The Passion
03-02-2004, 10:34 PM
#121
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Schofield Barracks, HI
Posts: 2,259
people that have to do all that to defend their beliefs are obviously doubting their own beliefs
03-02-2004, 10:37 PM
#122
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Fayetteville, Georgia
Posts: 2,483
Originally Posted by RX7Aggie' date='Mar 2 2004, 11:28 PM
seem's we are going around in circles with our opinions, so it's time to state other people's research who i'll quote because their views parallel mine, and who have a better way to researching things with more resources than me to find out and understand our universe. ill begin with a former atheist turned christian, whose transition of life you can read about in this essay:
http://www.westminsterhall.us/hfs3/way_of_discovery.doc
Dr. Henry F. Schaefer, III
Since 1987 Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer has been Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently named the third-most cited chemist in the world.
In addition, he is one of the founders and current President of the Board of Westminster Christian Academy.
He and has wife Karen live in Watkinsville, GA and have four children.
"The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."
U.S. News and World Report, Dec. 23, 1991
in his essay "Is Evolution a Good Theory?" he states very good reasons for the faults of evolution as a good theory for life on earth. one excert states:
"This autumn eighteen gifted UGA students and I are spending six weeks examining Stephen Hawking's best-selling book "A Brief History of Time. " Therein Hawking states "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements. And it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." I consider Hawking's statement to be an excellent definition of a good theory. How does evolution stack up to the two demands of a good theory? By the term "evolution," I mean the claim that random mutations and natural selection can fully account for the complexity of life, and particularly macroscopic living things...
Might I be more detailed in stating my reservations concerning the standard evolutionary model? Sure. Let me preface these brief remarks by noting that I think the scientific evidence that God created the universe 13-15 billion years ago is good. My first concern is that, with the collapse of the Miller-Urey model, there is no plausible scientific mechanism for the origin of life, i.e., the appearance of the first self-replicating biochemical system. The staggeringly high information content of the simplest living thing is not readily explained by evolutionists. Second, the time frame for speciation events seems all wrong to me. The major feature of the fossil record is stasis, long periods in which new species do not appear. When new developments occur, they come rapidly, not gradually. My third area of reservation is that I find no satisfactory mechanism for macroevolutionary changes. Analogies between a few inches of change in the beaks of a Galapagos finch species and a purported transition from dinosaur to bird (or vice versa) appear to me inappropriate."
Click the link to read the rest of the essay.
Miller-Urey Model
(other faults of evolution can be found at this web site)
http://www.westminsterhall.us/hfs3/way_of_discovery.doc
Dr. Henry F. Schaefer, III
Since 1987 Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer has been Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently named the third-most cited chemist in the world.
In addition, he is one of the founders and current President of the Board of Westminster Christian Academy.
He and has wife Karen live in Watkinsville, GA and have four children.
"The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."
U.S. News and World Report, Dec. 23, 1991
in his essay "Is Evolution a Good Theory?" he states very good reasons for the faults of evolution as a good theory for life on earth. one excert states:
"This autumn eighteen gifted UGA students and I are spending six weeks examining Stephen Hawking's best-selling book "A Brief History of Time. " Therein Hawking states "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements. And it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." I consider Hawking's statement to be an excellent definition of a good theory. How does evolution stack up to the two demands of a good theory? By the term "evolution," I mean the claim that random mutations and natural selection can fully account for the complexity of life, and particularly macroscopic living things...
Might I be more detailed in stating my reservations concerning the standard evolutionary model? Sure. Let me preface these brief remarks by noting that I think the scientific evidence that God created the universe 13-15 billion years ago is good. My first concern is that, with the collapse of the Miller-Urey model, there is no plausible scientific mechanism for the origin of life, i.e., the appearance of the first self-replicating biochemical system. The staggeringly high information content of the simplest living thing is not readily explained by evolutionists. Second, the time frame for speciation events seems all wrong to me. The major feature of the fossil record is stasis, long periods in which new species do not appear. When new developments occur, they come rapidly, not gradually. My third area of reservation is that I find no satisfactory mechanism for macroevolutionary changes. Analogies between a few inches of change in the beaks of a Galapagos finch species and a purported transition from dinosaur to bird (or vice versa) appear to me inappropriate."
Click the link to read the rest of the essay.
Miller-Urey Model
(other faults of evolution can be found at this web site)
03-02-2004, 10:40 PM
#123
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NASA/JSC - Clear Lake, TX
Posts: 870
and now, to go back to the point that Steven Hawking does believe in a Creator, i'll quote from Schaffer's essay entitled "The Big Bang, Steven Hawking, and God". I saw this presentation here at A&M as it was put on by our own Christian Faculty Network with a visit from Schaffer.
