paidinfull
Well-Known Member
stunning video...
Amazing evidence for our Creator
- Thread starter paidinfull
- Start date
Belle of Grace
Longing for Home
Since my computer is blank where the video should have appeared, would you mind, paidinfull, to please post the name of the video, so that I can look it up and perhaps view it elsewhere?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Micki
MARANATHA!!
Lynn, it says "The Fine Tuning of the Universe".
mbrown1219
Heaven's Stables
Dr. William Lane Craig videos are listed on his blog. I hope this post will be allowed to stand...
http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com/
http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com/
Belle of Grace
Longing for Home
Thanks, Micki.
Belle of Grace
Longing for Home
Take a look at this 1 minute video, Mary. Prepare to be surprised at Dr. Craig's reply to the first question.
mbrown1219
Heaven's Stables
Thanks Lynn, we can always count on you to find the flaws! 
Personally I like William Lane Craig's arguments for a creator and for creation.
I'm a long time fan of the Intelligent Design Scientific community even in spite of the fact that they don't know all things for certain. I believe they are proving the existence of our Creator and the Creation and I can see them taking quite a beating for it in their scientific community where most are Darwinians.
Question: "What is the age of the earth? How old is the earth?"
Answer: Given the fact that, according to the Bible, Adam was created on the sixth day of our planet’s existence, we can determine a biblically based, approximate age for the earth by looking at the chronological details of the human race. This assumes that the Genesis account is accurate, that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour periods, and that there were no ambiguous gaps in the chronology of Genesis.
The genealogies listed in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 provide the age at which Adam and his descendants each fathered the next generation in a successive ancestral line from Adam to Abraham. By determining where Abraham fits into history chronologically and adding up the ages provided in Genesis 5 and 11, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years.
What about the billions of years accepted by most scientists today and taught in the vast majority of our academic institutions? This age is primarily derived from two dating techniques: radiometric dating and the geologic timescale. Scientists who advocate the younger age of about 6000 years insist that radiometric dating is flawed in that it is founded upon a series of faulty assumptions, while the geologic timescale is flawed in that it employs circular reasoning. Moreover, they point to the debunking of old-earth myths, like the popular misconception that it takes long periods of time for stratification, fossilization and the formation of diamonds, coal, oil, stalactites, stalagmites, etc, to occur. Finally, young-earth advocates present positive evidence for a young age for the earth in place of the old-earth evidences which they debunk. Young-earth scientists acknowledge that they are in the minority today but insist that their ranks will swell over time as more and more scientists reexamine the evidence and take a closer look at the currently accepted old-earth paradigm.
Ultimately, the age of the earth cannot be proven. Whether 6000 years or billions of years, both viewpoints (and everything in between) rest on faith and assumptions. Those who hold to billions of years trust that methods such as radiometric dating are reliable and that nothing has occurred in history that may have disrupted the normal decay of radio-isotopes. Those who hold to 6000 years trust that the Bible is true and that other factors explain the “apparent” age of the earth, such as the global flood, or God’s creating the universe in a state that “appears” to give it a very long age. As an example, God created Adam and Eve as fully-grown adult human beings. If a doctor had examined Adam and Eve on the day of their creation, the doctor would have estimated their age at 20 years (or whatever age they appeared to be) when, in fact, Adam and Eve were less than one day old. Whatever the case, there is always good reason to trust the Word of God over the words of atheistic scientists with an evolutionary agenda.
Recommended Resources: Thousands not Billions by Don DeYoung and Logos Bible Software.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/earth-age.html#ixzz3cxiLKbxl
Personally I like William Lane Craig's arguments for a creator and for creation.
I'm a long time fan of the Intelligent Design Scientific community even in spite of the fact that they don't know all things for certain. I believe they are proving the existence of our Creator and the Creation and I can see them taking quite a beating for it in their scientific community where most are Darwinians.
Question: "What is the age of the earth? How old is the earth?"
