Sure Christians believe God is great, but they do not believe he is a fairy, nor do they believe he lives in the sky. So out of three words, you only used one accurate one.
Secular scientists start with the premise that the Bible is false, and bend the evidence to fit that premise. So maybe they are not real scientists either?
Creation Scientists conduct their operational sciences exactly the same way as the secular guys do. They only differ in Origins Sciences.
I guess I can just go to Albert, since it is his theory we are talking about. When Einstein discusses whether a person can prove that light moves at a constant speed in one direction he concedes this is impossible without already assuming it does,
“If only I knew that the light by means of which the observer at M perceives the lightning flashes travels along the length A → M with the same velocity as along the length B → M. But an examination would only be possible if we already had at our disposal the means of measuring time. It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle. (Einstein 1961, pp. 22–23).”
Einstein also confirms my original assertions that the one way speed of light being constant is by no means a requirement of nature, but rather a man-made convention. He states,
“That light requires the same time to traverse the path A → M as for the path B → M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity (Einstein 1961, p. 23) “
So you wasted all that time arguing points that Einstein himself didn’t even agree with. This is why I asserted that if you had a basic knowledge of physics and relativity, you would not have wasted all that time arguing these points.
False analogy. We can observe how stars react; we cannot observe abiogenesis occurring 3.5 million years ago. Secularists such as you are the ones asserting that abiogenesis happened, so the burden of proof is not on me but rather you to prove it did happen. Unfortunately for your side, nobody has even demonstrated that it could happen, much less that it actually did.
First of all, you should not be so confident that this cause happened 13-14 billion years ago, since that is a figure that changes yearly it seems. Secondly, you could not make such a definitive assertion without you yourself being all knowing. When you actually start running through the necessary attributes of this first intelligent cause it starts sounding more and more like the God of the Bible.
You really are the off topic king though Zen : - ) I think that only you could cover the Definition of Science, ASC, and the Causality Argument all in a thread about abiogenesis. Kudos for that.
Hey SD,
I don’t believe you could ever prove abiogenesis happened on Earth. Even if we did observe it happening on another planet, this is not logical proof it happened here. That’s like observing a government forming in one country and saying that is proof of how it formed in another country.
As to your point about the writing in the sand and God’s existence, I think that you could use the writing in the sand to prove the human who wrote it existed. If you were on a desert island, and you believed you were all alone, but one morning you woke up and found the words, “Hello, I am here” written in the sand where the previous day there was nothing you could logically conclude that not only did a human write this, but that human also exists on that island. I would not call you irrational for making this conclusion because you know that the message contains information and information only comes from an intelligent mind. This is just one proof theists use to demonstrate God’s existence when they look at the hugely complex information contained in living cells; I think this proof is completely valid and rational.
As to your points about natural laws, they demonstrate an underlying uniformity, order, and predictability to our universe. These are things that should not have and I would argue could not have originated given the current Godless theories about the universe’s origin. So again, I think this helps to confirm God’s existence.
Well I would hope that these scientists you refer to would realize that Avogadro's number (6.0221415 × 1023) is not a very small number at all, but rather a very large number. I think any Junior in high school would know this. I imagine that unlike you these scientists would also realize that there is a big difference between rounding off statistical probabilities and rounding off actual measurements and constants.
So? That’s like saying, “we found naturally occurring rocks, and therefore stone pyramids form themselves!” Amino acids have no natural tendency to arrange themselves. So I am afraid it is you who is merely ignoring the actual science and believing what you want to believe rather than what you should believe.
