespread false impression that faith and science are incompatible. However, we must sadly conclude that most of Collins’ arguments—his means to the laudable ends that we all want to further—are going down the wrong path. Instead of creating a harmony between faith and science, theistic evolution subsumes the authority of Scripture to the authority of the latest scientific paper, leaving philosophical confusion in its wake. References For development of the moral argument, see Craig, W.L., The Indispensability of Theological Meta-ethical Foundations for Morality, Foundations 5:9–12, 1997, 13 December 2006; and Sarfati, J., Bomb-building vs the biblical foundation, 24 December 2004. But ironically, atheism cannot provide an epistemological basis for believing in uniformity of nature, while Christian theism does: see Sarfati, J, Correcting a severe misconception about the creation model, 31 December 2004, and Sarfati, J., Miracles and science, 1 September 2006. See as an example Sarfati, J., Near death experiences? What should Christians think? 11 July 2000. For further discussion, see Sarfati, J., Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’? <www.creation.com/naturalism>; Batten, D., ‘It’s not science’, 28 February 2002, <www.creation.com/notscience>; Sarfati, ref. 2. See Steel, A., The tower with many flaws: A review of Tower of Babel: the evidence against the New Creationism by Robert T. Pennock, Journal of Creation 14(2):41–46, 2000. Note that in a biblical worldview, there is no dichotomy between miracles and natural law that entails that only the former is God acting: natural law is our description of God’s ordinary way of sustaining creation, and miracles are our description of His extraordinary involvements in His creation (Colossians 1:15–17). Collins does not even acknowledge that there could be scientific objection to the big bang cosmology, but see Hartnett, J., and Williams, A., Dismantling the Big Bang, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2005. It seems that it would have been easier to say ‘designed for life’, but Collins seems to go out of his way to avoid using the catchword ‘design,’ lest he be linked to the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. ID has been a major proponent of the Anthropic Principle as an argument for design in the book and documentary, The Privileged Planet. See Henry, J., Designing the earth without a designer: A review of The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, Journal of Creation 18(3):58–60, 2004. See Hartnett and Williams, ref. 7. The experiment, rather than showing how life could have formed, instead did more to highlight the problems with abiogenesis. Bergman, J., Why the Miller–Urey experiment argues against abiogenesis, Journal of Creation 18(2):28–36, 2004. This is trivial for origin-of-life research, because the building blocks themselves are unstable for forming life. Sarfati, J., Origin of life: instability of building blocks, Journal of Creation 13(2):124–127, 1999. But see Woodmorappe, J., The fossil record: becoming more random all the time, Journal of Creation 14(1):110–116, 2000. Sarfati, J., Refuting Evolution, chapter 5, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1999; Sarfati, J., Refuting Evolution 2, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, pp. 135–142, 2002; Woodmorappe, J., Walking whales, nested hierarchies, and chimeras: do they exist? Journal of Creation 16(1):111–119, 2002; Gish, D.T., Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, pp. 198–207, 1995. Years before Darwin published, creationist Edward Blyth authored publications describing natural selection in 1835 and 1837. Eiseley, L., Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the theory of natural selection, Proceeding of the American Philosophical Society 103(1):94–114, 1959, reprinted in Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X: New Light on the Evolutionists, E.P. Dutton, New York, 45–80, 1979. See further Walkup, L.K., ‘Junk’ DNA: evolutionary discards or God’s tools? Journal of Creation 14(2):18–30, 2000; Woodmorappe, J., Pseudogene function: regulation of gene expression, Journal of Creation 17(1):47–52, 2003; Woodmorappe, J., Pseudogene function: more evidence, Journal of Creation 17(2):15–18, 2003. Walkup, ref. 15. Woodmorappe, J., Are pseudogenes ‘shared mistakes’ between primate genomes? Journal of Creation 14(3):55–71, 2000; Woodmorappe, J., Potentially decisive evidence against pseudogene ‘shared mistakes’, Journal of Creation 18(3):63–69, 2004. Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, chapter 3, 2004. See Faulkner, D., Geocentrism and creation, Journal of Creation 15(2):110–121, 2001. Also see the essay by Russell Grigg, The Galileo ‘twist’, Creation 19(4):30–32, 1997, which turns Collins’ lesson from the Galileo affair on its head. Schirrmacher, T., The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography? Journal of Creation 14(1):91–100, 2000. Sarfati, J., ref. 18, chapter 1; Ham, K., Wieland, C., and Mortenson, T., Are (biblical) creationists ‘cornered’? Journal of Creation 17(3):43–50, 2003. Beardsley, T., Where science and religion meet, Scientific American 278(2):18–20, February 1998. See Rudwick, M.J.S., The Meaning of Fossils, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 33–35, 1985. On Miller generally, see Woodmorappe, J. and Sarfati, J., Mutilating Miller: A review of Finding Darwin’s God, by Kenneth R. Miller, Journal of Creation 15(3):29–35, 2001. For specific responses to his arguments on irreducible complexity, see Behe, M.J., In defense of the irreducibility of the blood clotting cascade, 31 July 2000; Behe, M.J., A true acid test: A response to Ken Miller, 31 July 2000. See also DiSilvestro, R., Rebuttals to common criticisms of the book Darwin’s Black Box, 9 August 2006. Plantinga, A., Methodological naturalism? Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49(3):148–149. Borrowing the terms from Gould, S.J., Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, Ballantine, New York, p. 5, 1999. For an overview, see Ham, K., The god of an old earth, Creation 21(4):42–45, 1999, and Batten, D., (Ed.), The Answers Book, CMI, Australia, pp. 41–44, 1999; 2006. For example, see Ruse, M., Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? The Relationship Between Science and Religion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p. 96, 2001, ‘eviscerating’ the resurrection; and my review in Journal of Creation 19(2):42–25, 2005. Batten, D. and Sarfati, J, 15 Reasons to take Genesis as History, CMI, Australia, 2006.
1
0
Easter
In Open Forum
burrawang
Commentator
Commentator
Apr 11, 2020
Hi ekrause1406 thank you for posting this forum as it is important for us all to reflect on the real meaning of Easter at this time. A wonderful man of God named Watchman Nee wrote much about our spiritual walk with our Lord when he lived Shanghai, China in the 1920's. His description of the sacrifice that Jesus our Lord and Saviour gave for us should give us all cause to be truly grateful for the incomprehensible Love that our Lord, Saviour and God has for us all. The following text is Watchman Nee's insight into the reality of that event around two thousand years ago: - Adam’s sin is construed to be the sin of all men and why the judgement upon Christ is counted as judgement for all. It is simply because at the time Adam sinned, all men were presently in his loins. Likewise, when Christ was judged, all who will be regenerated were present in Christ. His judgement is hence taken as their judgement, and all who have believed in Christ shall no longer be judged. Since humanity must be judged, the Son of God – even the man Jesus Christ – suffered in his spirit, soul and body on the cross for the sins of the world. Let us first consider his physical sufferings. Man sins through his body and there enjoys the temporary pleasure of sin. The body must accordingly be the recipient of punishment. Who can fathom the physical sufferings of the Lord Jesus on the cross? Are not Christ’s sufferings in the body clearly foretold in the Messianic writings? “They have pierced my hands and feet”(Psalm 22.16). The prophet Zechariah called attention to “him whom they have pierced” (Zechariah 12.10). His hands, His feet, His brow, His side, His heart were all pierced by men, pierced by sinful humanity and for sinful humanity. Many were His wounds and high ran His fever for, with the weight of His whole body hanging unsupported on the cross, His blood could not circulate freely. He was extremely thirsty and therefore cried out, “My tongue cleaves to my jaws” – “for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink”(Psalm 22.15, 69.21). The hands must be nailed, for they love to sin. The mouth must suffer, for it loves to sin. The feet must be pierced, for they love to sin. The brow must be crowned with a thorny crown, for it too loves to sin. All that the human body needed to suffer was executed upon His body. Thus He suffered physically even to death. It was within His power to escape these sufferings, yet He willingly offered His body to endure immeasurable trials and pains, never for a moment shrinking back until He knew that “all was now finished”(John 19.28). Only then did He dismiss His Spirit. Not His body only, His soul as well, suffered. The soul is the organ of self-consciousness. Before being crucified, Christ was administered wine mingled with myrrh as a sedative to alleviate pain, but He refused it as He was not willing to lose His consciousness. Human souls have fully enjoyed the pleasure of sins; accordingly in His soul Jesus would endure the pain of sins. He would rather drink the cup given Him by God than the cup, which numbed consciousness. How shameful is the punishment of the cross! It was used to execute runaway slaves. A slave had neither property nor rights. His body belonged to his master; he could therefore be punished with the most shameful cross. The Lord Jesus took the place of a slave and was crucified. Isaiah called Him “the servant”; Paul said He took the form of a slave. Yes, as a slave He came to rescue us who are subject to the lifelong bondage