Evolution Disclaimer Supported

LOL! I see I haven't missed anything by not reading his posts. What a bore it must be to argue about my qualifications! The creatins really must have run out of things to discuss. ;^)

Do not mock the all-powerful Time Cube(tm)!

LOL! Don't feel alone! He questioned mine too!

Placeholder bump

Also chemistry is not so much based on the Christian religion but on the human greed and lust for gold. Generations of alchemists tried to produce gold from less noble materials but by doing so they discovered something much more valuable: the true elements matter consists of as well as their properties.
So with Lavoisier and his contemporaries alchemy began to look more and more like modern chemistry and these chemists now no longer looked for a method how to turn lead into gold but instead they were more interested in discovering new materials, compounds, alloys and their properties.

Just wanted to add this ;)

Even so, would you regard geometry and Aristotilian logic as being dependendent on the Zeus axiom? Your answer must be "Yes,"

Actually, no :-)

Your web site says this:

A common argument against the Bible involves varves—rock formations with alternating layers of fine dark, and coarse light sediment. Annual changes are assumed to deposit bands with light layers in summer and dark layers in winter. It is reported that some rock formations contain hundreds of thousands of varves, thereby ‘proving’ the earth is much older than the Bible says.[9] But the assumption that each couplet always takes a year to form is wrong. Recent catastrophes show that violent events like the Flood described in Genesis can deposit banded rock formations very quickly. The Mount St. Helens eruption in Washington State produced eight metres (25 feet) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon![10]

It implies but does not say that what Mt. St. Helens produced was instinguishable from real annual varves. This is the worst sort of head-fake dishonesty, the reason why I have sadly concluded that there simply are no honest creationists. Mt. St. Helens produced some gravitationally sorted ash. Period.

The more frequently encountered claim on these threads is that Mt. St. Helens produced a whole new geologic column in one afternoon. It didn't do that, either. A few sorted ash layers are not a geologic column.

And your source (Young-Earth as young can be) shows that Young-Earth Creationism is hardly a strawman on these threads.

Actually, no :-)

Better re-think that. You're running the risk of getting zapped by a thunderbolt. Zeus is quick to anger.

I've never thought about (the scientific accuracies in the Bible.) Can you give some examples?

When I first read the Bible it was with quite a bit of skepticism, and with the presumption it was written in the middle ages to control the peasants. My mind changed. People described in the book -- even in Genesis -- acted as I had come to see people behave and how I myself behaved. Moses is no mythological hero. God tells him to go to Pharoh, Moses tells him to send someone else.

The Bible is concise. There is no elaboration. There is little drama. Things are stated matter-of-factly, and these things, along with God's grace led me to believe that it was basically true.

Now, as I said, I was reading skeptically and looking for contradictions. And I could find them. On the other hand I could find them in my daily newspaper too, or in just about any history book. The contradictions, actually, ended up bolstering my faith in the book.

I was keeping a special watch for the parts that I been led to believe were now laughable in their descriptions of nature due to scientific advances. This would be understandable. Look how poorly Origin of the Species has held up.

But I couldn't find those laughable items in the Bible. The story of creation is vague. It's not hard to read it as an allegory.

I was impressed by the description of the water cycle in Job 36:27 and the fact that Job 26:7 states that God "hangs the earth upon nothing.” That's pretty remarkable considering the state of science at the time.

Another scientifically profound thing I found in Scripture was that the material universe is going to end. That always struck me as being counter-intuitive. Ancient peoples made their monuments expecting them to last forever.

But, as I said, the Bible is not a science book and I think the lack of scientific details is most significant. If it was written by men, there would be also sorts of things on every page that made sense at the time but are now shown to be false.

Check the link. Aristotle was an anti-pagan. He believed in a single god who was the prime mover of creation.

Aristotle was an anti-pagan. He believed in a single god who was the prime mover of creation.

He ended up believing in several prime movers. He needed them for his astronomy. And his "prime mover" wasn't what we think of as God -- just a source of motion. Sorry, he was a pagan.