"Albert Einstein's response to the consequences of his own general theory of relativity may be reasonably interpreted to reflect a possible concern about the peril of a confrontation with the Creator. Through the equations of general relativity, we can trace the origin of the universe backward in time to some sort of a beginning. However, to evade this seemingly inevitable cosmological conclusion, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant, a "fudge factor," to yield a static model for the universe. He longed for a universe that was infinitely old. In fairness, Einstein later considered this to be one of the few serious mistakes of his scientific career. However, even this concession must have been painful, as Einstein had a strong conviction that all physical phenomena ultimately should be accounted for in terms of continuous fields everywhere (see Max Jammer's 1999 book "Einstein and Religion").
Einstein ultimately gave at best reluctant assent to what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a superior reasoning power." But he never did embrace the concept of a personal Creator, a compassionate God who cares for men and women and children...
Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist turned generalist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us to the philosophical implications. Ross states in his book "The Creator and the Cosmos" (Third Edition, Navpress, 2001) that:
"By definition, time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God is not. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."
Perhaps some readers are inclined to say "So what?" If you fall into that category, may I remind you that well more than one billion people on this planet believe either that God is the universe itself or that God is contained within the universe. If the Big Bang Theory is true, it creates serious philosophical problems for these world views...
Those who have not read 'A Brief History of Time" may be surprised to find that the book has a main character. That main character is God. This was the feature of the book that the well known atheist Carl Sagan found a bit distressing. Sagan wrote the preface to the first edition of the book, but was less famous than Hawking by the time of arrival of the tenth anniversary edition, in which Sagan's preface does not appear. God is discussed in "A Brief History of Time" from near the beginning all the way to the crescendo of the final sentence. So let us try to put Hawking's opinions about God in some sort of a context. The context is that Stephen Hawking seems to have made up his mind about God long before he became a cosmologist....
Stephen Hawking has made some eminently sensible statements on the relationship between science and Christianity. For example, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws." When asked by a reporter whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied cleverly "Then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity." Dr. Hawking is well aware that Newton had strong religious convictions...
"A Brief History of Time" makes wonderfully ambiguous statements such as, "Even if there is only one possible unified theory (here he is alluding to the envisioned unification of our understandings of quantum mechanics and gravity), it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" In a similar vein Hawking asks "Why does the universe go to the bother of existing?" Although Hawking does not attempt to answer these two critical questions, they make wonderful discussion topics for university students, and I have enjoyed using them for this purpose."
Read the other 21+ pages to get teh full scoop on proof that the universe was created
"Albert Einstein's response to the consequences of his own general theory of relativity may be reasonably interpreted to reflect a possible concern about the peril of a confrontation with the Creator. Through the equations of general relativity, we can trace the origin of the universe backward in time to some sort of a beginning. However, to evade this seemingly inevitable cosmological conclusion, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant, a "fudge factor," to yield a static model for the universe. He longed for a universe that was infinitely old. In fairness, Einstein later considered this to be one of the few serious mistakes of his scientific career. However, even this concession must have been painful, as Einstein had a strong conviction that all physical phenomena ultimately should be accounted for in terms of continuous fields everywhere (see Max Jammer's 1999 book "Einstein and Religion").
Einstein ultimately gave at best reluctant assent to what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a superior reasoning power." But he never did embrace the concept of a personal Creator, a compassionate God who cares for men and women and children...
Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist turned generalist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us to the philosophical implications. Ross states in his book "The Creator and the Cosmos" (Third Edition, Navpress, 2001) that:
"By definition, time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God is not. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."
Perhaps some readers are inclined to say "So what?" If you fall into that category, may I remind you that well more than one billion people on this planet believe either that God is the universe itself or that God is contained within the universe. If the Big Bang Theory is true, it creates serious philosophical problems for these world views...
Those who have not read 'A Brief History of Time" may be surprised to find that the book has a main character. That main character is God. This was the feature of the book that the well known atheist Carl Sagan found a bit distressing. Sagan wrote the preface to the first edition of the book, but was less famous than Hawking by the time of arrival of the tenth anniversary edition, in which Sagan's preface does not appear. God is discussed in "A Brief History of Time" from near the beginning all the way to the crescendo of the final sentence. So let us try to put Hawking's opinions about God in some sort of a context. The context is that Stephen Hawking seems to have made up his mind about God long before he became a cosmologist....
Stephen Hawking has made some eminently sensible statements on the relationship between science and Christianity. For example, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws." When asked by a reporter whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied cleverly "Then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity." Dr. Hawking is well aware that Newton had strong religious convictions...