Answer: Given the fact that, according to the Bible, Adam was created on the sixth day of our planet’s existence, we can determine a biblically based, approximate age for the earth by looking at the chronological details of the human race. This assumes that the Genesis account is accurate, that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour periods, and that there were no ambiguous gaps in the chronology of Genesis.
The genealogies listed in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 provide the age at which Adam and his descendants each fathered the next generation in a successive ancestral line from Adam to Abraham. By determining where Abraham fits into history chronologically and adding up the ages provided in Genesis 5 and 11, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches the earth to be about 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred years.
What about the billions of years accepted by most scientists today and taught in the vast majority of our academic institutions? This age is primarily derived from two dating techniques: radiometric dating and the geologic timescale. Scientists who advocate the younger age of about 6000 years insist that radiometric dating is flawed in that it is founded upon a series of faulty assumptions, while the geologic timescale is flawed in that it employs circular reasoning. Moreover, they point to the debunking of old-earth myths, like the popular misconception that it takes long periods of time for stratification, fossilization and the formation of diamonds, coal, oil, stalactites, stalagmites, etc, to occur. Finally, young-earth advocates present positive evidence for a young age for the earth in place of the old-earth evidences which they debunk. Young-earth scientists acknowledge that they are in the minority today but insist that their ranks will swell over time as more and more scientists reexamine the evidence and take a closer look at the currently accepted old-earth paradigm.
Ultimately, the age of the earth cannot be proven. Whether 6000 years or billions of years, both viewpoints (and everything in between) rest on faith and assumptions. Those who hold to billions of years trust that methods such as radiometric dating are reliable and that nothing has occurred in history that may have disrupted the normal decay of radio-isotopes. Those who hold to 6000 years trust that the Bible is true and that other factors explain the “apparent” age of the earth, such as the global flood, or God’s creating the universe in a state that “appears” to give it a very long age. As an example, God created Adam and Eve as fully-grown adult human beings. If a doctor had examined Adam and Eve on the day of their creation, the doctor would have estimated their age at 20 years (or whatever age they appeared to be) when, in fact, Adam and Eve were less than one day old. Whatever the case, there is always good reason to trust the Word of God over the words of atheistic scientists with an evolutionary agenda.
Recommended Resources: Thousands not Billions by Don DeYoung and Logos Bible Software.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/earth-age.html#ixzz3cxiLKbxl
Last edited:
Hol
Worships Him
I love the Fine Tuning vid., & Mary & Lynn's mini debate.
My 2-cents in age of the creation is that we trust the Bible first, and science that has an atheistic flavor last. Both the Bible & scientific observation tell us the universe is not even 10s of thousands of years old. Priior to the first moon landing it was anticipated that dust on the moon would be hundreds of feet deep. Nope. You see erosion and saltiness of th oceans rule out long ages because we observe & measure these things. However, we do not know if the Genesis record of the earth '...was without form...' means that Satan walked in gem gardens some years prior to the six days or not. The gems, did not require eons, any more than the gold in the fish's mouth for taxes required any mining or minting. Can't wait for the day when our Creator shows us all.
Dr. Craig takes a philosophical approach that sometimes bothers me. Molinism for example.
My 2-cents in age of the creation is that we trust the Bible first, and science that has an atheistic flavor last. Both the Bible & scientific observation tell us the universe is not even 10s of thousands of years old. Priior to the first moon landing it was anticipated that dust on the moon would be hundreds of feet deep. Nope. You see erosion and saltiness of th oceans rule out long ages because we observe & measure these things. However, we do not know if the Genesis record of the earth '...was without form...' means that Satan walked in gem gardens some years prior to the six days or not. The gems, did not require eons, any more than the gold in the fish's mouth for taxes required any mining or minting. Can't wait for the day when our Creator shows us all.
Dr. Craig takes a philosophical approach that sometimes bothers me. Molinism for example.
mbrown1219
Heaven's Stables
Between Lynn and you Hol I guess I am ready to abandon William Lane Craig as having any significant contribution to arguing the case for a Creator to the unbelievers on the planet! My ignorance is apparently phenomenal! 
