Zoe or Zodiac, You need to give it a rest. The truth is creation and evolution has no axe to grind and continues to live in harmony despite and in spite of what anyone thinks.Scientifically or Spiritually.
Christianity does’nt have a violent stream? Is you crazy? What about the crusades and the inquisition?. Who committed genocide on European Jews? Which Christian Religious organiztion sanctified African slavery.?
All of the major wars in this modern world involved Christians as the main combatants. I am not holding brief for Islam since some of the practioners of that faith is no better. But please, cease this amnesiac accounting of Christianity as some egalitarian historical movement.
Whether it is Christianity, Hinduism, Islam or Judaism, the proactioners share one common trait. They are all vehemently anti black, and interpret their doctrines to mean white or non black is superior and black is inferior. The christian bible advises that the truth shall set one free. It is quite clear that truth has evaded the ken of many.
@Annunaki, This is for you, maybe, you’ll just find out, whose ‘Son’ you really are!
Who are the ‘Sons of God’
Angels, demons, giants, and aliens:
Jim Staley reveals what the Bible says
“Sons of God”? Giants? Nephilim?
They are among the strangest mysteries of the Old Testament. Now, hear Jim Staley explain in a comprehensive new teaching what these odd beings really were – and are.
They’ve been interpeted as “nobles” and “sons of Seth,” but for the true answer we may need to look in another dimension entirely.
From Genesis to Revelation and from Mt. Olympus to Area 51, Jim shows that there is, indeed, “something out there.”
He draws on his deep knowledge of Scripture and Hebrew terminology, along with extra-biblical sources such as first century authors Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, as well as the Book of Enoch and a variety of archeological sources.
But seeking the answers is not simply a matter of satisfying our curiosity. Jim explains that understanding these mysterious beings will help us understand critical questions such as the plan of Satan, and how men are to fall away so quickly in the Last Days as Jesus prophecied.
This new lesson by Jim Staley pulls together and shows a connection between Greek mythology, the La Azazel goat of Yom Kippur, fallen angels, roaming evil spirits and aliens. Not only is this teaching “on the edge of your seat” fascinating, it is very scripturally based and supported by innumerable facts of history.
@Zoe…
Can you please tell us all how the atomic element Carbon manifested? Atomic number 6, if I’m not mistaken.
Is Carbon talked about in the bible?
Is it not generally accepted that we are all based on Carbon?
@ Zoe:
Eureka !! So you have finally found out about “those who came to Earth from the Sky” to bring advanced technology to the genetically modified primitive “ape” man.
Please pass that bit of info onto your advocate PhD. It would help to explain his fascination with his chosen field of study.
Don’t you think that the kind of research PhD undertakes would be considered by OT standards as ‘flying in the face of God”.
Be careful PhD! Don’t be like that boy Icarus and fly to close to your god! Sorry I mean the Sun!
@millertheanunnaki et al…
Just for the record, I, personally, do not believe there has to be a “bringing” to our earth to manifest sentience from what we already had.
IMHO, there is no need for extraterrestrials; no need for gods, to achieve what we have.
But then, I might be wrong….
You guys could go on forever and you would never agree. So what’s the point .it is like the blind leading the blind. Maybe you might eventually fall into a ditch. Good luck digging ourselves out.
@ Zoe:
Eureka !! So you have finally found out about “those who came to Earth from the Sky” to bring advanced technology to the genetically modified primitive “ape” man.
@Naki, Man, you’re far up Satan’s spine of ‘spiritual’ deception many like you are classic vessels fit for his kind of masterful LIES and deception, via this so-called ‘….advanced technology to genetically modified primitive ‘ape’ man.”
All coming to pass exactly as spoken in God’s Word, the Bible.
“For the mystety of LAWLESSNESS IS* already at work…..And then the LAWLESS one will be revealed, who the LORD will consume with the BREATH of His mouth and DESTROY with the BRIGHTNESS of His coming. The coming of the LAWLESS one is according to the working of SATAN withn all power, of SIGNS, and LYING WONDERS* ( so-called advanced technology, etc, etc) and with all UNRIGHTEOUS DECEPTION* among those who PERISH, because they did NOT receive the love of the TRUTH, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them (Annanukai, et al) strong DELUSION*, that they should believe the LIE ( Satan’s technological, UFO, LIES, etc) that they ALL may be condemned who did NOT believe the TRUTH (God’s Word) but had pleasure in UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.” (2 Thess. 2: 7a- 12 Emphasis added).
So it be!
@ Zoe:
“who the LORD will consume with the BREATH of His mouth and DESTROY with the BRIGHTNESS of His coming.”
Sounds like the landing of a spacecraft to me at Denver‘s specially-designed Airport in Colorado.
I will follow ac’s advice and say “Amen” to you!