of sin and Satan. We are slaves to passion, temper, habits and the world. We are sold to sin. Yet He died because of our slavery and bore our entire shame. The Bible records that the soldiers took the garments of the Lord Jesus (John 19.23). He was nearly naked when crucified. This is one of the shames of the cross. Sin takes our radiant garment away and renders us naked. Our Lord was stripped bare before Pilate and again on Calvary. How would His holy soul react to such abuse? Would it not insult the holiness of His personality and cover Him with shamefulness? Who can enter into His feeling of that tragic moment? Because every man had enjoyed the apparent glory of sin, so the Saviour must endure the real shame of sin. Truly “thou (God) hast covered him with shame . . . with which thy enemies taunt, O Lord, with which they mock the footsteps of thy anointed”; He nonetheless “endured the cross, despising the shame” (Psalm 89.45,51; Hebrews 12.2). No one can ever ascertain how fully the soul of the Saviour suffered on the cross. We often contemplate His physical suffering but overlook the feeling of His soul. A week before the Passover He was heard to mention: “Now is my soul troubled”(John 12.27). This points to the cross. While in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus was again heard to say: “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death” (Matthew 26.38). Were it not for these words we would hardly think His soul had suffered. Isaiah 53 mentions thrice how His soul was made an offering for sin, how His soul travailed, and how He poured out His soul to death. (Isaiah 53.10-12). Because Jesus bore the curse and shame of the cross, whoever believes in Him shall no more be cursed and put to shame. His Spirit too suffered immensely. The spirit is that part of man which equips him to commune with God. The Son of God was holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners. His spirit was united with the Holy Spirit in perfect oneness. Never did there exist a moment of disturbance and doubt, for He always had God’s presence with Him. “It is not I alone,” declared Jesus, “but I and He who sent me . . . And He who sent me is with me”(John 8.16,29). For this reason He could pray, “Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. I knew that thou hearest me always”(John 11.41-42). Nevertheless, while He hung on the cross – and if there were ever a day when the Son of God desperately needed the presence of God it must be that day – He cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27.46) His spirit was split asunder from God. How intensely He felt the loneliness, the desertion, the separation. The Son was still yielding, the Son was still obeying the will of Father-God, yet the Son was forsaken: not for His Own sake, but for the sake of others. Sin affects most deeply the spirit; consequently, holy as the Son of God was, still He had to be wrenched away from the Father because He bore the sin of others. It is true that in the countless days of eternity past "I and the Father are one”(John 10.30). Even during His days of earthly sojourn this remained true, for His humanity could not be a cause of separation from God. Sin alone could separate; even though that sin be the sin of others. Jesus suffered this spiritual separation for us in order that our spirit could return to God. THANK YOU JESUS, MY LORD, MY SAVIOUR, MY GOD.
2
0
A few thousand not billions of years since creation.
In Open Forum
burrawang
Commentator
Commentator
Mar 13, 2020
Hi Windar12q, you may like to read an interesting article that discusses the origins debate with physicist Dr. Keith Wanser, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. is Professor of Physics at California State University, Fullerton: - https://creation.com/god-and-the-electron You may also find enlightening some articles about other well known working physicists and their work at the following links: - https://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv about Dr. D.Russell Humphreys, who has published widely in secular journals, has numerous patents and has worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. In 1985, he began working with Sandia’s ‘Particle Beam Fusion Project’, and is currently working for the Institute for Creation Research where he holds the post of Associate Professor of physics. https://creation.com/dr-jim-mason about Dr. Jim Mason, B.Sc. in Engineering Physics from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada and a Ph.D. in experimental Nuclear Physics from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario Canada. https://creation.com/brandon-vd-interview about Dr. Brandon van der Ventel, a nuclear physicist who works on relativistic descriptions of nuclear reactions. You may also find interesting, a series of physics articles at https://creation.com/topics/physics I hope that you will see from the above articles that there are real physicists that know that evolution is a false theory and the Bible contains the true history of the origins of the human family.
0
7
Dinosaur DNA?