Question: "What is Molinism and is it biblical?"
Answer: Molinism is generally attributed to the 16th century Jesuit, Luis de Molina. This system of thought seeks to explain and reconcile the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. At the heart of Molinism is that God is completely sovereign and that man is free in a libertarian sense. The Molinist is trying to avoid what he calls “theological fatalism” or the view that God decrees who will be saved apart from their free choice. Today’s most ardent defender of Molinism is William Lane Craig.
The most famous distinctive in Molinism is its affirmation that God has middle knowledge (scienta media). Molinism holds that God’s knowledge consists of three logical moments. These “moments” of knowledge are not to be thought of as chronological; rather, they are to be understood as “logical.” In other words, one moment does not come before another moment in time; instead, one moment is logically prior to the other moments. The Molinist differentiates between three different moments of knowledge which are respectively called natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge.
1. Natural Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of all necessary and all possible truths. In this “moment” God knows every possible combination of causes and effects. He also knows all the truths of logic and all moral truths.
2. Middle Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what a free creature would do in any given circumstance. This knowledge is knowledge of what philosophers call counterfactuals.
3. Free Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what He decided to create. God’s free knowledge is His knowledge of the actual world as it is.
Defenders of Molinism try to show that all of God’s knowledge is self-contained, but it is ordered so as to allow for the possibility of man’s free will. To begin, God has knowledge of all necessary and possible truths. Examples of this kind of knowledge are as follows: “2 +2 = 4,” “the whole is always greater than its parts,” “one should always seek the good,” and “there are X number of possible outcomes given this series of causes.” God then has another step in His knowledge, called middle knowledge, in which He knows what free creatures would do in any given circumstance.
According to the defenders of Molinism, God knows perfectly what you would be have been like if you would have lived in Africa, or had a car accident that paralyzed you at age 9. He knows how the world would have been changed had John F. Kennedy not been assassinated. More importantly, He knows who would choose to be saved and who would not. Accordingly, it is from this knowledge that God chooses to create. God has middle knowledge of all feasible worlds, and He chooses to create the world in which the most people would be saved.
Is Molinism biblical?
Molinists point to various texts to establish that God has “middle knowledge.” For example, they point to Matthew 11:21-24 where Jesus denounces Chorazin and Bethsaida. Jesus tells those cities that “if the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” Molinists claim that this verse, and others like it, prove that God has knowledge of what would happen given a different set of circumstances. As such, they insist that the doctrine of middle knowledge is true.
However, Molinism is not, strictly speaking, a view that can be rebutted or defended wholly on biblical grounds. The middle knowledge view is a philosophical theology that attempts to uphold both the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. This attempt is done by making subtle philosophical distinctions that make sovereignty and free will compatible. Therefore, it should be evaluated on multiple levels. It should be evaluated biblically and philosophically.
Biblically speaking, Molinists are more in line with the Arminian view. God chooses who will be saved because He knows who would choose Him. However, Molinists are more philosophically sophisticated than the typical Arminian. For example, William Lane Craig avoids the criticism that God’s decisions are dependent on man’s decisions by holding that God’s middle knowledge is not derived from His knowledge of the world. Rather, God’s middle knowledge is based on His existing natural knowledge. In this way he hopes to uphold God’s perfect omniscience. So, today’s evangelical Molinists are basically philosophically sophisticated Arminians.
Molinism is not the best way to think about God’s sovereignty and human free will. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all things (Proverbs 16:33; Matthew 10:29; Romans 11:36; Ephesians 1:11) – even human decisions (Proverbs 20:24; 21:1). Although God does not stir men to sin (James 1:13), He is still working everything, from individuals to nations, to the end that He has willed (Isaiah 46:10-11). God’s purposes do not depend upon man (Acts 17:24-26). Nor does God discover or learn (1 John 3:20; Job 34:21-22; Psalm 50:11; Proverbs 15:3). All things are decreed by God’s infinitely wise counsel (Romans 11:33-36). The biblical descriptions of God’s sovereignty appear to be more robust than the account given by the Molinist.