On the subject of varves, the following is an interesting reply to a comparison between the Grand Canyon and Mt. St. Helens, with arguments that pertain directly to the subject at hand (emphasis added):

Steve Austin has used several things to try to compare St. Helens with the Grand Canyon. First, in the volcanic ash around St. Helens, there is layering within the ash. This layering is due to the dynamics of a turbulent fluid. Austin writes,

" The June 12, 1980, eruption of Mount St. Helens produced a hurricane-velocity, surging-flow of volcanic ash, which accumulated in less than 5 hours, as twenty-five feet of laminated volcanic ash. Figure 3.14 shows a portion of that laminated volcanic ash. A lake in Switzerland, which was thought to accumulate one lamina pair each year, was shown to accumulate up to five laminae pairs per year, by a rapid, turbid-water, underflow process. One layer withing the Swiss lake dates from the year 1811, but was observed in 1971 to be buried beneath 300 to 360 varvelike silt laminae."~Steven A. Austin, "Interpreting Strata of Grand Canyon," in Steven A. Austin, editor, Grand Canyon: A Monument to Catastrophe, (Santee: Inst. for Creation Research, 1994), p. 38.

So he tries to say that laminations in the ash are the same as laminations in varves. By this, he tries to say that varves are not yearly deposits. Slick trick but terribly wrong. There are major differences between the St. Helens ash and varves.

1. Varves are made up of two different sedimentary materials which alternate, such as organic matter and either clay or limstone. The entire ash is a single lithology---it is ash. The laminations are to solely to particle size and porosity variations, not a different material.

2. there is pollen found in varves that varies through the two alternating materials in a cyclical pattern which is indicative of the seasons at which the flowers bloom. Flint writes:

"A rhythmite deposited in a lake near Interlaken in Switzerland consists of thin couplets each containing a light-colored layer rich in calcium carbonate and a dark layer rich in organic matter. Proof that the couplets are annual, and therefore varves, is established on organic evidence, first recognized by Heer(1865). The sediment contains pollen grains, whose number per unit volume of sediment varies cyclically being greatest in the upper parts of the dark layers. The pollen grains of various genera are stratified systematically according to the season of blooming. Finally, diatoms are twice as abundant in the light-colored layers as in the dark. From this evidence it is concluded that the light layers represent summer seasons and the dark ones fall, winter and spring. Counts of the layers indicate a record that is valid through at least the last 7,000 years B. P. " ~Richard Foster Flint, Glacial and Quaternary Geology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971, p. 400.

You can't find cyclically varying pollen in the Mt. St. Helens ash and Steve knows this.

Austin further writes:

"The rills and gullies resemble badlands topography, which geologists have usually assumed required many hundreds or even thousands of years to form."~Steven A. Austin, "Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism", Impact, 157, July, 1986, p. ii

Once again this is the erosion of relatively soft volcanic ash. This material is not like hardened lava (which can take up to 400 years for a river to incise) I would like to see where some geologist thinks that volcanic ash would take thousands of years to erode.

"The little 'Grand Canyon of the Toutle River' is a one-fortieth scale model of the real Grand Canyon. The small creeks which flow through the headwaters of the Toutle River today might seem, by present appearances, to have carved these canyons very slowly over a long time period, except for the fact that the erosion was observed to have occurred rapidly! Geologists should learn that, since the long-time scale they have been trained to assign to landform development would lead to obvious error on Mount St. Helens, it also may be useless or misleading elsewhere."~Steven A. Austin, "Mount St. Helens and Catastrophism", Impact, 157, July, 1986, p. ii

To claim that this little canyon is a scale model of the Grand Canyon is entirely misleading. The Grand Canyon is made of 5000 feet of multiple lithologies. The layers there are limestone, dolomite, sand, shale each of which vary in hardness and erodability. Each layer has different fossils in it. Some layers have footprints of vertebrates on their surfaces. There are erosional channels in the Esplanade and collapsed caves in the Redwall limestone. Some of the collapsed caves contain pieces of Chinle formation. This is the top most horizon in the Grand Canyon area but is only found in two places at two small hills on the south side of the canyon. The entire area has been denuded of Chinle. The remnants found in Redwall Limestone cave breccia throughout the region is evidence of a lot of erosion off the top of the canyon.

Wenrich and Hunton write:

"The breccia pipes formed as sedimentary strata collapsed into dissolution caverns in the underlying Mississippian Redwall Limestone. Upward stoping through the upper Paleozoic and lower Mesozoic strata, involving units as high as the Triassic Chinle Formation."~Karen J. Wenrich and Peter W. Hunton, "Breccia Pipes and Associated mineralization in the Grand Canyon Region, Northern Arizona," Geology of the Grand Canyon, Northern Arizona, 28th Int. Geol. Congress, Field Trip Guide Book, (Washington: AGU, 1989), p. 212

These filled caves have NO Chinle currently over them yet they occur throughout the Grand Canyon with a density of 6 per square kilometer!

