I've actually heard some people say that they can prove evolution in a laboratory setting. I read an article years ago about scientists who created a four-winged fruit fly in a lab. Apparently, the thing couldn't fly very well, and would likely be quickly eaten if it were in the wild. But still! Evolution!The trouble with Evolution theory is that it cannot be arrived at via the scientific method. It can't be replicated in a lab, and it can't be observed.
I've heard a variation of that theory that makes a bit more sense. Basically, it goes under the idea that the universe is in constant motion, either expanding or contracting, over the course of trillions of years. Once all the stuff in the universe expands outward as far as it's going to go, gravity will start pulling everything back together. Eventually it gets to the point where everything gets so compacted together and tight that the sheer amount of energy goes BANG and sends everything flying apart again. It's an interesting idea, but as you said, only a theory, since there's no way to replicate this in a lab or observe it actually happening.Now, i am going to focus on the big bang (BB). Les say that I hand you a big wad of nothing, nada, not a thing, just air, and with that big wad of nothing i tell you to make something, could you do it? No! of course not. You can't make something out of nothing. That's not physically possible. That is what the BB claims. That something was made out of nothing. Scientists will tell you that at first there was nothing, no space no stars no worlds, nothing, then there was an explosion, and from that explosion our universe came to be. Well, what exploded? Nothing can't explode, it's nothing! Something would have had to be there for that explosion to happen, but scientists say there was nothing there at first! So the BB theory isn't possible based upon it's own foundational beliefs. You cannot make something, out of nothing.
I did what I could. You were actually the one to show me the counter-theory to the Big Bang (which is kind of cool, I admit).I leave you guys alone and this is what you do? Is there no one else to disrupt the echo chamber?
In summary, it's okay to disagree, or simply not know, or understand everything, in the Bible, as long as the issue is not condemning to the soul. I don't believe in a few points from Hugh Ross, but if he confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, believes in his heart that Jesus was raised from the dead, then he shall be saved. I won't sweat the small differences, lets us as Christians come together on what we agree with, not be separated by what we disagree on!Unless ye be born of water and the spirit you will not see the Kingdom of God!
So, as all scientific evidence is required, you would need to start drawing up reasonable conditions on which we wouldn't expect to occur in the case of an intelligent creator and demonstrating they won't happen. In addition, you'd have to find conditions that would occur under an intelligent creator but not without.But short of the Big Guy coming down, raising His hand and saying "I did it," what kind of evidence would it take to convince an atheist that there is some merit to the theory of an intelligent creator who designed everything?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests