Evidence of God's Design

[Guest]

Regardless of what anyone says, the Bible was written by men with their own ambitions and desires. That doesn't preclude Divine intervention, but it doesn't provide proof of said intervention. If there were some eternally burning letters somewhere saying, "Sorry for the inconvenience," then I'd be a believer. All we have are scripts written by mortal parties with a vested interest in their reception. After 2000 years, including the European Dark Ages, we have very little independent data on the events and people who lived at that time. Mainly we have Roman Census records and the like which provide little context regarding the nature of the people of the time. We simply don't know anymore.

Wow is this an easy one to overcome. If man wrote the Bible, Why is the way to Heaven accepting the death of Jesus Christ? Not by any prideful means of how good we are, so we could boast, every man I ever knew wants everyone to know what they have accomplished. Not with the Bible though. It's all grace buddy, you can't be good enough to do it yourself. No don't think for one second man wrote the Word. Would have been a lot more self centered, if your even a little honest with yourself you would see that, but you won't.

[Guest]

Quag, read or look up or google, I don't care which Ivan Panin-THE INSPRIATION OF THE SCRIPTURE SCIENTIFICALLY DEMONSTATED.

[Guest]

Hey, Quag you could Wiki him. Read til your hearts content.

[Quag]

hambone i dont hate god i just KNOW that your twisted version is false. EVERY SINGLE ARGUEMENT YOU HAVE PROPOSED HAS A HOLE IN IT. and please please stop trying to use science. you seem to have no grasp of it and only read pseudo science from people who spend their time twisting distorting and trying to ridicule actual science/scientists.

Evolution-you seem to have gotten it wrong

Ressurection- you admit it could be natural occurence

Gravity- your so far off on what is actually happening it isnt funny.

earth circular orbit- wow learn a bit about actual astronmy.

#7-read Dawh's post

now to your circle argument. if man wrote scriptes how come he can only get to heaven by follwing them?? DUDE your missing the point. follwoing the scriptures has nothing to do with getting to heaven. again you try to prove the bible is real because it says it is so in the bible. seriously if you were gonna start a cult (all religions started as cults they were just succesful ones) then of course you should say that you have to follow the religion to get to heaven. otherwise why would anyone follow you? they wouldnt need you. your arguement that only divine intervention could make people write something that makes them indespenible is the exact opposite of what you are trying to get across.

seriously please read what actual people write not just what someone writes about another persons writing. I just took a quick look at what you said to read. again look at Dawh's post. At best you can claim some clever writers but again the numbers dont hold up when translations are involved. you can claim that they do, but they dont. try doing the actual math yourself with an english/french/latin/greek bible. WHOOPS your math wizard doesnt translate so well. i know you wont do it because it puts a whole in another one of your arguements. Just like no one bothers to check the math on the age of the world using ESTIMATED ages of people in the bible. It takes to much effort and besides if you came up with a different number it would cast doubt on the bible so you will just accept it as truth.

[Guest]

Quag, you missed my point of gravity

The resurrection was not a natural occurrence after 3 days sh--head maybe one day, Not 3

Following who, not what I said, you accept the sacrifice Jesus made, that's it nothing else.

This is called Evidence of God's Design, You got any, or are you just so filled with hatred you have to spew what you think you know and provoke people to anger. Whats your mission? Go write a riddle or something.

Edited July 13, 2010 by hambone

[Quag]

Yes after 3 days even after longer periods people HAVE woken up from apparent dead states. It is a fact sorry busted you again.

again you say you can only get to heaven if you accept the bible as fact. this means you must listen to the people who tell you about the bible (literacy was not nearly as common as it is now) so again baboom! your point does the opposite of what you think it does.

gravity. i didnt attack you point i attacked your science on gravity. no need to attack the point as its base is completely wrong. if ya want ill attack the point but then it is pointless to do so.

yes the thread is called evidence of gods design. You asked me if i got any, i think thats a typo, i believe you meant to say do i have any evidence against gods design. i already said i dont. you however stared this thread and have yet to put up 1 single shred of evidence in favor of gods design. I mentioned in first post i find this topic fascinating. i'm not trying to anger you i'm trying to provoke thought.

[EDM]

i kinda want to end my discussion here (missing out on my riddling status.... ) so here are my final thoughts:

Evidence of God's Design is to show that not everything has a scientific or mathematical answer.......although hambone found some

It doesn't matter so much to me if you don't believe in god or you hate god or whatever.....God loves us whether we care about him or not.....we'll all see each other in heaven when we're old and long gone

the 3 days rising for normal people are for those in coma....the ones who haven't been in coma but have died and come back 3 days later always have some spiritual or godly experience (either they saw it, or their family did or something...)