You can't find any of the above features in the St. Helens ash. There are NO fossils in the middle of the ash layers; there are thousands of fossils in the beds at the Grand Canyon. There are NO footprints in the middle of the ash during the eruption; there are footprints in the Esplanade sandstone and the Coconino at the Grand Canyon. There are no channels eroded into the MIDDLE of the ash layer at St. Helen; there are thousands of channels (some as much as 1000 feet wide) cut into the Supai Group at two different vertical positions. (See US Geological Professional paper 1173, p. 155-176)

To make the comparison that Steve does is... not fair to those who do not know geology. They do not know the major differences between what a single lithology ash bed and a system of varying lithology with varying sedimentologic patterns and varying diagenetic patterns.

Obviously, this type of misrepresentation upsets me because this is preying on the minds of people who couldn't possibly know better. If Steve would say that the comparison is not good but I believe that the Grand Canyon was deposited in a year, then I would have much less difficulty with what he is doing.

Varves

He ended up believing in several prime movers.

Patrick, where are you getting your information from?

Check here, or better yet, here. Both are edu sites.

The story of creation is vague. It's not hard to read it as an allegory.

We agree on that.

I was impressed by the description of the water cycle in Job 36:27 and the fact that Job 26:7 states that God "hangs the earth upon nothing.” That's pretty remarkable considering the state of science at the time.

Job isn't scientifically impressive:

36:27 For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:
36:28 Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly.
36:29 Also can any understand the spreadings of the clouds, or the noise of his tabernacle?

And as for "hanging the earth on nothing," I can quote you a dozen flat-earth passages, and in many of them the earth rests on pillars. I don't find scripture to be scientifically accurate at all. Not one bit. It's descriptions of nature are entirely in keeping with the naked-eye observations of people at the time it was written. Very inspiring. Very uplifting. Filled with wisdom. But I'll get my science elsewhere, thank you.

Another scientifically profound thing I found in Scripture was that the material universe is going to end. That always struck me as being counter-intuitive. Ancient peoples made their monuments expecting them to last forever. But, as I said, the Bible is not a science book and I think the lack of scientific details is most significant.

The universe seems as if it never "end." Present thinking is that it will expand forever. We agree on one thing. It's not a science book. Not even close.

Me: "He [Aristotle] ended up believing in several prime movers."

You:
Patrick, where are you getting your information from?

In his metaphysics, Aristotle was convinced that a divine being existed, the Prime Mover. He is responsible for the unity and purposefulness of nature. God is perfect and all things want to be like him since all things want to reach perfection. There are also other Prime Movers, 47 or 55 by number, and they are the intelligent movers of the stars and the planets. The Prime Mover is not really a religious being since he takes no interest in what goes on in the world and he did not create it.

Source: Aristotle.

Are your beliefs in conflict with the evidence?

Excerpted and paraphrased (in part) from The Creator Beyond Space and Time, by Mark Eastman and Chuck Missler

The Rise of the god Called "Chance"

At the beginning of the 20th century most of the world still traveled at the speed of horseback. At the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st cent we travel at the speed of sound and communicate at the speed of light.

At the dawn of the 20th cent. the western world was dominated by a belief in the existence of God, a mostly Judeo-Christian world view. Universities such as Oxford and Harvard required courses in religion for graduation. At the
end of the 20th cent. our public schools and the national media teach and promote primarily an atheistic or agnostic world view which is founded on Darwin's theory of evolution.

In the 1960's this huge shift in world view reached its high point with the declaration that "God is dead!" [As appeared on the cover of Time magazine.] However, while 20th cent. intellectuals confidently declared that God was
dead, more discoveries in astronomy [astronomy, not astrology], physics, molecular biology [DNA], and information theory providing evidence of God's existence had accumulated than at any time in history. The implications of these discoveries are so staggering that many scientists have since asserted that the report of God's death was apparently premature! The scientific
evidence available to us today more than points to a Creator who goes beyond the range of human experience, knowledge, or powers of description [i.e. transcendent]. It intellectually demands it.

