Posted on 08/11/2017 7:20:35 AM PDT by Heartlander
I applaud the article for its breadth of knowledge.
Now the author needs to find a way to say it all, just as accurately, in a way the lay person will follow easily and understand that the author is not just talking scientific gibberish.
Let me make it simple for you. “in the beginning God....
Further, to paraphrase the Bible he was before all things he created all things and by him all things are held together.
So much for gluons
Good day to you, and God bless
Let me make it simple for you. “in the beginning God....
Further, to paraphrase the Bible he was before all things he created all things and by him all things are held together.
So much for gluons
Good day to you, and God bless
Your answer was a given. The authors were attempting to explain a scientific foundation for why your answer is the reason for life. MY POINT was that they can explain the science in a way that is easier for the layman to understand THEIR SCIENCE.
To say “in the beginning there is G-d” is not a relevant point to my criticism of the article, which is not about the conclusion but the poor communication for the lay person in the verbal path the author took.
It is good for folks to see that even science has no real answer for life. It is even better when that is demonstrated with greater clarity for the lay person.
A term that I had to look up is “Gedankenexperiment” which translates from German as ‘Thought Experiment’ where a hypothesis, theory or principle is regarded in depth for the purpose of thinking through its consequences.
The most famous may be Einstein’s 1916 General Theory of Relativity which included the hypothesis that time slows as speed increases. Given that maximum speeds of that day were mere 200mph, this was an impossible experiment to prove. Now with extremely stable portable atomic clocks, it has been proved valid in long distance air travel as well as space flight.
As for the thrust of this author’s writing, you know that the general concept in ‘science’ is that almost anything is possible give enough time and the 4.5 billion years of the Solar System is an enormous amount of time. Yet, I find it kind of funny that the herd of ‘science’ fights so very hard to avoid anything that might be regarded as religious or metaphysical yet readily accepts the ‘Big Bang’ and inevitable existence of life!
Through all the scientificese here, I did understand the more we study life, the more we know it is intricately designed thus can’t be the result of random processes. It is the very essence of a Very Intelligent Creator’s handiwork... who I will name God, till a better names comes along.
As was observed by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy: “Evolution is nothing but the atheist’s creation myth”.
The Left already embraces this idea as the destruction of life on Earth underlays many of its facets. PETA, BLM, Socialism, Communism, AI, organized crime, islam and the list goes on.
To them life is unnatural.
The Left already embraces this idea as the destruction of life on Earth underlays many of its facets. PETA, BLM, Socialism, Communism, AI, organized crime, islam and the list goes on.
To them life is unnatural.
Amen, brother.
Now the author needs to find a way to say it all, just as accurately, in a way the lay person will follow easily and understand that the author is not just talking scientific gibberish.
...
The article is dishonest and is meant to fool people. That’s why it has the appearance of gibberish.
Evolution is God’s way of creating life which seems crazy to us.
Did you know James Kennedy started his career as a dance instructor?
No argument with your point. I think the author of the piece can say what they had to say in a way the lay person will understand the scientific points better - clearer to the lay person.
I recommend you check out “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen Meyer for a more layman’s type of explanation.
It is a real tour de force - very compelling.
My head swims when biologists speak in terms of “...cides” and the like. In my discipline, as in any, I am sure I could lose peoples’ attention with certain concepts and the terminology. Nevertheless, that which I do understand is this: all the ingredients for baking a cake exist, by prior purpose and acquisition, in my well equipped kitchen. Yet somehow with all the right ingredients, there would not be cause capable, in some fashion, to produce a cake outside of one of intelligent design and ability. I would grow exceedingly hunger if I had to wait for some mindless force to serve it up. And what impersonal, heartless, random “baker” would be pleased to serve me cake?
“... is not just talking scientific gibberish.”
To be fair, the author addresses his letter to “my colleagues” - other chemists, who speak his language.
Good recommendation - I never finished the book - need to pick it up again...
Thanks for your reply. I hope Stephen Meyer’s work is good, for the lay person, and has/gets a large public audience if it is. Because, it is the communication (that life does not “just happen”) to the lay person - the masses - that is important.
Enlightening and profound. We should not exist. I agree.
Well, that is the thing. The deeper our knowledge of physical science, the more it all points to a design, not a random chance. Conditions are too perfect for earth and life to be anyrhing but a deliberate design. Science is confirming God by what it can’t explain and as discoveries accelerate, they just confirm God all the more. You have to be wilfully blind to miss it.
Great article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.