Posted on 09/21/2017 7:01:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
What created the singularity, and where was it?
Actually, the hard core naturalist scientists (Sagan, Hawking, Dawkins, etc.) have backed away and rejected the big bang almost solely because it indicates the presence of a creator. They speak of multiverses (the dodge of creating a construct of infinite variables to get around the hard truth of probability) as an alternative to big bang. Unfortunately there's not a shred of evidence for this and nobody would ever come up with such an idea unless they were trying to find explanation that doesn't require a transcendent God. Hawking went so far as to say, "anything as elegant as gravity would have had to have created itself". Thus, he's willing to get rid of the basic axioms of logic, which make up the foundation of the scientific method, all in order to avoid the incredible empirical evidence for the existence of God.
All evidence points unequivocally to the existence of God.
To deny that is to voluntarily blind one’s self to reality...................
Because "rich" is a richness in spiritual matters. Not what motivates the material/physical world.
What's encoded in the name (DNA) that man gave the blueprints of life, is the evidence that he's not really in charge. God is way funny, but some folks have no sense of humor.
DNA, names of God:
די־אן־איי = 86 = Elohim אלהים = Adonai אדני (65) + Ehyeh אהיה (21)
Posts 14 and 15:
Privacy Concerns Over DNA Tests That Help Discover Your Roots
Maybe for some, their DNA reads as ain ID, no ID.
אין אי די
Happy New Year, may you be inscribed in the Book of Life.
God loves puns...................
This is absolutely right! Worth reading!
They manipulate the language, by calling amino acids “the building blocks of life.” Words chosen deliberately to force the reader to think that you can put them together to build life. A lie.
You know it!!!
The pun is the lowest (lowliest) form of humor, so you know it must go:
The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low.
Divine rectification *is* the Divine order!
“It has become axiomatic that life naturally evolved out of nonliving materials billions of years ago. Given enough time and the chemical opportunity, living cells self-assemble.” Mr. Watson should have instantly become the LATE Mr. Watson, for so blatantly and brazenly spouting such unfounded bunk as scientific fact. He’s in for a real shock when he finally meets the One who REALLY created it. Watson has NO IDEA as to the complexity of a living cell. DUNCE!
And how about the power source to RUN it. Isn’t it peachy neat how THAT just popped into existence, too?!
Never had to roll up His sleeves or break a sweat....
Can you elaborate?
Oh, I forgot this: :)
GOD.
“With all their ‘modern’ technology and learning, scientists cannot create a single living cell.”
And if they did all it would prove is that it took an intelligent life to design it and build it.
In other words all it would do is further make the case for intelligent design.
I think Fred Hoyle said it best. And I paraphrase. You would have a better chance that a tornado would cruise through a junkyard and create a fully functioning 747 than you would have of a living cell appear spontaneously.
These “scientists” are the sort that would walk the surface of a planet, see an empty soda can laying on the ground and call it a natural formation.
They have eyes but cannot see.
something about on the sixth day comes to mind, but i can't quite put my finger on it...
Life had to not only come into being, it had to come into being with continual ability to reproduce itself. Any one who thinks that this could happen by chance is deluding themselves.
"no known pathways to create the components that make up a living cell from nonliving matter"
"atheists presume life just forms naturally"
"experts in the field have no idea how "
"the abiogenesis hypothesis is treated as scientific fact.
It isn’t. "
"What then is the likely cause of life?
We don’t have a clue."
"...need to develop a new abiogenesis theory..."
"The only real answer an honest atheist of today can give to how life arose from nonliving materials is, 'I don’t know' "
I've highlighted the important words above: "axiomatic", "no known", "presume", "no idea", "hypothesis", "likely", "theory", "don't know".
But the key word this article misses is "assume" or "assumption", because that is what underlies the entire modern natural-science enterprise, assumptions including:
Of course, we are free to mock those assumptions, but a point to remember is: outside them, there is no science.
IOW, if a scientist says, "I can't explain it naturally, so God must have done it," the "I can't explain it naturally" is perfectly scientific, but the "so God must have done it" is not, by definition, scientific.
It belongs in a different category of thought, perhaps in philosophical or theological understandings.
Understand, there is a boundary around science, a great wall, if you will, separating natural science from all other understandings.
Yes, you and I can cross that "barrier" at will, for us there is no boundary separating natural from supernatural or divine, but science cannot cross it and remain, by definition, science.
Really, it should not be a big deal for us.
If we wish to see God's Hand in nature, we just cannot ask for Science to point it out to us.
We must Seek and Find Him all on our own.
Praise God!
Maybe we can agree about this. But where did the "blueprint" come from? And why is there life at all? Mathematics and physics are not themselves alive.
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.