This is a worthy video that all should watch and consider:
MM
MM
Doctrine of Miraculous Creation
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
The above video explains, from the perspective of science, WHY miraculous Creation is the ONLY feasible, scientific, explanation.
MM
MM
I hope you all don't mind that I don't apologize for being a scientist, and therefore willing to share how well science, REAL science, proves the existence of God. The sheer numbers within chemical biogenesis studies have values that as closely describe the definition of "IMPOSSIBLE" as one can get...mathematically speaking.
1X10^78,000,000,000
If only more people had an understanding of just how large that number is. To give you an idea, Astrophysicists have stated that the entire known universe can only hold 1X10^128 electrons...the smallest known subatomic particle. So, the different between two numbers, a one followed by 128 zeroes, and a one followed by 78 BILLION zeroes...folks, oh my, the vastness in the difference of magnitudes is astounding to say the least.
This presentation drives home just how mathematically challenged evolutionary professors really are.
MM
1X10^78,000,000,000
If only more people had an understanding of just how large that number is. To give you an idea, Astrophysicists have stated that the entire known universe can only hold 1X10^128 electrons...the smallest known subatomic particle. So, the different between two numbers, a one followed by 128 zeroes, and a one followed by 78 BILLION zeroes...folks, oh my, the vastness in the difference of magnitudes is astounding to say the least.
This presentation drives home just how mathematically challenged evolutionary professors really are.
MM
Hello Musicmaster;
I watched Dr. James Tour. From my understanding he is a Christian and loves Jesus.
I don't feel I am qualified to be constructive but here goes;
I struggled understanding this video you introduced. I got lost listening to his terminology. I'm not a scientist, chemist or biologist. Most of my life I have never really been interested in these but in my later years I chose to keep the best open heart I can for each subject.
Dr. Tour seemed angry in his argument regarding the origin of life. From whom does he seem angry? I heard him mention that only those with a masters degree are qualified to explain the origin of life.
Dr. Tour seemed bent on science and the things that cannot be explained but said it takes a lot of faith to explain the origins of life, and if one has that level of faith, good for them! He made it sound like faith is an option.
Anyway, lol! That is what I got from watching this video.
I watched Dr. James Tour. From my understanding he is a Christian and loves Jesus.
I don't feel I am qualified to be constructive but here goes;
I struggled understanding this video you introduced. I got lost listening to his terminology. I'm not a scientist, chemist or biologist. Most of my life I have never really been interested in these but in my later years I chose to keep the best open heart I can for each subject.
Dr. Tour seemed angry in his argument regarding the origin of life. From whom does he seem angry? I heard him mention that only those with a masters degree are qualified to explain the origin of life.
Dr. Tour seemed bent on science and the things that cannot be explained but said it takes a lot of faith to explain the origins of life, and if one has that level of faith, good for them! He made it sound like faith is an option.
Anyway, lol! That is what I got from watching this video.
I fully understand the dilemma in trying to understand much of the terminology he presented. Yes, he is a strong believer and lover of Christ Jesus. His presentation,, however, is indeed absent mention of God. Why? Well, his intent is to show, purely from the foundations of science, that nature could not possibly have been the author of life. Random processes could not have formulated life as we know it. Time is the enemy of biogenesis, not its friend.
So, his presentation is hard-hitting, but what the layman CAN glean from this is the enormity of the impossibility for life to have arisen from purely naturalistic processes.
This uses science to show that the doctrine of Divine Creation is not only opposed to REALY science, but is VALIDATED by real science, leaving evolutionary claims in the dusts of absurdity.
Does that help?
MM
Oh, and when it seems as though he is angry, it's likely more a matter of exasperation at the sheer absurdity of claims routinely made by his field colleagues who know better than to say the things they say in support of naturalistic evolution. They are too smart to not realize they are perpetrating massive hyperbole when they inject so much extrapolation and broad assumption into processes that require such fine-tuned precision. I fully appreciate his frustration at the willful and indifferent blindness to scientific integrity his colleagues perpetrate on a daily basis.
Thanks, brother, for your feedback.
MM
Thanks, brother, for your feedback.
MM
Hello MM
I enjoyed watching this video and found it very interesting.
I did not understand some the terminology, but perhaps just enough to feel I got the general message: creating life, it ain’t so easy! Certainly not as simple as some of those darn biologists would have us believe*.
*Note to self, do not sit this gentleman next to an evolutionary biologist at next luncheon.
Also, I see he has the passion of someone who sees a truth clearly and fervently wants others to see as well.
Thank you.
Although he never said so, I felt his arguments implied that God was certainly behind creation. I would have liked to have heard that directly, it would have been a satisfying ending to the presentation. But perhaps this was intended for a specifically targeted audience.
Hello Musicmaster;
Actually, thank you for understanding and your explanation of what Dr. James Tour was presenting does help! Though none of us are academically disciplined in all areas, it is beneficial to listen and learn from those who are in various subjects.
I appreciate blueskies' point that God was behind creation in Tour's argument (in a good sense.) Thank you, brother.
This did present an eye opener and would be interested if MM's thread continues and getting other member's input (Siloam?)
God bless you, brothers, and thank you.
Yes, for the Christian, the origin of life is a miracle. The progression from the first replicating molecule to the abundant and varied life needed to be planned and shepherded and we see the results of that miracle continuing all around us.
Steven Gould (agnostic paleontologist) stated in one of his books that (and I am paraphrasing from memory) many scientists think evolutionary advance is fully explained by the Darwinian survival of the fittest, but if one were to turn the restart it all again, it may end up in nothing more complex than a bunch of algae.
So yes, even given an evolution based understanding, it still requires the guidance of a continually engaged God to empower and guide the processes.