"A Brief History of Time" makes wonderfully ambiguous statements such as, "Even if there is only one possible unified theory (here he is alluding to the envisioned unification of our understandings of quantum mechanics and gravity), it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" In a similar vein Hawking asks "Why does the universe go to the bother of existing?" Although Hawking does not attempt to answer these two critical questions, they make wonderful discussion topics for university students, and I have enjoyed using them for this purpose."
Read the other 21+ pages to get teh full scoop on proof that the universe was created
03-02-2004, 10:45 PM
#124
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NASA/JSC - Clear Lake, TX
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by FrestyleFC3S' date='Mar 2 2004, 10:34 PM
people that have to do all that to defend their beliefs are obviously doubting their own beliefs
yes i doubt, we all do, it's called being human. even among the doubt, there is truth, thank God.
oh, and dont bash my argument if you even fail to read into it...
03-02-2004, 10:50 PM
#125
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NASA/JSC - Clear Lake, TX
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by 9BASE3' date='Mar 2 2004, 12:46 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could believe what they wanted and it would be okay?
I'll fight neither side. Seems pretty useless to me.
If you believe, cool. If not, fine.
Don't rag on me for what I do, and I won't do it to you.
I'll fight neither side. Seems pretty useless to me.
If you believe, cool. If not, fine.
Don't rag on me for what I do, and I won't do it to you.
would you let someone get hit by a car if you could prevent it? no. you would do something. in that same manner, Jesus instructs his followers to "make disciples of all nations", loving one another and spreading the truth so that all my inherit eternal life.
03-02-2004, 10:51 PM
#126
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Schofield Barracks, HI
Posts: 2,259
Originally Posted by RX7Aggie' date='Mar 2 2004, 11:45 PM
yes i doubt, we all do, it's called being human. even among the doubt, there is truth, thank God.
i dont believe in God or any spiritual beings...... theres no doubt there
03-02-2004, 10:53 PM
#127
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Schofield Barracks, HI
Posts: 2,259
and enough with this BS arguing about religion no one cares
http://www.buzzle.com/boards.asp?board=238
go there
http://www.buzzle.com/boards.asp?board=238
go there
03-02-2004, 10:55 PM
#128
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: fredneck MD
Posts: 4,107
Originally Posted by 9BASE3' date='Mar 2 2004, 02:46 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could believe what they wanted and it would be okay?
I'll fight neither side. Seems pretty useless to me.
If you believe, cool. If not, fine.
Don't rag on me for what I do, and I won't do it to you.
I'll fight neither side. Seems pretty useless to me.
If you believe, cool. If not, fine.
Don't rag on me for what I do, and I won't do it to you.
AGGIE!!! NOBODY CARES!!! 90% of this topic is you blabbering on about whatever the hell you can find and copy and paste.
Just shut up man, we didnt need the argument.
"i'm a christian, look at me!!"
03-02-2004, 11:02 PM
#129
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NASA/JSC - Clear Lake, TX
Posts: 870
Originally Posted by WishIhadaRX7' date='Mar 2 2004, 08:35 AM
Now having bashed on organized religion let me state that I DO beleive in a God, which one? None of the ones available for choice at the moment...I do feel it obvious that something happened that is beyond ALL OF OUR understanding, to think that a small select group has all the answers when history has proven that everything we take as an absolute truth is proven not absolute at some point.
you seriously think God just randomly put this universe here for no apparent reason? what as sad, sad existence. no purpose, no reason. just to live, work, suffer, enjoy a few momentary pleasures, and die. life hardly seems worth living at all.
without purpose, we have no reason to live. the Christian God give us reason to exist!
3000 years ago everyone beleived the universe revolved around the Earth. 1000 years ago everyone beleived the Earth was flat. 500 years ago almost everyone beleived there were aliens on Mars. Today we beleive that quarks are the smallest particles that everything are built on (10 years ago it was protons, electrons, and nuetrons; 25 years ago it was an atom.)
My point is simply that are TRUTHS that we hold onto so dearly are based on your perspective. I personally don't give two ***** how you decide to worship so long as you don't try and force your views onto me.
My point is simply that are TRUTHS that we hold onto so dearly are based on your perspective. I personally don't give two ***** how you decide to worship so long as you don't try and force your views onto me.
what is your point? we grow in knowledge and the truth becomes more evident as time marches on? if that is the case, you would think somewhere we would have grown out of the "crazy notions" of gods and religion if they aren't the truth.
yet Christianity and Islam remain the fastest growing religions in the world, with numerous scientists and intellectuals coming to accept Christian findings as truth.
the more scientists dig down into the universe (ie. einstein, hawkings), the more they realize our universe was built with reason and purpose, by a creator, who has an amazingly intelligent design.
03-02-2004, 11:31 PM
#130
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Schofield Barracks, HI
Posts: 2,259