jaybird18c

Maybe you don't have the burden of proving God does not exist but you do have the burden to prove that the universe did in fact come into existence ex nihilo by some other naturalistic means (if that is your atheistic stance).....or that it has always been, on its own (which you cannot prove scientifically). If you could prove such a thing, you would prove what you said you didn't have to in the first place, though. Good luck! Seems unreasonable, however, to the majority of us that the irreducible complexity in the things we see came about by something other than an intelligent mind.

A term made up by creationist and used only by creationist. Same with 'historical science. You're funny. Ok then, how about testable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable experimentation (operational) versus interpreting past events based on presupposed philosophical viewpoints (historical). Added: Lunchtime!

We're looking at the same evidence. I've got no problem with that which we can show to be true (operational science). You just also take speculative (historical science) investigation and assume a solid foundation from which to further your understanding built upon your atheistic assumptions. I see the exact same evidence and approach it from the other perspective. You can't adequately "prove" yours. I can't adequately "prove" mine...at least scientifically. The difference is, I admit my starting point and how it influences my interpretation. You do not admit yours. You take your unprovable position and establish it as absolute. Again, I do the same. We just disagree. I happen to think mine is more reasonable. I understand that you do the same.

There is no unified theory. You're treating quantum physics as such. The problem still exists. Thing is though, since you apparently can't be bothered to read even the anti science propaganda nonsense you link to, what makes you think your opinions about actual science will have any basis whatsoever? You have presuppositions just like I do (which you cannot prove scientifically). You see mine and think that I am anti-science which is untrue. I see yours and just better understand where you're coming from. I understand how your initial assumptions would then influence how you see everything else. It's your worldview. I happen to disagree with it. Added: Again, your assumption concerning what I've read is incorrect. I have a bookshelf full of this stuff...and not all by creationists. How can you be sure you're even reading this?

But you've got to say the same thing in reverse. Like I said before, it is your presupposition/assumption on which you build everything else. Nothing wrong with that...but it is what it is. Scientists did not always approach science in that way. It used to be that we explored our world/universe in an attempt to better understand the mind of God. Since the "Great Enlightenment", the trend has been to elliminate God from the equation and insert ourselves in His place (greatly increasing our arrogance). Belief does not negate science. How could it? God is at it's foundation.

There is no unified theory. You're treating quantum physics as such. The problem still exists.

The Bible is not meant to be a science book, however, where it touches on the scientific subjects, it is spot on. Incredibly spot on. It was penned by human beings moved by the Holy Spirit (e.g. It's the Word of God). The theological term is Plenary Inspiration. It means that God inspired the writers to write exactly as He directed without taking away from their individuality, personality, writing styles, personal input, etc. Since it is the Word of God primarily written by men, it is authoritative in what it claims and describes. The "scientific knowledge" of the men at the time is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure God is more "up on" physics than even Kallend or that Queen bandmember with a PhD.

That's ironic. Typing fast....sorry. I understand that you think any opposing view is a crock of shit steve. However, Professor Richard Lewontin would disagree with you...and he's not with AiG.

No doubt about that. We can test and show that to be true. That's not the point. It is an assumption that it has always been that way (with regard to origins). I admit, a good assumption, based on the evidence of what we see today, and coming from a materialistic point of view. The quote above, however, was really in reference to NDT Evolution (molecules-to-man). The Bronze Age comment is derrogatory, presumptive, and just plain ignorant. Really goes back to what I've talked about before with regard to our worldview, our assumptions based on that worldview, which in turn influences how we interpret the evidence. The quote that I posted above is very telling. It seems to be a great example of the bias in the scientific community. The same bias that was discussed in Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed." Then again, that Harvard Professor is probably not in the same category as Kallend. He's probably an idiot also. Probably in the same category as that Queen bandmember with a PhD....or anyone else who disagrees with the atheistic evolutionary worldview....who claims to be a scientist.

Interesting…

You're sitting in the proof...unless you think the chair you're in could have somehow organized itself over billions of years...the chair is evidence of a chair maker....with a mind...and ability to build it.

Much better than everything coming from nothing, blowing up, and becoming what you see today on its own...or even that everything just always existed and somehow organized itself.

Where did your god come from? He has always been.

He also discusses this theory: Distant Starlight

No....but you attacked his. Because YOU brought it up in an appeal to authority fallacy. You can't address his issues, therefore, you attack the person.

No....but you attacked his.

I am not an astrophysicist or a scientist of any kind. Nevertheless, huge problems still exist for your naturalistic worldview (based on presuppositions just like mine). The issues exist...posed by some very intelligent people.

So your physics background also doesn't mean shit because Queen has an intelligent/credentialed bandmember?

The problem with you guys always spouting that God is omnipotent and omniscient and assigning blame is that God is also personal and a laundry list of other things (and that's just what He's revealed to us). You assign motive based on a very limited scope.

The Big Bang as it is understood today is an inadequate theory since there are many fundamental problems that are seldom mentioned in the pertinent literature. The following are some "missing links" in the theory: 1. Missing Origin. The Big Bang theory assumes an original concentration of energy. Where did this energy come from? Astronomers sometimes speak of origin from a "quantum mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum." However, an energy source is still needed. Actually, there is no secular origin theory, since every idea is based on preexisting matter or energy. 2. Missing Fuse. What ignited the Big Bang? The mass concentration proposed in this theory would remain forever as a universal black hole. Gravity would prevent it from expanding outward. 3. Missing Star Formation. No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies. 4. Missing Antimatter. Some versions of the Big Bang theory require an equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter (positrons, antiprotons) are found in space. 5. Missing Time. Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old. If true, then there is not sufficient time for the consequences of the Big Bang to unfold. A short time span would not allow for the gradual evolution of the earth, heavens, and mankind. 6. Missing Mass. Many scientists assume that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to collapse inward. Then it will again explode, and repeat its oscillating type of perpetual motion. This idea is an effort to avoid an origin and destiny for the universe. For oscillation to occur, the universe must have a certain density or distribution of mass. So far, measurements of the mass density are a hundred times smaller than expected. The universe does not appear to be oscillating. The necessary mass is "missing." 7. Missing Life. In an evolving universe, life should have developed everywhere. Space should be filled with radio signals from intelligent life forms. Where is everybody?

Dr. Jason Lisle holds a Ph.D. in astrophysics from the University of Colorado at Boulder. Dr. Lisle is a popular author and researcher for Answers in Genesis and also uses his knowledge of the heavens to proclaim the handiwork of God in DVDs, such as Distant Starlight and Creation Astronomy.

Where did matter/energy come from?

God & Natural Law

God made the place. He makes the rules.

QuoteSome things are attributed simply to the fact that we live in an imperfect world tainted by sin in which bad things happen. God causes some things to occur. God allows other things to happen. Either way, God is holy, just, trustworthy, and sovereign. I attribute my son's recovery as well as his sickness to God's Providence. I know God will take care of my son in life or in death. Was there a reason for his sickness? I think so but I'm not certain. I know it greatly strengthened my faith as well as my wife and her mother. And my son understands also. I think his experience will be instrumental in his own faith and walk through life. Bottom line....no matter what happens in life....God is good....all the time. If my son had died, God is still good and worthy of praise. He will see my son till the end.