There are a lot of places in my understanding of the history of the universe (faulty as my understanding may be) that require divine intervention. Believing in Evolution does not mean one does not believe in a personal, active God!
The miracle of creation is a continuous one.
Something out of nothing,
Making a place to live out of creation.
Creating life in the place to live.
Developing Lower life
Developing Higher life
Developing Man
Steven Gould (agnostic paleontologist) stated in one of his books that (and I am paraphrasing from memory) many scientists think evolutionary advance is fully explained by the Darwinian survival of the fittest, but if one were to turn the restart it all again, it may end up in nothing more complex than a bunch of algae.
So yes, even given an evolution based understanding, it still requires the guidance of a continually engaged God to empower and guide the processes.
There are a lot of places in my understanding of the history of the universe (faulty as my understanding may be) that require divine intervention. Believing in Evolution does not mean one does not believe in a personal, active God!
The miracle of creation is a continuous one.
Something out of nothing,
Making a place to live out of creation.
Creating life in the place to live.
Developing Lower life
Developing Higher life
Developing Man
Umm, Dave.....Hugh Ross is a Theistic Evolutionist. You may want to look more deeply into his beliefs. He's FAR from being a biblical apologist. He believes the Bible is true ONLY within the confines of the Gap Theory.
So, unless he has changed his beliefs of late, he is not one to believe in what he says.
Remember, science says nothing....it's fallible people who say things.
MM
You are certainly welcome, my brother.
There is a video on YouTube where Jim openly and clearly declares his love for Christ Jesus, and His absolute devotion to the Lord. You did indeed properly discern Jim's inner man and his beliefs.
Blessings to you and yours.
MM
Siloam, I'm really glad you brought this up. Good point.
If I may, I'd like to throw something into the mix that seems reasonable, and consistent with the words of Genesis.
If the Gap Theory were indeed true, then the Bible is rendered irrelevant and a total lie....at least, the Book of Genesis.
Without Genesis, the rest of the Bible collapses into a smoldering heap.
How can that be?
Simply stated, we know that sin entered the world through Adam. What did sin bring? Suffering, disease and death, all of which the fossil record records in living color.
If disease, suffering and death existed millions or billions of years before Adam and the fall, then the Bible lied to us.
So, dare we believe Hugh Ross and others of his stripe, we're left with a gross inconsistency in our ability to uphold the Bible as true and reliable.
So, either Hugh Ross and all the other evolutionists are right, and our faith is meaningless, or they are wrong. One cannot have it both ways.
Genesis says that Adam's fall brought sin, suffering and death into this world. I believe the Bible without the word gymnastic games Ross and others of his bandwagon foist upon others in order to diminish their faith in the scriptures that point directly to the One true God.
Unless Hugh Ross has changed his tune these past few years, or he's dead wrong.
If anyone has questions or comments, then please do ask and/or offer them.
MM
By the way...
The Gap Theory, as put forth by Dr Barnhouse in books like (as I remember) "The Invisible War" is quite distinct from Hygh Ross's views. Dr Barnhouse as I remember it involved a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. It is based on the tenses occuring in the ancient languages, and says that wnat is rendered "And the Earth was without form" in King James could be rendered "And the Earth became without form", hence a change in creation and a gap between giving the name to his explanation.
Dr Ross, accorsing to my (mis) understanding is a kind of progressive creation, where each evolutionary change is a separate miraculous act. It goes on to state that the seventh day of rest (which we are in) is a pausing of creation.
Although I do identify my beliefs with the term theistic evolution, I find little advantage in detailing which varient I choose. It's more that I find evidence for evolution convincing, and as a Christian, I know that all the sciences are studying the Universe the Lord made. I would not wish anyone to use me as a primary source or 'authority' for their choice.
But for myself, I do not see that Dr Barnhouse's explanation solves anything, and I find Dr Ross's views extravigant in an unnecessary way.
Theistic evolution is basically another term for saying do not believe in an inspired bible, and that science trumps scripture!
God did not use evolutionary processes, as each species was created after its own kind by God, and there has NEVER been any evidence to support evolution from one species to another, just within same species!
Hmm. Perhaps I applied the wrong terminology when addressing the Gap Theory. However, the deep implications of what Ross puts forth in his endeavors to try and attribute some measure of integrity to what most think is scientific evidence for long ages of time...no. The merits of Ross' arguments are lacking at a fundamental level, but that's another discussion entirely.
Good points, though.
MM
Yes. That's one of the many problem's with theistic evolutionary views. The idea that the Hebrew wording for literal days versus something one can subjectively inject eons and other massively expanded periods of time...no. They create far more problems with that view than answer questions. The disease, suffering and death issue alone is problematic for Ross and gang.
I recall Ross claiming that, before the fall and introduction of sin into the world, animals and the two humans on earth caused cells to die in the vegetation they ate, so therefore the "death" introduction is a faulty one.
What's at fault, however, is how Ross and gang define life. Cells are not 'alive'. When they expand their definition of 'life' to include the function of bio-mechanical machines like functioning cells, that's a problem...especially for someone like Ross who is NOT a biologist, chemist, or anything else he pretends to be an expert within.
To go one step further, his finding biologists and chemists to agree and endorse his thoughts in his books is not at all remarkable. Many a scientist has sold his soul to the evolutionary bias in creation. I can find 'scholars' with all kinds of letters attached to their names who would endorse a belief in the earth being flat, and they are out there. I work with an Engineer who believes the earth is flat, and that rockets going up into space is nothing more than a huge snow-job upon all us commoners....
Anyway, I can appreciate your take on all this, YF, and agree.
MM
We should note that evolutionary theory isn't science; it's naturalistic philosophy wearing a scientific-looking disguise.