With that in mind, it should be noted that the Molinist would agree with everything said in the above paragraph. It is not on this level that Calvinists and Molinists disagree. Where they disagree most is in the doctrines of total depravity and limited atonement. Their theological differences are in keeping with the standard Calvinist / Arminian disagreements. Philosophically speaking, Calvinists charge Molinists with an untenable view of God. For Calvinists usually hold to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity which maintains that God is atemporal and immutable. However, contemporary defenders of Molinism deny this classical doctrine.
Recommended Resources: Chosen But Free, revised edition: A Balanced View of God's Sovereignty and Free Will by Norm Geisler and The Potter's Freedom by James White and Logos Bible Software.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/molinism.html#ixzz3cy4Ymj3A
Question: "What is Molinism and is it biblical?"
Answer: Molinism is generally attributed to the 16th century Jesuit, Luis de Molina. This system of thought seeks to explain and reconcile the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. At the heart of Molinism is that God is completely sovereign and that man is free in a libertarian sense. The Molinist is trying to avoid what he calls “theological fatalism” or the view that God decrees who will be saved apart from their free choice. Today’s most ardent defender of Molinism is William Lane Craig.
The most famous distinctive in Molinism is its affirmation that God has middle knowledge (scienta media). Molinism holds that God’s knowledge consists of three logical moments. These “moments” of knowledge are not to be thought of as chronological; rather, they are to be understood as “logical.” In other words, one moment does not come before another moment in time; instead, one moment is logically prior to the other moments. The Molinist differentiates between three different moments of knowledge which are respectively called natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge.
1. Natural Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of all necessary and all possible truths. In this “moment” God knows every possible combination of causes and effects. He also knows all the truths of logic and all moral truths.
2. Middle Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what a free creature would do in any given circumstance. This knowledge is knowledge of what philosophers call counterfactuals.
3. Free Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what He decided to create. God’s free knowledge is His knowledge of the actual world as it is.
Defenders of Molinism try to show that all of God’s knowledge is self-contained, but it is ordered so as to allow for the possibility of man’s free will. To begin, God has knowledge of all necessary and possible truths. Examples of this kind of knowledge are as follows: “2 +2 = 4,” “the whole is always greater than its parts,” “one should always seek the good,” and “there are X number of possible outcomes given this series of causes.” God then has another step in His knowledge, called middle knowledge, in which He knows what free creatures would do in any given circumstance.
According to the defenders of Molinism, God knows perfectly what you would be have been like if you would have lived in Africa, or had a car accident that paralyzed you at age 9. He knows how the world would have been changed had John F. Kennedy not been assassinated. More importantly, He knows who would choose to be saved and who would not. Accordingly, it is from this knowledge that God chooses to create. God has middle knowledge of all feasible worlds, and He chooses to create the world in which the most people would be saved.
Is Molinism biblical?
Molinists point to various texts to establish that God has “middle knowledge.” For example, they point to Matthew 11:21-24 where Jesus denounces Chorazin and Bethsaida. Jesus tells those cities that “if the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” Molinists claim that this verse, and others like it, prove that God has knowledge of what would happen given a different set of circumstances. As such, they insist that the doctrine of middle knowledge is true.
However, Molinism is not, strictly speaking, a view that can be rebutted or defended wholly on biblical grounds. The middle knowledge view is a philosophical theology that attempts to uphold both the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. This attempt is done by making subtle philosophical distinctions that make sovereignty and free will compatible. Therefore, it should be evaluated on multiple levels. It should be evaluated biblically and philosophically.