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is that we are products of billions of years of random, chance occurrences, evolving [i.e. developing] from lower
life forms, as opposed to our being the product of intelligent design. Darwin said that chance chemistry, combined with long periods of time, is the cause for all life on earth. And that all life on earth came from a
common single-celled ancestor which arose from the "primordial ooze" some 3.5 billion years ago. Meaning that humankind is an accident of chemistry. The Creator-God of the Bible was replaced by the god called "chance."

For the theory of evolution to take root it was necessary to discredit the established Judeo-Christian world view that was the very foundation of early American society. With the growing acceptance of Darwin's theory combined
with growing criticism of the Bible, the almost universal acceptance of God and authority of the Bible were replaced with skepticism. By mid-20th cent Darwin's theory had become the accepted world view in western universities.
Currently, in nearly all our public schools, students are taught that the Bible is a scientifically inaccurate book composed primarily of myths, legends, and a bit of history. What was once the most revered book in the land, the first textbook in the first public school in America, has become
an object of ridicule and contempt for intellectuals, the mass media, and the "politically correct."

The Origin of the Universe

For thousands of years philosophers, theologians and scientists have debated the question of the origin of the universe. Is the universe eternal, endless, and "uncaused" [infinite] or did the universe have a beginning in time and space? If the universe did begin at a fixed [finite] point in time and space, was it created by an outside cause or did it create itself? If the universe was "caused to exist" by an outside intelligence then there are enormous implications for us as inhabitants of the universe.

In the 4th cent. B.C., Plato and Aristotle popularized the belief that the universe is infinite [endless] in both time and space, and this belief is still used as the model for the universe among scientists and philosophers. During the same time period theologians argued that the universe was caused to exist at a fixed point in time. Al-Ghazali, a Muslim and Thomas Aquinas, a Christian are credited for fully developing this argument for the existence of an outside, intelligent agent, a Creator, namely God. The one
factor missing in the 4th cent debate over the endless [infinite] versus fixed [finite] universe was objective, scientific evidence.

Enter the Twentieth Century

To the dismay of many scientists, philosophers, atheists and agnostics, 20th cent scientific discoveries strongly support the idea that the universe was caused to exist by an extra-dimensional, supernatural, transcendent Creator.
NASA astronomer Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated:

"...Most remarkable of all, astronomers have found proof that the universe sprang into existence abruptly, in a sudden moment of creation, as the Bible said it did."

Prior to the 20th cent, the belief that the universe was endless was almost unquestioned by astronomers. These new scientific discoveries were making some folks angry [why???].

In 1887, 2 American physicists, A. Michelson and E. Morley determined that the speed of light [approx. 186,000 miles per second] was constant in all circumstances. The speed of light did not vary even if the observer was rapidly moving away from or toward the source of the light. In 1905 Albert
Einstein showed that measurements of length, size, speed and time are relative to the speed of 2 or more observers. An example of Einstein's theory: One brother stays on earth and the other agrees to fly in a space ship at 99% of the speed of light. The space traveling bro doesn't notice
anything different as he travels at near the speed of light. When he returns, he notes that he has experienced a few years of time passage. When he tries to find his bro, to his dismay, he finds his bro is long since dead, having experienced decades of time passage! The space traveler's time has been widened [expanded] by his incredible speed. What was perceived as a time period of a few years in space, was on earth several decades of time passage.

Also, in 1913 astronomer V. Slipher found that galaxies in our vicinity were racing away from us [expanding] at enormous speeds, not fixed and merely rotating in place as previously believed.

Some of the outcomes of Einstein's discoveries/theories: Space is expanding; all the matter in the universe is moving away from a fixed point of origin; time itself is a physical thing; space and time are so coupled to each other that scientists now speak of "space-time." Einstein's theories shocked the scientific community.

Furthermore and also stunning to the scientific community, in 1968-70 Steven Hawking [and other astrophysicists] calculated that space-time had a fixed beginning that corresponded to the beginning of matter and energy. They
concluded that prior to that moment, space-time did not exist.

NASA astronomer, Jastrow, stated: "Theologians are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but [scientists] are curiously upset. It turns out that scientists behave the way the rest of us do when our beliefs
are in conflict with the evidence."

The implications of this new scientific evidence were obvious and threatened the atheistic/agnostic view of the world.

Now What?

