betsy

As I said above, I'm not a new-earth believer. I believe that Genesis is expressing geological time. That time and space were created as part of the universe. Time and space are controlled by God.

Clearly some of the replies that followed after my Hawking post failed to see the ironic connection between the so-called fictitious Einstein anecdote, and reaction to Hawking's conclusion...... ...or it just clearly demonstrate that they see what they want to see.... ...or displaying the art of going the usual roundabout-usual twisting about - distorting - going off-except-to-the-point being presented.... ...or that truth is relative (at least that's how Kimmy demonstrated it. Perfectly showing the typical mindset of some liberalists/secularists. It's okay to deliberately distort, right?).... ...or all of the above. This is not about Hawking or Einstein. Hawking has never had a proven theory, and yet his conclusion is welcomed with open arms. With so much confidence even in the face of zero proven theory. With so much understanding. Without any question. Accepted as fact. Their messiah fiercely defended! Oh such wondrous faith you all so proudly display. Your god will be so proud of you. I rest my case. Thank you very much.

-k Kimmy, if you will quote me, please quote my exact statement. OR clearly state that your quoted statement above is how you would interpret my statement. Claiming that said statement was my exact statement is downright dis-honest and misleading. Furthermore, you only equate yourself to the religious wild-eyed dude you disparaged as being "looney"...with apparent no credibility. What's the difference then between him and a liar? When both have no credibility? For the record, here is my statement. So Hawking has reached his conclusion. Perhaps this time it will certainly earn him the Nobel Prize. For all his brilliant theories....I was surprised to learn he hasn't won one yet. Apparently, here's why:

This makes a complimentary accompaniment to the anecdote of the so-called fictitional Einstein given above. Except nothing here is fictitious. UK HEADLINE: Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html So Hawking has reached his conclusion. Perhaps this time it will certainly earn him the Nobel Prize. For all his brilliant theories....I was surprised to learn he hasn't won one yet. Apparently, here's why: http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

So you admit they converted to Christianity because of It's obvious truth! Thank you very much. What "leap of faith" are you talking about???? These people were involved in disproving the existence of God....and they were doing their job as scientists and philosophers to do just that! There were scientific investigations/analysis or whatever it is that scientists do...and obviously whatever or however they did their studies....the findings and conclusions they came to prompted them to the point of outright conversion to CHRISTIANITY! Therefore I say again: So you admit they converted to Christianity because of It's obvious truth! Thank you very much.

I'm not a new-earth believer. But I don't believe the geological evidence refutes the Biblical outline of history. That doesn't mean I look at it metaphorically or allegorically. Yes I believe in the Virgin Birth, that goes without saying I am a Christian. Anyone professing to be a christian who don't believe in the Virgin Birth, or the Resurrection is not a Christian. Of course there's scepticism, otherwise no one will be an agnostic.

Science is knowledge. I say that in the context that in my belief knowledge comes from God. That is what I was saying with my statement. A lot of good came from science, and a lot of evil came from it too....because of men who mis-used, mis-handled or exploited science. As for the faith part in your statement, yes I agree that faith is tested when there is no proof. I have always maintained that in other topics in the past as well. I stated that I need no proof with my belief in God...and nothing has changed. In older topics I somehow came across to others as someone who don't believe in science....or have this dis-respect for science in general (with some posters, in their defense of science stated the good that came from science)...because of my stance against evolution and my strong opinion on scientists like Dawkins who support it. I only took the opportunity to clearly state my position on science in my reply to Canadien. Whereas some atheists who strongly holds on to science to prove them right.....how ironic that now evidently science is only proving them wrong. When scientists are acknowledging that there was a Creator/Intelligent Design/Prime Mover, which means the possibility of God....that clearly blows away the belief of no-Creator and non-God. That is why I say I have science to back me up.

Canadien, I have to go. Will try to reply later. But need to ask you to clarify about metaphor Genesis.