Biblically speaking, Molinists are more in line with the Arminian view. God chooses who will be saved because He knows who would choose Him. However, Molinists are more philosophically sophisticated than the typical Arminian. For example, William Lane Craig avoids the criticism that God’s decisions are dependent on man’s decisions by holding that God’s middle knowledge is not derived from His knowledge of the world. Rather, God’s middle knowledge is based on His existing natural knowledge. In this way he hopes to uphold God’s perfect omniscience. So, today’s evangelical Molinists are basically philosophically sophisticated Arminians.
Molinism is not the best way to think about God’s sovereignty and human free will. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all things (Proverbs 16:33; Matthew 10:29; Romans 11:36; Ephesians 1:11) – even human decisions (Proverbs 20:24; 21:1). Although God does not stir men to sin (James 1:13), He is still working everything, from individuals to nations, to the end that He has willed (Isaiah 46:10-11). God’s purposes do not depend upon man (Acts 17:24-26). Nor does God discover or learn (1 John 3:20; Job 34:21-22; Psalm 50:11; Proverbs 15:3). All things are decreed by God’s infinitely wise counsel (Romans 11:33-36). The biblical descriptions of God’s sovereignty appear to be more robust than the account given by the Molinist.
With that in mind, it should be noted that the Molinist would agree with everything said in the above paragraph. It is not on this level that Calvinists and Molinists disagree. Where they disagree most is in the doctrines of total depravity and limited atonement. Their theological differences are in keeping with the standard Calvinist / Arminian disagreements. Philosophically speaking, Calvinists charge Molinists with an untenable view of God. For Calvinists usually hold to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity which maintains that God is atemporal and immutable. However, contemporary defenders of Molinism deny this classical doctrine.
Recommended Resources: Chosen But Free, revised edition: A Balanced View of God's Sovereignty and Free Will by Norm Geisler and The Potter's Freedom by James White and Logos Bible Software.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/molinism.html#ixzz3cy4Ymj3A
mbrown1219
Heaven's Stables
One more from GotQuestions.org
Question: "What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design?"
Answer: Modern scientific insight has revealed startling evidence for intelligent design from various disciplines, from biology to astronomy, from physics to cosmology. The purpose of this article is to summarize some of the major arguments.
What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Biology
In recent years, William Dembski has pioneered a methodology which has become known as the “explanatory filter,” a means by which design can be inferred from the phenomena of nature in particular living organisms. The filter consists of a sequence of three yes/no questions that guide the decision process of determining whether a given phenomenon can be attributed to an intelligent causal agency. Based upon this filter, if an event, system or object is the product of intelligence, then it will
1. Be contingent
2. Be complex
3. Display an independently specified pattern
Thus, in order to be confident that a given phenomenon is the product of intelligent design, it cannot be a regularity that necessarily stems from the laws of nature, nor can it be the result of chance. According to Dembski, the explanatory filter highlights the most important quality of intelligently designed systems, namely, specified complexity. In other words, complexity alone is not enough to indicate the work of an intelligent agent; it must also conform to an independently specified pattern.
Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins’ observation that, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?
What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Physics
In physics, the concept of cosmic fine tuning gives further support to the design inference. The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a “razor’s edge” for permitting the emergence of complex life. The degree to which the constants of physics must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that, indeed, there is some sort of transcendent purpose behind the cosmic arena. British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle writes, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
One example of fine tuning is the rate at which the universe expands. This value must be delicately balanced to a precision of one part in 1055. If the universe expanded too quickly, matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets and galaxies. If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse before the formation of stars.
Besides that, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 1040. If this value were to be increased slightly, all stars would be at least 40% more massive than our sun. This would mean that stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support complex life. If this value were to be decreased slightly, all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun. This would render them incapable of producing heavy elements necessary to sustain life.
What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Cosmology
With modern discoveries in the field of cosmology, the concept of a definitive beginning of the cosmos has been demonstrated almost beyond question. The Kalam argument states that
1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself.
It thus appears from the data that an uncaused first cause exists outside the four dimensions of space and time, which possesses eternal, personal and intelligent qualities in order to possess the capability of intentionally bringing space, matter—and indeed even time itself—into being.