In Open Forum
burrawang
Commentator
Commentator
Mar 11, 2020
The obvious implication is that the dinosaur remains are only a few thousand years old at most. The imagined 65+ million years for the age of the dinosaurs is clearly a widely held illusion, that will likely take some years before it is ultimately accepted as having been experimentally and statistically falsified and discarded. Common sense dictates that when verified dinosaur soft tissue and DNA fragments are found in unmineralised bone, the imagined evolutionary age is where the error lies, it's as simple as that! There are no actual scientifically derived reasons that I am aware of to believe that the verified dinosaur soft tissue and DNA fragments are actually 65+ MA old; the "deep time" belief is wholly and solely the result of the mainstream academic predisposition to evolution mythology and the highly religious Darwinian dogma. It is only this predisposition that continues to propagate and reinforce this falsified theory. It will become harder and harder to convince intelligent science students that evolution is how we came to be here in the face of the enormous body of evidence being produced by sound science that rigorously refutes evolution as an outdated, defunct and falsified theory. The Bible can be trusted; the account of Creation and the global flood in Genesis are reliable historically and wholly consistent with what we observe today using operational science in fields such as geology, biology and astrophysics. The global flood occurred about 4,500 years ago and the rapidly buried well preserved fossils of unmineralised dinosaur bone containing pliable soft tissues being discovered all over the world are entirely consistent with a global flood within the Biblical time frame whereas the unbelievable millions of years derived from the supposed evolutionary scenarios are leaving many scientists scratching their heads in sheer incredulity.
1
1
A few thousand not billions of years since creation.
In Open Forum
burrawang
Commentator
Commentator
Mar 11, 2020
Hi Windar12q, I will try to address in blue text each of the points that you raised in your response. Hi burrawang, I have been having the same technical trouble and have not been able to reply. A bit strange that we both have experienced the same inability to post, yet we are on opposite sides of the planet; the site administrator advised to the effect that there were no known problems at their end but it would appear to be more widespread than that, has anyone else had difficulty posting on these forums? When you say abiogenesis is demonstrably impossible, but so is God; so the answer still remains a mystery. Encyclopaedia Britannica states, “Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from non-life more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were simple and gradually became increasingly complex.” The Second Law of Thermodynamics alone falsifies Abiogenesis, without even considering the enormous quantity of well researched REAL evidence that also falsifies it. The killer blow to abiogenesis and evolution is the easily repeated experimentally proven FACT that ALL GENOMES are rapidly losing complex specified information from their genomes every generation. This FACT is the antithesis of evolution! However my research is pointing to energy as the source of all things in the universe and that includes evolution. How can energy be the source of all things? As the quantity of energy increases the quantity of entropy increases because they, i.e. energy and entropy are directly proportional to each other. It is a proven fact that in QM, protons can appear from nothing, which takes me on to the entropy that you mention. Well, actually, no. Energy and matter are interchangeable and quantum mechanics physics has demonstrated that Protons can appear from what are thought to be non-material (mass less) energy fields but it has not been demonstrated that they appear from nothing as you have stated. That would be in the realm of metaphysics, not verifiable by QM or any other discipline of modern science. Though science references back ground micro wave radiation as remnants from the Big Bang - with the discovery of how protons act, it is possible perhaps that the waves could be coming from a universe that is still expanding - the big bang could still be taking place. Although it is widely thought by adherents to the big bang theory, it is most definitely not proven that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is a remnant from the big bang. Regarding expansion, the evidence that big-bangers cite is correct that we observe redshift in light coming from distant stars and galaxies that has been interpreted using the well known phenomenon in physics, the Doppler effect, in which wave energy is shifted to a longer or shorter wavelength because the light source is moving relative to the observer. We also observe blueshift in some galaxies, that has been interpreted as those galaxies are coming towards us. This phenomena in distant starlight was discovered by Edwin Hubble and published by him in 1929; he observed that there was a correlation with distance, the farther away the galaxy light source, the higher the redshift. If the redshift were caused by the Doppler effect, then it would appear that galaxies were receding at incredible speeds and the furthermost galaxies were receding faster than the closer ones. Therefore, if you reverse the expansion, by theoretically going back in time to when the expansion logically must have commenced, it would appear according to the big-bang theory that there was a point where all space. time and matter of the universe were in the same place, a single point or singularity. A Belgian priest named Abbe Georges-Henri Lemaitre reasoned that to escape the immense gravitational pull of the "singularity" the universe must have exploded into existence as we appear to see it today still