“…some intelligent creative force may be required…”

Image URL: http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso0846a/

“Discoveries of the last half of the 20th century have brought the scientific community to the realization that our universe and our planet in the universe are so remarkably unique that it is almost impossible to imagine how this could have happened accidentally, causing many agnostic scientists to concede that indeed some intelligent creative force may be required to account for it.”
— Dr. Walter Bradley, Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering at Texas A & M University, as quoted by Jimmy Williams in “Does God Exist.”

URLhttp://www.alwaysbeready.com/quotations

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric “Intelligently-Designed” Adams

Darwinism is a Materialistic Creation Myth

“According to Darwinists, there is such overwhelming evidence for their view that it should be considered a fact. Yet to the Darwinists’ dismay, at least three-quarters of the American people – citizens of the most scientifically advanced country in history – reject it….The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing. This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last. If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.”

–Jonathan Wells

Via URLhttp://www.alwaysbeready.com/quotations

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric Adams

“…There must be a purpose behind it. “

Structure of the Universe

 

“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”
— John Polkinghorne

URLhttp://www.alwaysbeready.com/quotations

simul iustus et peccator, 

 

Eric Adams 

Rossville, GA 

godsguy12@comcast.net 

christianreasons@gmail.com 

https://twitter.com/xianreasons 

http://christianreasons.com/

 

The Universe Was Created For Man To Live In || Robert Jastrow

English: The axes span ~60 order of magnitude (logarithmic scale)! The upper limit is provided by Planck scale, lower limit is from dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry by quantum chromodynamics. The right panel shows a zoom-in of the small box. The lines show the limits of 9 life-permitting criteria: 1. Above this blue line, there is only one stable element, which has the chemistry of helium with no known stable chemical compounds 2. Below this blue line, the only stable element consists of a single particle, which can combine with a positron to produce an element with the chemistry of hydrogen. A handful of chemical reactions are possible, with their most complex product being an analogue of H2 3. Above this green curve, neutrons in nuclei decay, so that hydrogen is the only stable element 4. Below this green curve, protons in nuclei decay, so that any atoms that formed would disintegrate into a cloud of neutrons 5. Above this violet line, deuteron is strongly unstable. Stellar nucleosynthesis would fail 6. Below this light blue curve, isolated protons are unstable, leaving no hydrogen left over from the early universe to power long-lived stars and play crucial role in organic chemistry 7. Below this dark violet curve, the diproton is stable. Protons can fuse to helium-2 via a very fast electromagnetic reaction, rather than the much slower, weak nuclear pp-chain 8. Above this orange line, the production of deuterium in stars absorbs energy rather than releasing it. 9. Below this red line, a proton in a nucleus can capture an orbiting electron and become a neutron. Atoms are unstable 10. The red arrow points the region potentially suitable for complex life (small green region with light green dot)

 

The theist begins with the first five words of the Bible, and sees the universe as a wonderful handiwork of an infinite God. The atheist begins with…anything but the first five words of the Bible. 

Which is more reasonable:

1. Seeing the intricately fine-tuned universe as evidence of a Designer, or
2. Seeing the intricately fine-tuned universe as evidence of nothing?

 

“If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

 

— Robert Jastrow, agnostic astronomer, author of God and the Astronomers

via URLhttp://www.alwaysbeready.com/quotations

 

simul iustus et peccator, 

 

Eric Adams 

Rossville, GA 

godsguy12@comcast.net 

christianreasons@gmail.com 

https://twitter.com/xianreasons 

http://christianreasons.com/

Come Reason’s Apologetics Notes: Separating What’s Possible from What’s Reasonable

Image with royal flush. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Arguing from possibility is not evidence. Just because something is logically possible does not make it probable.

Just-so scenarios are just that: ideas without any evidence behind them. As such, they put the objector in the very same category as that to which they are objecting: offering a case with nothing to support it. Part of being a rational person is to draw a distinction between what is possible and what is reasonable to believe.

There are a lot of things that may be possible in the world, but are highly unlikely: such as dealing oneself a royal flush in poker two times in a row. Of course mathematics shows that such an event is possible, but it isn’t reasonable to believe that such a thing happened without deliberate intervention. If I’m playing poker and I see you dealt two royal flushes, I’m going to accuse you of cheating. That would be the reasonable thing to do. Similarly, seeing the strong evidences for a creator from the natural world, one is reasonable to infer deliberate intervention.”

— Lenny Esposito

via Come Reason’s Apologetics Notes: Separating What’s Possible from What’s Reasonable.

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric “Pokerface” Adams

Walter Bradley: three scientific evidences that point to a designed universe | Wintery Knight

“Evidence #2: The origin of the universe

1. The progress of science has shown that the entire physical universe came into being out of nothing (= “the big bang”). It also shows that the cause of this creation event is non-physical and non-temporal. The cause is supernatural.

• Atheism prefers an eternal universe, to get around the problem of a Creator having to create the universe.
• Discovery #1: Observations of galaxies moving away from one another confirms that the universe expanded from a single point.
• Discovery #2: Measurements of the cosmic background radiation confirms that the universe exploding into being.
• Discovery #3: Predictions of elemental abundances prove that the universe is not eternal.
• Discovery #4:The atheism-friendly steady-state model and oscillating model were both falsified by the evidence.
• And there were other discoveries as well, mentioned in the lecture.

The best non-theistic response to this argument is to postulate a hyper-universe outside of ours, but that is very speculative and there is no experimental evidence that supports it.”

via Walter Bradley: three scientific evidences that point to a designed universe | Wintery Knight.

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric Adams

Rossville, GA