The book of Genesis states that the matter in our universe arose from an act of a transcendent Creator at a fixed point in time [versus a random, chance act of chemistry arising out of nothing--the primordial ooze]. A transcendent Creator would have the ability to act and exist both inside and outside of our space-time universe. He could cross the lines of timelessness and show Himself in our space-time. Rather than explore that possibility,
scientists tried to find other reasons for the fact of a beginning point for our universe. How did it happen? Incredibly and with not a shred of evidence, scientists came up with what they called the Big Bang Theory,
which states that there was a big bang of heat and energy and THAT caused the start of the universe and matter and energy. This theory is a point of enormous dispute.

"Matter" means those things that occupy space in the world; i.e. atoms, protons, molecules, cells, soil, water, trees, etc. The fact that matter now exists must somehow be explained. How did it get here? There are only two
options: The matter in our universe is either endlessly, infinitely old; or the matter in our universe appeared out of nothing at a fixed point in time.

The Laws of Thermodynamics

The belief that matter is eternal [having no beginning or end] has been the common explanation to get around an out-of-nothing creation explanation. Until the 20th cent there has been no scientific evidence to verify or nullify this belief, but a growing body of scientific evidence has convinced scientists that matter is not eternal. [For example, it's now believed that protons are in an irreversible state of decay. In other words, they're
dying.]

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics: matter and its energy can neither be created nor destroyed [either by itself or by us] under natural circumstances. There is no new matter or energy appearing anywhere in the universe, nor is there
any matter being destroyed.

The 2nd Law of Thermo: As time goes on the universe goes from a state of order to a state of disorder [I first heard of this one as the Theory of Entropy--entropy meaning disorder]. This Law also states that the energy
available to perform work in the universe decreases with time. The orderliness of the universe is steadily decreasing into disorder. Examples: (1) Shuffle a new deck of cards and the orderly arrangement of the cards
will become random and disordered. (2) In order to wind up a clock spring, we must apply outside energy with our hands to tighten it. The moment we let go the energy stored in the wound up spring is converted to heat and work is
performed as it moves the various parts of the clock. This movement will only wind down--it cannot wind up itself.

Robert Jastrow: "The 2nd Law of Thermo, applied to the universe, indicates the universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up."

A source for the "winding up" must be found because matter cannot energize or arrange itself.

Skeptics make fun of the Biblical creation because it records a supernatural event for the origin of space-time and matter. Yet, if you research the theories put forth in the last 100 years on natural (as opposed to
supernatural/biblical) origins, they are few and far between. Faced with the scientific evidence of a finite [having a fixed point of beginning] and expanding universe, scientists began to look for ways to save their theories
of an endless, infinite universe. There were several propositions and theories and guesses made, but all have been in contradiction to either the 1st or 2nd Laws of Thermo.

If matter can neither be created nor destroyed under natural circumstances, we must conclude a supernatural cause for the creation/existence of matter. Something outside of our space-time created matter at a fixed point in time. To avoid this conclusion, some scientists have proposed that the laws of thermo are different elsewhere in the universe, a claim that is not supported by any scientific evidence whatsoever. Such assertions only reveal
the lengths to which some will go to avoid a fixed beginning for the universe and the equally uncomfortable [for scientists!] question of who or what energized matter.

Only One Option Left

Since matter is not eternal, we are left with only one option--it arose out of nothing at a fixed point in time. Those who believe in the Biblical account of creation know that the appearance of matter out of nothing was a miracle performed by a Creator who must transcend [go beyond or be outside of] the physical universe. Some scientists who believe as Carl Sagan put it, that "the Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be," are forced by the overwhelming scientific evidence to conclude that matter arose from nothing somehow APART FROM an intelligent Creator.

And the atheists immediately protest: "If God made the universe then who made God?" Because, as Einstein proved, time is itself a physical, natural thing and the Creator would have to be supernatural, questions about God's
origin are meaningless. God, a supernatural being outside our space-time, would have existed before time began [before that fixed point in time when the universe and matter began]. He would not be subject to time-bound
concepts such as birth and death. He would be outside of space-time. Furthermore, God, a supernatural being who existed prior to the creation of the universe (before time) and the laws by which the universe is governed, would not be subject to them. God was never "young" nor is He aging as
dictated by the 2nd Law.

Atheism Versus Creation

The creationist's model begins with an infinitely intelligent, all-powerful, transcendent Creator who used intelligent design, expertise or know-how to create everything from sub-atomic particles to giant redwood trees. A supernatural event. A miracle.