expanding. This however raised the prospect of the situation whereby all the laws of physics would break down in the supposed singularity and any explanation would have to appeal to forces beyond physics. That is why physicists today only talk about the big-bang AFTER the theorised big-bang explosion had already taken place, because at the pre-explosion point, it is beyond our knowledge of physics to understand, including QM, if this theory was in fact how we came to have the universe we have. The modern scientific approach had been designed to explain the universe in terms of the natural, not the supernatural and modern science was and still is inadequate to explain the physics of a singularity. It has been postulated that the big-bang would have to have been a massive thermonuclear explosion that would have released huge amounts of heat energy throughout the whole universe. Around 1965, two Americans Penzias and Wilson published their work and were awarded the Nobel Prize for their discovery of the CMBR. The CMBR is an observable phenomena but the big-bang theory is an attempt to explain some parts of what we observe in accordance with or within a naturalistic/materialist philosophical framework. It is possible that we may never know for sure what the CMBR is, but in the big picture, it really is not that important, though much song and dance is made about the CMBR by adherents to the big-bang claiming it as a proof of their theory; it may well turn out to be caused by some yet unknown phenomena; only time will tell. There are many severe problems with the main big-bang theory that include: - 1.) The theory just does not work. The theorised primordial explosion would only produce an expanding cloud of gas that would not spontaneously reverse their expansion and collapse into stars, galaxies planets, asteroids etc. 2.) The theory lacks a credible and consistent mechanism. Big-bang theory is based on the laws of physics yet those laws cannot explain the important components of the model, e.g. there is no known mechanism to start the universe expanding out of a singularity. 3.) Chemical evolution of life is clearly excluded by the evidence. The laws of chemistry preclude the supposed chemical evolutionary process from ever occurring. 4.) Science cannot produce any final answers on the subject. Science operates in the present by observation and experiment, it has no direct access to the past. As has been stated on numerous occasions, it is the worldview in which the evidence is viewed and considered that will dictate the direction and results that are interpreted in accordance with the worldview or ruling paradigm. It is a verifiable fact that there are many prominent astronomers, astrophysicist’s and cosmologists who think the big bang is a load of nonsense and I tend to agree with that opinion. From your part of the globe, the late, brilliant world famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle who coined the name big-bang considered the big-bang theory was, (quoting him): - “dull-as-ditchwater expansion which degrades itself adiabatically (i.e. without gain or loss of heat) until it is incapable of doing anything at all. The notion that galaxies form, to be followed by an active astronomical history, is an illusion. Nothing forms; the thing is dead as a doornail.” Don't you see how your religion is blinding you from seeing past that book of yours. I could say precisely the same about your belief that “energy is the source of all things”, you see it all depends on your worldview. This debate is not about the evidence, it is about worldviews, and ultimately it is about the condition of our hearts and our spiritual health; (not the heart beating in our chests but spiritually speaking, our hearts). Your assertion of entropy is correct up to a point, but that does not mean the end of everything. Well, if it was left to go for long enough, universal heat death would occur, and all work (in the physics sense) would cease to be possible, but I agree, though for a different reason; I believe that God will intervene well before the Second Law of Thermodynamics has completed its inexorable journey. If you read my last post to ekrause1406 you will see how easy it is to mistake the work of God for something entirely different and entirely natural. If religion keeps on insisting that abiogenesis is the work of some divine being, then we are never going to solve this mystery; surely you must acknowledge this? Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV) 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Despite the above Chapter 1 from Genesis being the truth that God has revealed to us, this description is the most rational, sane and scientifically logical account for how we came to be here discussing this topic! No other explanation that I have seen even comes close to the Biblical account of origins. If our future lies beyond the horizon and on into space, surely, the secret of life would be of the most importance, because we would be going where no man has been before and without this knowledge to guide us. I can see no logic in trying to suppress the means that will help us to find an answer. The furthest we are going to get regarding space travel is the Moon and maybe at a stretch Mars; I do not see any prospect in the future of travelling beyond those two orbs in our solar system; any ideas of such are over-simplified science fiction. Space is far too vast and inhospitable for human beings without even considering the enormous expense involved to even put a few people in space in a world where there is so much poverty, inequality and pain. I wish you well burrawang. Likewise with respect and concern, I wish you well windar12q. PLEASE, for eternities sake; read the Books of The New Testament if you wish to discover truth, for it is truly there that you will find it. Regards, B
0
1
burrawang
Commentator
Appreciated
Welcome!
Conversant
+4
More actions