First of all, let me clearly state that I do not think science and faith oppose one another, after all science is knowledge. It is how this knowledge is being used and handled by men that at times, it seems to "oppose" faith. The lists pf prominent atheists in various field of science in the topic "REJOICE...," some of whom had deliberately set out to do their investigative works in order to disprove The Resurrection, or Jesus, not only discovered some truths that even made them convert. I ask, why would a prominent atheist scientist not just abandon his work and move on to something else? Why did he have to convert? He didn't have to shed his atheistic belief. He could just say there's a possibility and be an agnostic. But why convert? We're talking about prominent people of science here, with careers and egos....opting to not only to admit they're stumped with their findings....but swallow their words and losing face before all, by outright conversion to the very thing they set out to bust. I can only conclude their findings were so compelling, beyond any doubt. Then of course there are those scientists who did not convert, but changed their position. Those who became deist and agnostics. Then there are those who refuses to call it God....and prefer instead to give it a fancier name like Intelligent Design or Prime Mover. It must be tough for Dawkins. In a way I feel for him. In one interview somewhere which I posted (ATHEIST FUNDAMENTALIST PREACHER?), he somehow grudgingly seemed to have agreed to the possibility of God in an interview, if I'm not mistaken. With his popularity, his stature among atheists, with his genius, not to mention the $$$ from books and $$$ from speaking engagements and those debates with religious people....pride must've set in real hard. He said so much, and had taken himself to a point where he couldn't back down....not even to tone down. You said in one of your post here that no one is saying science is their god. Of course they wouldn't admit to it....probably don't even realize it themselves. I don't mean all atheists. But the way they treat science. It's the attitude. The reaction. The avidness and fanaticism. I'm talking about atheists who pant for the discovery that will prove that there is indeed no God. It is like waiting for their "redemption" which will come from their "messiah" (scientist). In my view, there are those who have their own inner conflict that they try to push down. Thus they wait with bated breaths....hungry for anything that could brings them closer to that "redemption." The discovery is their "redemption" from that conflict deep inside.

How do I know what you support? Who are you? I'm not God. I don't know everything. I'm glad you don't share Dawkin's opinion. You're one step closer to the truth. Or have you stated your position. If so I apologise, I missed it. But back to your statement: You're saying science is...science. It is impartial. But scientists aren't. However, no matter how science tries to be impartial....Genesis somehow crops up or is included in discusssions, studies, analysis, research. Science doesn't always draw correct conclusions. And numerous scientists had taken sides. Some took the atheistic stance, some became agnostic, deist. And not a few took the extra step of outright conversion to Christian faith (that's what the topic REJOICE....deals with those conversions by prominent atheists to Christianity).

Whether fiction or not, the rebutt of the young lad was only logical, and only showed how the atheist professor was preaching his opinion.

50 years ago scientists were saying that the universe had always been there. And Christians were saying no, it had a beginning. The two situations (Galileo and what I said) are not comparable at all. It's not a parallel to what I said. Scientists are rejecting evolution. Evolution is a theory that's had its day....it's time it be replaced with something credible. If you don't like God, if you don't like Creatonism, fine....find something that's acceptable to atheists, but it should be credible and logical. Even Darwin had his doubts, and that was 150 years ago and it was HIS theory. Actually come to think of it, the inquisitors against Galileo are the equivalent of the atheist scientists who won't let evolution go despite the fact that it's been proven wrong.

Wrong! Open your eyes. Just the topic "REJOICE ON THIS DAY" alone had effectively negated your statement above long, long time ago. Remove your Dawkins-tinted glasses. Dawkins is nothing more than a self-proclaimed preacher of atheism.

• 'God vs. Science' 'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks oneof his new students to stand. 'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?' 'Yes sir,' the student says. 'So you believe in God?' 'Absolutely. ' 'Is God good?' 'Sure! God's good.' 'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?' 'Yes' 'Are you good or evil?' 'The Bible says I'm evil.' The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?' 'Yes sir, I would.' 'So you're good...!' 'I wouldn't say that...' 'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.' The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?' The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?' 'Er..yes,' the student says. 'Is Satan good?' The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.' 'Then where does Satan come from?' The student falters. 'From God' 'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?' 'Yes, sir.' 'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?' 'Yes' 'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.' Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?' The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.' 'So who created them?' The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?' The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.' The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?' 'No sir. I've never seen Him.' 'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?' 'No, sir, I have not..' 'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?' 'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.' 'Yet you still believe in him?' 'Yes' 'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to that, son?' 'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.' 'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.' The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? ' ' Yes. 'And is there such a thing as cold?' 'Yes, son, there's cold too.' 'No sir, there isn't.' The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.' Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer. 'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?' 'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?' 'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?' The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?' 'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.' The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?' 'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?' 'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.' 'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?' The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going.. A very good semester, indeed. 'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?' The class is in uproar.. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?' Now the room is silent.. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.' 'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it Everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in The multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil..' To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.' The professor sat down. If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail to your friends and family with the title 'God vs. Science' PS: The student was Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein wrote a book titled 'God vs. Science' in 1921... Taken from Living Truth Forum on Facebook.

believes there's no God. If he believes there is a God, but doesn't believe in God, what does he believe in? Defying God?

I didn't say to prove it. I said provide evidence. Nobody's refuting that the Big Bang did not occur. But atheists see what they want to see, and avoid what they want to avoid. Do you believe there was nothing before? Oh I don't expect you to fall for that. Creating this universe from nothing will be more than amazing. What do you think was there before? I imagine what I believe was there before is more probable. Science and Philosophy back me up. To say nothing of the Bible. Oh then it's Dawkins...and all his goddettes? I'm not entirely clear what you're saying here but perhaps I shouldn't have been so figurative. Let me put it another way. The scientific evidence that atheists rely on is no longer as supportive of the atheistic view.

with your reply: Looks like you had a front row seat when it all began! Of course I believe that there's more to the fine-tuning of the universe than just chance. It's not my theory. I read it. Just like you did. But if it's not chance and it isn't - mathematicians had shown that the odds are totally impossible, etc. - cosmologists indicate that there was in fact a beginning of the universe, it hasn't been here eternally. If it's not chance, what are the other options? Intelligent Design, anybody? Any other suggestions? I remember saying I don't care in fact whether you believe there is a God. Anyway, I was addressing atheists.... Yes. I don't have to defend my belief in the Scriptures. That's not the question here. The question seems to have come to be, how did the universe begin? I, like many scientists today, can see how clearly the creation story in Genesis describes the framework of 21st century science. Since you brought up God.....of course I don't know God's mind. But I do know science since 1929 has increasingly supported the existence of a first-cause. If you think that's contradicting my faith, I can understand why you're not a believer. I'm accepting your geological knowledge. What was is. None of what you said refutes the probability of a Divine Mover.

You should cite your sources. Most of us have already read Dawkins et al. The mantra is becoming tiresome. If they're not prepared to provide reasonable evidence that God does not exist, they should at least provide reasonable evidence to support their theories as to how the universe and life did begin. It's really not my concern whether they believe in God - what they believe doesn't change the truth. But atheists should accept the fact that their god - science - is turning on them. he is showing them that the universe did begin. It hasn't always been there. he even lets them call it the "big bang." As for the evolutionary theories, they would've been dropped a hundred years ago had atheists not been so determined to avoid God. Just come up with a viable theory to explain how life began, never mind God. That's all that's required of atheists.

You're right that we don't know....meaning you and I. But cosmologists have shown that beyond a reasonable doubt the universe had a beginning. The popular theory for so long was the universe has always been there, but they abandoned that notion in the face of the overwhelming evidence against it. As to the watch analogy is meant to show the absurdity of life beginning from nothing on its own. My mistake. It of course applies to the beginning to life, not the beginning of the universe. That is not to say that the universe and life didn't begin together relatively speaking.

Isn't that the whole point? Of course it's illogical. It's totally absurd that the universe would start that way! That's what evolution and BIg Bang is trying to tell us. In fact the odds are better that Charles' watch would be put together that way than that of the universe.

The wild-eyed dude also screams "REPENT! THE END IS NEAR!" One day, I might try posting along that line perhaps.... I know... And yet somehow those that you'd think would do as you suggest seem to get pulled somehow and can't resist clicking on the thread even if they totally claim to disagree. Don't get me wrong, I welcome that...whether they just came on to make their statement.

What's illogical about the analogy?

I was a supporter of the death penalty...however, I changed my position on that. I no longer support it. Religious belief aside, I found myself crying one afternoon while watching the news on tv: they were talking about a man who was posthumously pardoned decades after he was executed. I can't remember the name or the place in the USA where this happened. All I know is that he was mentally challenged (with the intelligence of a 4 year old), and crucial evidence that could've acquitted him were not presented and that the whole investigation was done sloppily. While awaiting his execution in death row, he spent most of his days with the warden's family. The warden couldn't believe he was guilty. When he was executed, he did not even understand what was happening to him. The warden was holding his hand throughout the execution process, reassuring him. Years later, evidence proved that there was absolutely no way he could've done the crime he was executed for. I don't like the idea that a man's life is placed at the hand of another's. True we can say "we just make sure that a person is proved guilty without any reasonable doubt" ...obviously that man was found guilty by men who swore that there was no reasonable doubt whatsoever he did it. And now we found out, there shouldn't have been any doubt at all in the first place of his INNOCENCE! We are only human. Some are good at their jobs, have good work ethics and take their responsibilities seriously....while others couldn't care less. Just look into your own workplace and I guess you get my meaning. The justice system is just as easily peopled with these types. Just look at all the wrongful convictions we have in Canada alone.

As the title declares, this topic refuses to go away.

Thanks for explaining that.