The atheist's model begins with an even more impressive miracle--the appearance of all the matter in the universe from nothing, by no one, and for no reason. A supernatural event. A miracle. However, atheists do not believe in the outside or transcendent being we call God. Therefore, the
atheist has no natural or supernatural explanation for the origin of space-time and matter. The atheist scenario leaves us hanging in a totally dissatisfying position. His model begins with a supernatural event. This supernatural event, however, is accomplished without a supernatural being to perform it.

IF all matter could arise by itself out of nothing [which would defy 2nd Law of Thermo], how do we explain how this matter developed into highly organized and orderly structures like galaxies, solar systems, living creatures without the introduction of energy, information or know-how from outside the system? A major problem for the evolutionary or atheistic theories on the origin of the universe is to explain how the universe became ordered and energized. The implications of the 2nd Law of Thermo--how the universe became energized or wound up--is one of the greatest dilemmas facing scientists. Sir Arthur Eddington, professor of astronomy at Cambridge University in England said that any theory of the universe that denies the 2nd Law of Thermo is doomed.

Another Cambridge University astronomer, Sir James Jeans, in observing the orderly state of the universe, said "...the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician...." The great "mystery" of an orderly,
decaying universe were addressed by physicist, H.J. Lipson: "...we must admit that the only accepted explanation is Creation....[This is an outrage to me and other physicists], but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

Scientists Scramble for an Alternative

In order to get around the overwhelming evidence that our universe was created at a fixed point in time, an enormous amount of energy has been spent in search of a loophole [some people will do or say anything to deny a Creator and the resulting implications--why?]. Several variations of the Big Bang Theory have been proposed to explain away the fact that the universe had a beginning. All have been in contradiction to the 2nd Law of Thermo. All the variations on the Big Bang Theory boil down to the question dictated
by the 2nd Law of Thermo: Who or what energized the Big Bang?

Science Confirms the Bible

The 20th cent. scientific discoveries of an expanding universe and that space-time had a beginning are difficult to understand. Yet these facts have been taught in the Bible for some 3500 years. Written over a period of over
1500 years, by over 40 authors of different backgrounds, the Bible dared to claim that space-time and matter were created at a fixed moment in the history of the universe. ("In the beginning, God created the heavens (space) and earth (matter)." Gen: 1:1)

Numerous allusions are made to the concept of an expanding universe in the Old Testament. See Psalm 104:1-2, Isaiah 42:5 and Isa 45:12 (NKJ version) for passages referring to God stretching out the heavens like a curtain [space expanding or stretched out from its point of origin]. See also Psalm 103:25-26, Isa 51:6 and Matt 24:35 (NKJ) for accurate references to the 2nd Law of Thermo, the law of universal decay.

Skeptics and agnostics will argue that biblical authors were lucky. They just happened to describe the creation of the universe in a fashion which is in agreement with 20th cent. science, but there are dozens of other Bible verses that show foreknowledge of 20th cent. scientific knowledge. The fact that the Bible contains such uncanny scientific foreknowledge has not gone unnoticed by the scientific establishment.

Harvard University astronomer, Owen Gingerich, Ph.D.: "Both the scientific and biblical accounts [of the origins of the universe] assume a beginning...everything springing up from that blinding flash bears striking resemblance to the words of Gen 1:3: 'And God said, let there be light.'"

NASA astronmer and self-professed agnostic, Jastrow: "We see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world: the chain of events leading to man started suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."

For centuries the biblical teaching of a finite universe was ridiculed by skeptics. Then came Michelson & Morley, Slipher, Einstein, and Hawking, et al.

The Origin of Life

Incredibly complex mechanisms such as brains, kidneys, eyes, hearts, and lungs must be viewed as either the result of careful design and forethought, or the products of blind, undirected, chance chemistry. Your eyes--intelligent design or chance chemistry? Your heart--intelligent design
or chance chemistry? When all the frills are stripped away, this is the fundamental question in the debate on the origin of life.

The claim that design in biology requires a designer was presented in 1818 by Wm. Paley. Paley pointed out many parallels between machines and the structures found in living systems [i.e. the hearts, eyes, lungs, etc. found
in "living systems," such as humans!! Cells, plants, animals, water, matter! are also living systems]. He argued that if we were to find a watch on the ground we would never conclude that it simply arose by a chance combining of
atoms. The various gears, springs, and mechanisms in the watch obviously require a designer. Paley believed that since life has every appearance of a machine-like design, there must have been a designer. Paley's claim was
ridiculed and attacked. Since the molecular structure of living systems was not known during Paley's time, there was no way to verify his claim that living systems were, in fact, machines.