But CH has raised an interesting point on which I will get to him in another thread.
“Sounds like the landing of a spacecraft to me at Denver‘s specially-designed Airport in Colorado.”
@nnuki, Man, what you described above, is like childs ‘play’ compared to the GLORIOUS RADIANCE* of the APPEARING of the LORD OF LORDS, and KING OF KINGS, THE LORD* JESUS* CHRIST* as EVERY EYE* all people across the earth will SEE* HIM, instantly, as He comes, no effort at all will be necessary to DESTROY Satan and his emissaries, just the ABSOLUTE* radiance, BRIGHTNESS of His Glory, and the bearth of His mouth, is enough to render Satan and ALL Antichrist evil forces, PUFF!
@Halsall, You keep asking questions that have already been dealth with here on BU, one way or the other; see the below link!
@Halsall, You keep asking questions that have already been dealth with here on BU, one way or the other; see the below link!
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations-6-introducing-the-cosmological-desiUD’s Gil Dodgen has recently observed:
In the case of cosmic ID the situation is even worse. The evidence for design of the laws of physics with the ultimate goal of producing a life-permitting universe is so obvious that detractors have been reduced to proposing an infinitude of in-principle undetectable alternate universes. If this is the case, nothing is impossible and everything is inevitable.
It is plainly time for us to take back up the ID Foundations series (series to date: 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5), and to now focus on cosmological signs of design (at an introductory* level).
While the rhetorical fireworks and worldview agendas-tinged culture clashes that so often crop up at UD and elsewhere have clustered on design inferences regarding the origin of life and the origin of body plans, modern design theory actually began with cosmological inferences to design on signs of highly specific, functionally complex organisation of the laws and circumstances of our observed cosmos that set it up at an operating point conducive to C-chemistry, cell based life.
Then agnostic British astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle (holder of a Nobel-equivalent prize) has pride of place:
From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16. Emphasis added.]
Hoyle added:
I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. [[“The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]
Canadian astrophysicist (and Old Earth Creationist) Hugh Ross aptly explains:
As you tune your radio, there are certain frequencies where the circuit has just the right resonance and you lock onto a station. The internal structure of an atomic nucleus is something like that, with specific energy or resonance levels. If two nuclear fragments collide with a resulting energy that just matches a resonance level, they will tend to stick and form a stable nucleus. Behold! Cosmic alchemy will occur! In the carbon atom, the resonance just happens to match the combined energy of the beryllium atom and a colliding helium nucleus. Without it, there would be relatively few carbon atoms. Similarly, the internal details of the oxygen nucleus play a critical role. Oxygen can be formed by combining helium and carbon nuclei, but the corresponding resonance level in the oxygen nucleus is half a percent too low for the combination to stay together easily. Had the resonance level in the carbon been 4 percent lower, there would be essentially no carbon. Had that level in the oxygen been only half a percent higher, virtually all the carbon would have been converted to oxygen. Without that carbon abundance, neither you nor I would be here. [[Beyond the Cosmos (Colorado Springs, Colo.: NavPress Publishing Group, 1996), pg. 32. HT: IDEA.]
Why all the fuss about this?
It can be boiled down to one pivotal word that gives a slice of the cake with all the ingredients in it: water . . .
gn-inference/
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16. Emphasis added.]”
Halsall, you must try using a little ‘commom sense’ once in a while, if you can, its amazing what it can teach you!
Why Stephen Hawking is Wrong About God Not Creating the Universe
by Rich Deem
IntroductionThe Grand Design?
Stephen Hawking’s latest book is entitled The Grand Design. However, the book’s conclusion is exactly the opposite – that the universe is not designed at all, but just popped into existence because of some fortuitous physical laws that just happen to produce universes at will.
Rich Deem
Stephen Hawking has garnered a lot of admiration and respect as a brilliant physicist and cosmologist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is a bestseller for its ability to translate physics and cosmology into terms that a layman can understand. So, when he came out recently promoting his new book claiming, “There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world�no Gods required” a lot of people took notice. Is our understanding of physics really sufficient to conclude that we know everything necessary to explain the existence of everything?
What new theory?In his new book, Hawking claims that the reason the universe needs no creator is due to a “new theory” called M-theory (where “M” stands for “membrane,” or just “m,” or “murky” or “missing”1 depending upon one’s particular version of the theory). Originally promoted as “superstring” theory 20 years ago, it has evolved from “strings” to “membranes,” although all forms of the theory propose extra dimensions (11, in fact). However, M-theory is no single theory, but, rather, a number of theories through which one may obtain just about anything one wants. How one can test such a nebulous set of theories, which “predict” just about anything and everything, seems to be a problem.
M-theory: science or faith?Stephen HawkingThe nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?