We are all friends here and i have been quite happy discussing this (even with the and and and other non- smileys.....)

so with that note.....i finish my side of the discussion....

[unreality]

Oh and to go back to an old post that was posted by UR:

Just to add a little to that conversation:

My argument: He just is. And if He didn't create the universe...How did it come to be?

I'm not sure what the answer would be. Big Bang maybe? If this so called "Big Bang" occured...What caused it to occur? If before said "Big Bang" there was nothing...How could it occur FROM NOTHING???

you have fallen directly into the paradox I just talked about. I'm not trying to change your mind just open it a little bit so follow this very carefully:

(1) in terms of complexity, the Universe is very complex. But God is even more complex (infinitely so perhaps?)

(2) you argue that the Universe is too complex to "just exist"

(3) you argue that God "just exists"

PARADOX. No matter how you look at it. If the universe warrants creation (it doesn't) then so does god. You can't escape.

The only thing you can do is concede that god just somehow "just exists". Allowing also the possibility for the universe (a simpler thing than god) to also "just exist", an altogether simpler conclusion.

So no matter what you cannot rationally say that God can just exist and the Universe _must_ have been created. The strongest position you can hold with your beliefs is that God just is and the universe just as easily is. Any argument against the continual existence and/or initial existence of the Universe can be applied in a stronger manner to a god or any other entity that is a level above the universe in complexity.

In other words you have to accept one of three conclusions:

(1) god is simpler than the universe, life, etc.

(2) the universe cannot 'just be', it requires creation by something (god) which thus also requires creation, etc. an infinite ladder

(3) god 'just is' OR the universe 'just is', both entirely plausible

edit: the above is how far logic can take us. Assuming we both agree on point #3, the rest of the way is all faith. For different reasons we choose different forks of #3. In other words arguing about the creation/initial existence of universe and/or god can only lead to the conclusions above hence i just have proved it's not worth arguing about because it leads to a fork in faith. Therefore problems of creation/genesis are not enough to cause one to believe or not believe. They are not the source of argument here. Arguing EITHER DIRECTION will end up in a trap (unless one uses occam's razor with point #3 toward the agnostic/atheistic side but sometimes occam's razor can be wrong so that's not valid). Just clearing that up - ie, that no more time should be wasted arguing about the initial creation or existence of complex entities

Edited July 13, 2010 by unreality

[Guest]

Got your point unreality, my position in this is that God exists. You know that. The God I believe in also has been stated, You know that. Read my status on my home page. With the God I believe, I believe his word. I believe what is posted on my home page. I can't even come close to understanding How and probably won't til I meet him. There is so much precision in the Universe and creation for me to believe anything else. That's just me though. Thought some of the points (and have a lot more) were interesting. Life. How did it start? God created. He lives outside of Time, Space, and our knowledge to understand. He always was. How? don't know. Just choose to believe. It's FAITH. ALL FAITH. I don't by the way believe in Religion, to me it is a relationship.

[Guest]

Oh and to go back to an old post that was posted by UR:

Just to add a little to that conversation:

My argument: He just is. And if He didn't create the universe...How did it come to be?

I'm not sure what the answer would be. Big Bang maybe? If this so called "Big Bang" occured...What caused it to occur? If before said "Big Bang" there was nothing...How could it occur FROM NOTHING???

And God said Let there be. Spoke it into existance. That's it. It is.

[Quag]

tTo parphrase judge Roy Snyder of the Simpsons

I hearby order religion and science to stay 100 yards from each other

Edited July 13, 2010 by Quag

[Guest]

Wow. 17 pages in three days!

No one is born into Christianity. There are a lot of religions of the earth Izzy I know and have learned about most all of them. The one that is TRUE is the God of Abraham. I don't need to prove to anyone what I know or have learned about other religions. The others are false a lie. Only one God Loved you enough to send his son to die for You. Allah, wants your son to die for him.

Um... you do realize that the Muslim, Judaic, and Christian God are one and the same, don't you?

Although Charles Darwin popularized the theory almost 150 years ago, it remains just that--a theory--because the scientific evidence required to prove it has never been found.