Then Came DNA!

In the last half of 20th cent discoveries in the field of molecular biology have brought the evolutionary, random-chance origin of life scenario into serious question. Discovery after discovery reveal that living systems
contain structures which conform in every way to the modern definition of a machine.

Molecular biologist, Michael Denton: "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small...each is in effect a mico-miniature factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery...far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel...."

According to Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod, machines are purposeful aggregates of matter that use energy to perform work. Clocks, gasoline powered engines, etc. are all machines. The sum total of experimental science and engineering knowledge confirms that all machines are the result of purposeful design by an intelligent source. The theory of evolution would have you believing that matter, which possesses no knowledge, know-how, or purposefulness, developed into highly complex machines by chance! Evolution
cannot explain the origin of the complex molecules found in living systems which reproduce, repair and process food. Those molecules include DNA, RNA, proteins, fats, sugars, vitamins, etc. [approx. 50 organic molecules required to manufacture the simplest living cells].

Like a computer, living systems require more than just molecular structures [hardware] to function. They also require coded instructions [software] to direct the activities of the molecules. Like a computer, these instructions need to live within each living system. With the discovery of the DNA molecule, biologists have conclusively demonstrated that the growth of all life on earth is carefully controlled by a language or system called the Genetic Code which is "carried" by the DNA molecule. This language/code contains the instructions for the activities of molecules [i.e. reproduction, repair, processing food, etc]. Information theory shows that
all languages/codes are the result of intelligent forethought or design. The question is where did this language/code come from? The atheists' scenario [evolution] claims that it arose from random chance out of some
ancient/primitive mud referred to as "primordial ooze" and organized itself into machine-like living systems. Explain the origin of the machine-like molecules, as well as the enormously complex, coded information found in all living systems without the introduction of knowledge, concepts, know-how, contrivance or intelligent design.

Intelligent Design or Chance Chemistry?

In the last quarter-cent a number of scientists (many professed atheists and agnostics) have begun to talk about God. The evidence for a finite, decaying, finely-tuned universe has led many to conclude that there must be a Mind behind it all. They are being forced by the weight of 20th cent scientific discoveries in astronomy, physics, and molecular biology (to name a few!) to believe in the existence of an intelligent Designer/Creator. Something or Someone has set into motion and tinkered with this universe
from outside of it. Something or Someone who would need to possess enormous power and scientific know-how; who would need to exist, like a painter to his painting, outside the "canvas" and yet be able to enter the "canvas" [i.e. the universe] and act unencumbered in it. A Creator who is beyond space or time.

Agnostic and NASA astronomer Robert Jastrow eloquently expresses the implications of 20th cent scientific discoveries:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock,
he is greeted by a band of theologians [believers!] who have been sitting there for centuries."

If you like edu sites, here's one (NYU): Aristotle.

In his metaphysics, Aristotle argued for the existence of a divine being, described as the Prime Mover, who is responsible for the unity and purposefulness of nature. God is perfect and therefore the aspiration of all things in the world, because all things desire to share perfection.Other movers exist as well the intelligent movers of the planets and stars (Aristotle suggested that the number of these is "either 55 or 47"). The Prime Mover, or God, described by Aristotle is not very suitable for religious purposes, as many later philosophers and theologians have observed. Aristotle limited his "theology," however, to what he believed science requires and can establish.

Anyway, as I said, Aristotle was a pagan. He was certainly no theist, as we understand the term.

Excerpted and paraphrased (in part) from The Creator Beyond Space and Time, by Mark Eastman and Chuck Missler

One of your authors, Chuck Missler, is a total whack-job: Is Light Slowing Down?. I suspect his partner is also. Instead of that monster post, a simple link to whatever creationist website you copied that screed from would have been more than sufficient.

Another scientifically profound thing I found in Scripture was that the material universe is going to end. That always struck me as being counter-intuitive. Ancient peoples made their monuments expecting them to last forever.

Ever hear of Ragnorak?

Another reminder: notwithstanding constant dodges, evasions, excuses, and attempts to provoke a flame war (and thus an excuse to have the thread pulled), we are all waiting for g3k to answer a simple question: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?.