What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – Conclusion
This article is but a brief overview of some of the key elements involved in the design inference. The purpose is to demonstrate the wide body of support for intelligent design from a large range of disciplines, including biology, physics and cosmology.
Recommended Resources: Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen Meyer.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-intelligent-design.html#ixzz3cyEzx5gH
Question: "What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design?"
Answer: Modern scientific insight has revealed startling evidence for intelligent design from various disciplines, from biology to astronomy, from physics to cosmology. The purpose of this article is to summarize some of the major arguments.
What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Biology
In recent years, William Dembski has pioneered a methodology which has become known as the “explanatory filter,” a means by which design can be inferred from the phenomena of nature in particular living organisms. The filter consists of a sequence of three yes/no questions that guide the decision process of determining whether a given phenomenon can be attributed to an intelligent causal agency. Based upon this filter, if an event, system or object is the product of intelligence, then it will
1. Be contingent
2. Be complex
3. Display an independently specified pattern
Thus, in order to be confident that a given phenomenon is the product of intelligent design, it cannot be a regularity that necessarily stems from the laws of nature, nor can it be the result of chance. According to Dembski, the explanatory filter highlights the most important quality of intelligently designed systems, namely, specified complexity. In other words, complexity alone is not enough to indicate the work of an intelligent agent; it must also conform to an independently specified pattern.
Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins’ observation that, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?
What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Physics
In physics, the concept of cosmic fine tuning gives further support to the design inference. The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a “razor’s edge” for permitting the emergence of complex life. The degree to which the constants of physics must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that, indeed, there is some sort of transcendent purpose behind the cosmic arena. British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle writes, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
One example of fine tuning is the rate at which the universe expands. This value must be delicately balanced to a precision of one part in 1055. If the universe expanded too quickly, matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets and galaxies. If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse before the formation of stars.
Besides that, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 1040. If this value were to be increased slightly, all stars would be at least 40% more massive than our sun. This would mean that stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support complex life. If this value were to be decreased slightly, all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun. This would render them incapable of producing heavy elements necessary to sustain life.
What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Cosmology
With modern discoveries in the field of cosmology, the concept of a definitive beginning of the cosmos has been demonstrated almost beyond question. The Kalam argument states that
1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself.
It thus appears from the data that an uncaused first cause exists outside the four dimensions of space and time, which possesses eternal, personal and intelligent qualities in order to possess the capability of intentionally bringing space, matter—and indeed even time itself—into being.
What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – Conclusion
This article is but a brief overview of some of the key elements involved in the design inference. The purpose is to demonstrate the wide body of support for intelligent design from a large range of disciplines, including biology, physics and cosmology.
Recommended Resources: Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen Meyer.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-intelligent-design.html#ixzz3cyEzx5gH
Hol
Worships Him
Thanks Mary, I barely understand this stuff, but what I love is information from the Institute for Creation Research (Dr. Henry Morris III now heads it). They will send you a free monthly magazine called Acts & Facts, it is very understandable.
One caution in my very basic understanding of the variety of views from believers, is I need to learn from those who hold the highest regard for an historic, literal, & grammatical trust in our Bible. That includes teachings on the rapture.
Dr. Craig does not hold to rapture.
Drs. Meyers and Hugh Ross, & Hank Hanegraaff all hold to an old earth (billions or so) and Hanegraaff is a preterist. Though I really enjoy Stephen Meyers work, I tend to avoid it (not sure of his position on rapture). It's because I know so little that I stick with those like Dr. Morris.
Super smart & highly educated scientists draw me in, before you know it I may doubt scripture itself.
We've so much to learn! I'll just stick to creation at 6,000 years old
One caution in my very basic understanding of the variety of views from believers, is I need to learn from those who hold the highest regard for an historic, literal, & grammatical trust in our Bible. That includes teachings on the rapture.
Dr. Craig does not hold to rapture.