Whence the laws of physics?Stephen Hawking says that the laws of physics guarantee that the universe can be created from nothing. The question he never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from “nothing,” it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that laws of physics that allow such events to occur would actually exist. Why wouldn’t a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence.
Conclusion So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of “stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith.”3 Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, “Who created God?” Maybe they already have the answer to that question – Nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!
¿Por qué Stephen Hawking está equivocado sobre que Dios no creó el universo?
——————————————————————————–
As a scientist I’m certain Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can’t explain the universe without God
By Professor John Lennox
Last updated at 10:47 AM on 3rd September 2010
Comments (611) Add to My Stories Share
According to Stephen Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being
There’s no denying that Stephen Hawking is intellectually bold as well as physically heroic. And in his latest book, the renowned physicist mounts an audacious challenge to the traditional religious belief in the divine creation of the universe.
According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws ‘because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.’
Unfortunately, while Hawking’s argument is being hailed as controversial and ground-breaking, it is hardly new.
For years, other scientists have made similar claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity.
It is a simplistic approach, yet in our secular age it is one that seems to have resonance with a sceptical public.
But, as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking’s claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.
But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.
What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.
More…Archbishop of Canterbury hits back after Stephen Hawking insists God did NOT create the Universe
That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own – but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent.
Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.
More…Archbishop of Canterbury hits back after Stephen Hawking insists God did NOT create the Universe
To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton’s laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.
Hawking’s argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?
Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for ‘the blue touch paper’ to be lit to ‘set the universe going’, the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?
Much of the rationale behind Hawking’s argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognise.
For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation.
The very reason science flourished so vigorously in the 16th and 17th centuries was precisely because of the belief that the laws of nature which were then being discovered and defined reflected the influence of a divine law-giver.
One of the fundamental themes of Christianity is that the universe was built according to a rational , intelligent design. Far from being at odds with science, the Christian faith actually makes perfect scientific sense.
Some years ago, the scientist Joseph Needham made an epic study of technological development in China. He wanted to find out why China, for all its early gifts of innovation, had fallen so far behind Europe in the advancement of science.
He reluctantly came to the conclusion that European science had been spurred on by the widespread belief in a rational creative force, known as God, which made all scientific laws comprehensible.
Despite this, Hawking, like so many other critics of religion, wants us to believe we are nothing but a random collection of molecules, the end product of a mindless process.
This, if true, would undermine the very rationality we need to study science. If the brain were really the result of an unguided process, then there is no reason to believe in its capacity to tell us the truth.
We live in an information age. When we see a few letters of the alphabet spelling our name in the sand, our immediate response is to recognise the work of an intelligent agent. How much more likely, then, is an intelligent creator behind the human DNA, the colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion ‘letters’?
It is fascinating that Hawking, in attacking religion, feels compelled to put so much emphasis on the Big Bang theory. Because, even if the non-believers don’t like it, the Big Bang fits in exactly with the Christian narrative of creation.
That is why, before the Big Bang gained currency, so many scientists were keen to dismiss it, since it seemed to support the Bible story. Some clung to Aristotle’s view of the ‘eternal universe’ without beginning or end; but this theory, and later variants of it, are now deeply discredited.
But support for the existence of God moves far beyond the realm of science. Within the Christian faith, there is also the powerful evidence that God revealed himself to mankind through Jesus Christ two millennia ago. This is well-documented not just in the scriptures and other testimony but also in a wealth of archaeological findings.
Moreover, the religious experiences of millions of believers cannot lightly be dismissed. I myself and my own family can testify to the uplifting influence faith has had on our lives, something which defies the idea we are nothing more than a random collection of molecules.
Just as strong is the obvious reality that we are moral beings, capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. There is no scientific route to such ethics.
Physics cannot inspire our concern for others, or the spirit of altruism that has existed in human societies since the dawn of time.
The existence of a common pool of moral values points to the existence of transcendent force beyond mere scientific laws. Indeed, the message of atheism has always been a curiously depressing one, portraying us as selfish creatures bent on nothing more than survival and self-gratification.
Hawking also thinks that the potential existence of other lifeforms in the universe undermines the traditional religious conviction that we are living on a unique, God-created planet. But there is no proof that other lifeforms are out there, and Hawking certainly does not present any.
It always amuses me that atheists often argue for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth. Yet they are only too eager to denounce the possibility that we already have a vast, intelligent being out there: God.
Hawking’s new fusillade cannot shake the foundations of a faith that is based on evidence.
God’s Undertaker: Has science Buried God? by John Lennox is out now (Lion Hudson, £8.99).
Hi there to every one, because I am actually keen of reading this
weblog’s post to be updated regularly. It carries fastidious data.
Hey, You’ve performed an admirable job. I am going to absolutely stumbleupon it along with for me personally suggest so that you can my buddies. More than likely are going to took advantage of this excellent website.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.