This argument attempts to make a logical case against evolution, ignoring the rather obvious fact that the exact same logic constitutes an even stronger case against Creation and/or Intelugint Duh-zign. It attempts to disprove evolution by saying that it is not scientifically proven, thereby constituting scientific proof that it is false, and concluding that God must then have created the Universe. Among other things, it ignores the fact that neither Creation nor ID can be scientifically proven, and that while you could fill an entire library with the scientific evidence supporting evolution, you couldn't find enough scientific evidence supporting Creation or ID to fill a postage stamp, even using using a large typeface font.

Of course, you will simply say that faith is beyond logical scrutiny and therefore is under no burden of proof, or in other words, you can change the rules arbitrarily whenever it suits you.

This fundamental law of science states that the total amount of usable energy throughout the Universe is constantly decreasing.

That is not at all what it says, but instead is a deliberate perversion of the statement of the Second Law. What it actually says is that the entropy of the Universe is always constant or increasing. The Big Bang, or the moment immediately preceding it, represents a state of extremely low entropy. We observe the universe to currently have positive and increasing entropy. Thus, there is no contradiction.

Furthermore, if you insist on arguing from the point of view of the Second Law, a willful God represents a state of orderliness surpassing that of empty space (most theists would happily and proudly say infinitely so). This represents a state of infinitely lower entropy than one in which the Universe began without divine intervention, therefore making it infinitely less probable, thus proving that God did not create the Universe.

The first problem of evolution that must be faced is this: Where did the Universe and its massive energy come from and when did it begin?

First of all, that is not "the [...] problem of evolution", but one for physicists. Secondly, I'm sorry to tell you this, but the processes of evolution and natural selection have actually been observed. Yes, that's right, they've happened before our very eyes, both in laboratories and in the field. The most obvious examples are several species of bacteria that have developed a resistance to antibiotics, and a number of insect species that have developed resistance to pesticides. However, there are numerous other examples, such as hybrid species, not to mention the vast quantity of overwhelmingly compelling geologic evidence.

This means that the "steady state" theory of some early evolutionary scientists that the Universe has always existed is false.

What's your point? Nobody supports the steady state model anymore, and it never had anything to do with evolution in the first place. This argument is the logical equivalent of my saying that God doesn't exist because Buddists no longer believe in Zeus. I suggest you learn the difference between physics and biology before making such ludicrous statements.

The second fundamental problem faced by the theory of evolution is the absolute impossibility that life was spontaneously generated by chance from inanimate or non-living inorganic elements.

No biologist since the 19th century has stated or believed that living organisms spontaneously erupted directly from inorganic matter. For starters, while organic compounds are necessary to life, the deliberately misleading suggestion (by omission) that the inverse is true is patently false. Organic molecules can and do exist in complete absence of life (most notably demonstrated by Miller & Urey). Secondly, it is also proven that the amino acids and phospholipids necessary to cellular life can and do form (spontaneously, or with energy supplied in the form of heat and radiation) from the organic species that geologic evidence overwhelmingly supports the existence of prior to the appearance of life on Earth. There are many mechanisms by which living (i.e. metabolizing and reproducing) organisms could be produced by such species. To my knowledge, none has yet been reproduced by biologists, but this does not mean that it cannot and will not happen.

Finally, as you will no doubt realize from the above description of the actual science, rather than the dumbed-down and perverted version that has been maliciously fed to you by miscreants that wish to control your mind and behavior for financial gain and political power, Earth's primitive oceans and atmosphere did not magically contain all the necessary chemical compounds for life, which were just waiting to be zapped by a lighning bolt into the first cellular organism. Rather, it was a process that took over a billion years. It is almost certain that our solar system is second-generation, formed from the debris of supernovae and other cosmic matter, in which heavier elements are created. Over time, our planet has also been bombarded by meteorites and other objects from space that are composed of... what? Matter? Who knew?

Regarding Prof. Wickramasinghe, you are first of all quoting one authority in a field of tens of thousands, many of whom disagree, and secondly, one whose work does not propose Creation or ID as the alternative. You have also twice demonstrated your complete ignorance of the topic by confusing it with an entirely different discipline. It is possible that many of the compounds required were indeed imported from outside our solar system, brought to Earth by meteorites, as Prof. Wickramasinghe proposes. Considering that our planet has been bombarded by millions of meteorites during its existence, this is hardly far-fetched. That does not make it the work of God.

Edited July 13, 2010 by d3k3

[Guest]

I just thought of something. If you have a child with a close relative, the baby will be mutated. Everyone is (more or less) distantly related which is why the human race has undergone changes. Now think of this. Adam and Eve had three sons and no daughters. How did they populate the earth? By risking the mutations. The first humans were deformed by todays standards.