Drs. Meyers and Hugh Ross, & Hank Hanegraaff all hold to an old earth (billions or so) and Hanegraaff is a preterist. Though I really enjoy Stephen Meyers work, I tend to avoid it (not sure of his position on rapture). It's because I know so little that I stick with those like Dr. Morris.
Super smart & highly educated scientists draw me in, before you know it I may doubt scripture itself.
We've so much to learn! I'll just stick to creation at 6,000 years old
Belle of Grace
Longing for Home
Right on, Hol! Here is an article that you will enjoy. As we read the Bible, we need to let Scripture speak the truth to us, by God's very own Spirit. We are not to approach the Bible with man's ideas first inside our heads, interpreting Scripture based on what we have read in science, psychology, philosophy, (or anywhere else). We must uphold the authority of Scripture at all costs, and reject what the so called 'smart' people have to say. God doesn't refer to them as smart. Human beings may attach that label to others, but all too often, the wise ones we call smart are really fools. This article will help to clarify our discussion here.One caution in my very basic understanding of the variety of views from believers, is I need to learn from those who hold the highest regard for an historic, literal, & grammatical trust in our Bible. That includes teachings on the rapture.
Dr. Craig does not hold to rapture.
Drs. Meyers and Hugh Ross, & Hank Hanegraaff all hold to an old earth (billions or so) and Hanegraaff is a preterist. Though I really enjoy Stephen Meyers work, I tend to avoid it (not sure of his position on rapture). It's because I know so little that I stick with those like Dr. Morris.
Super smart & highly educated scientists draw me in, before you know it I may doubt scripture itself.
We've so much to learn! I'll just stick to creation at 6,000 years old
https://answersingenesis.org/hermeneutics/eisegesis/
Belle of Grace
Longing for Home
Wm. Lane Craig, Hank Hannegraaff, and others are partly responsible for this unfortunate erosion of our churches, because they bring confusion and disorder to the sheep by not adhering to a literal reading of God's Word. And people are generally impressed with someone who has the title of Dr.
https://answersingenesis.org/media/...=20150613&mc_cid=a792ac3644&mc_eid=c6f0e72401
https://answersingenesis.org/media/...=20150613&mc_cid=a792ac3644&mc_eid=c6f0e72401
Hol
Worships Him
Good article, thanks Lynn!
And they quote Martin Luther:
"...whoever would study Holy Scripture should be sure to see to it that he stays with the simple words as long as he can and by no means departs from them unless an article of faith compels him to understand them differently. For of this we must be certain: no simpler speech has been heard on Earth than what God has spoken.”
mbrown1219
Heaven's Stables
Well you two ladies make your case. I do not listen to Intelligent Design Scientists in order to interpret scripture, but maybe some do. I have learned a great deal about what we can tell about God from creation though. Creation does loudly proclaim Creator (to me).
So I shall stand corrected!
So I shall stand corrected!
Belle of Grace
Longing for Home
You are a picture of the humility that God desires of us. Your participation in this topic has been a blessing as you've read (and strongly considered) the posts by Hol and me.Well you two ladies make your case. I do not listen to Intelligent Design Scientists in order to interpret scripture, but maybe some do. I have learned a great deal about what we can tell about God from creation though. Creation does loudly proclaim Creator (to me).
So I shall stand corrected!
I think our discussion represents iron sharpening iron, and I enjoy that so much.
mbrown1219
Heaven's Stables
Just to be clear here, Lynn, I do not listen to Intelligent Design scientists to get my doctrine. Most of them admit they are approaching the issue from a scientific, not a theistic, approach. So they are telling us what evidence leads to God in science. I enjoy hearing what their scientific research is telling them. I don't think I even know who Hank Hannegraaff is...
Last edited:
mbrown1219
Heaven's Stables
I acknowledge your grave concerns and know they come from a heart that loves God.You are a picture of the humility that God desires of us. Your participation in this topic has been a blessing as you've read (and strongly considered) the posts by Hol and me.
I think our discussion represents iron sharpening iron, and I enjoy that so much.
Similar threads