Now we come to Noah. God started over and the process happened again. Another set of mutations occurred and the result is todays humans. There's the theory of evolution for all you religious people.

My conclusion:

God is an ape.

[Guest]

Some of the greatest scientists of Harvard and other Universities have at least said, "Wow, or even Holy sh== that is pretty amazing and the odds of such things are unbelievable" Didn't drop down and believe in God but at least admitted some of these, (and don't worry other points are coming) were quite amazing odds. I respect Men of their caliber. Most of you on the other hand have no choice but to at least shoot holes in ANYTHING I POST, because the alternative eats you up inside. Most of you I think, purposely misinterpret what I post, or maybe by accident. If not Creation (which I obviously don't have a problem with) then How? Science is very much tied to God, He created it. Though most of you choose to worship the creation instead of the creator, that's fine, your choice. Evolution, could not exist without Life, Biology could not exist without life. The topic is Evidence of God's Design. I'm aware, you don't believe.

Not one of you has brought anything to disprove how I believe. I have posted ideas that others have had and comments you I guess suppose are my thoughts entirely. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Died for my sins and is Alive. That is what I say, if you want to know the short version. Though I like posting really amazing things about biology, and science, where the odds of such things are not in the realm of math.

[Quag]

D3K3 alread pointed most of that out, missed the bit about entropy though too busy pointing out the sillyness of saying evolution is a theory and not proven then trying to use the laws of thermodynamics to prove a point (they are theories as well)

EDM about 3 days and coma stuff, sorry ya lost me there, i didnt know there was a 3 day rule on comas, must remember to inform everyone that happened to so they can fall back dead. also on same point, exactly why could jesus not have been in a coma?

Hambone i asssume that you are aware that there was a long a bitter debate that was finally settled with a compromise at the council of nicaea 325 AD. way way after his death and so no living person to speak of?

also since you wanted me to read an article claiming to prove jesus was god (which it didnt) heres an opposing view http://www.answering-christianity.com/at.htm I am not claiming to believe all that is written there, would have to do some independant research. as i said before i dont like just reading what 1 person says about what a 2nd person said. i prefer to go to the source. My point is just because someone writes something doesnt make it true. unless of course im the one writing

[Guest]

325a.d. The gospels were already written. Listen Quag, if (and I do use IF in the loosest possible way) if this was one big lie. Even in a remote area as Israel, though not as remote as you think; controlled by a Roman Procurator very populated at that time, anyway-- This was a very controversial thing that took place. You do understand that right. If it were a Lie it would have been even harder to get any kind of foundation to stand upon and grow. If it were not true I promise you it would have been squashed as a false religion instantly. Religion is a HUGE deal in that part of the world even today. The middle east DOES NOT think as most of the world does- separation of religion from anything is not in the way they think. It is everything they think and live and breath.

[Guest]

Scientific discoveries made during the 1920s and 30s changed modern astronomers' understanding of the basic structure and form of the Universe. Up to that point in time, almost all astronomers believed that science had established that the Universe was static; (aware we don't think this now) the steady state Universe had existed forever. (or so they thought) They concluded, naturally, that if the Universe had always existed, if it was never created, then there was no need for a Creator.----RIGHT--------

The French philosopher George Politzer expressed the almost universal prevailing opinion held by intellectuals that the Universe had always existed:

"The Universe was NOT a created object....If it were, then it would have to be created instantaneously by God and brought into existence from nothing. To admit creation, one has to admit, in the first place, the existence of a moment when the Universe did not exist, and that something came out of nothingness. This is something to which science cannot accede." George Politzer, PRINCIPES FONDAMENTAUX DE PHILOSOPHIE, Editions Sociales, Paris, 1954, p.84. ----------------NOT MY WORDS--------------

However, many scientists, such as Sir Arthur Eddington, discovered that Professor Albert Einstein's mathematical field equations (I'm sure you have heard of these guys? being a smarta** now. ) established conclusively that the Universe could not have existed infinitely. ------------AGAIN NOT MY WORDS---------Professor Eddington admitted, in his book, Cosmos and Creator, that the idea of Creation deeply troubled him. HEAR WHAT HE SAID? "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me."Arthur S. Eddington, as reported in S. Jake, Cosmos and Creator, Chicago:Regnery Gateway, 1980.........However, Eddington acknowledged that the discovery of the Universe's creation eliminated a huge barrier to faith.----AGAIN NOT MY WORDS-------- "It will perhaps be said that the conclusion to be drawn from these arguments from modern science,is that religion first became possible for a reasonable scientific man about the year 1927." Arthur Eddingtion, Internet site: www.windowsview.org/science/heerenl.html

These new discoveries produced a revolution in scientific thought as scientists struggled to adapt to this new radical truth that upset all of their previous assumptions. OBVIOUSLY, (and you all will disagree) if the Universe had a definite beginning in time, then it is essential that there must be a Creator who stands outside this Universe. A Universe that springs into existence together with time, space, energy, and mass is OBVIOUSLY a Universe that DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE PHILOSOPHY OF EITHER PANTHEISM OR ATHEISM.

In 1927 a milestone in the advancement of scientific knowledge of our Universe's origin. American astronomer Edwin Hubble---heard of him right?---he used the new Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson in California to discover that the distant light sources he was looking at were not stars but actually ASTRONOMICAL PHENOMENA called nebulae. They were distant galaxies, all containing billions of stars like our Milky Way. he discovered that these enormous galaxies were MOVING AWAY FROM OUR GALAXY and from each other at stupendous velocities.

After Dr. Albert Einstein had personally verified, through Sir Edwin Hubble's 100 inch wide telescope, that the galaxies were expanding away from us at tremendous velocities, that the Universe MUST LOGICALLY have had a definite beginning at some point in the distant past.----Wow guys, this is Einstein talking here, anyone want to call him an idiot?---------Professor Einstein later wrote that he wanted "to know how GOD (yup he said GOD) created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, (as in GOD'S) the rest are details." Albert Einstein Internet site: http://rescomp.stanford/edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html

The brilliant seventeenth-century scientist, Sir Isaac Newton, (another idiot) wrote in his book OBSERVATIONS ON DANIEL AND THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN: "The most beautiful system of the Sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." 400 years ago, Newton stated that "The Creator had placed the stars at immense distances from one another." He acknowledged that the DIVERSITY OF NATURAL THINGS could never have been produced by BLIND METAPHYSICAL NECESSITY, but only by an intelligent supernatural Creator."

Newton wrote that "blind fate" couldn't possibly account for the "wonderful Uniformity" that was demonstrated by the planetary movements. "Gravity may put the planets in motion, but without the divine power it could never put them into such a circulating motion as they have."

ALL IDIOTS !!!!!!---------------------------------NOT--------------------------------------

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Edited July 14, 2010 by hambone

[Quag]

yes gospels writen before council of nicaea my point is there were several versions the council came together and decided upon the offical church version, in so doing rewrote the gospels yet again.

yes judea was a small place at the time relatively speaking was not even close to rome or alexandria. and again i point out china.

If it were a lie it wouldnt have caught on? but you say that islam is a lie, it is way bigger there. what about hinduism or buddhism? all lies according to you yet they caught on. hate to use evil, but here goes: The big lie is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, for a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

The idea of quoting scientist who admit they have no clue how the universe was created has nothing to do with proving gods existence. your argument seems to be, we do not know the answer to this question therfore the only logical conclusion is that god created the universe. it can just as easily be turned around to. we do not know how god came into existence therefore he does not exist. neither is a logical argument.

[Guest]

Quag, God could sit on a throne here on earth today beaming with light beaming from inside. I would say to you, "You see that guy sitting there, beaming of light? That's God!" and you would say "there is no God." your reasoning is foolish. You keep going back to the same points because I think you have no idea how to comment to what I am showing you. Listen to what much more intelligent people than you are saying---THE ODDS ARE OUTRAGIOUS, UNBELIEVEBLE, INCREDIBLE--- THAT THIS UNIVERSE JUST HAPPENED WITHOUT INTELIGENT DESIGN. I say GOD. We are talking 1 with a 180 zeros after it.

What the frig does China have to do with anything?

Edited July 14, 2010 by hambone

[Quag]

the odds that god always existed and had no creator himself are even more astronomical than the universe always being. the china bit is just one more reason that jesus wasnt the son of god. i never brought jesus into this you did. i just point out that the belief that he is divine is silly. Again i have never tried to prove god doesnt exist. Your belief system however is without a doubt wrong (takes the odds you have of the universe just existing and exponetially increase by a factor of 1 to the power of infinity). i am just pointing out that everything you say does not in any way shape or form give any evedince to his existence. As to god sitting in front of me on a throne well i have no idea what my reaction would be, if it happens ill let ya know

You have yet to refute 1 single point i have made, yet i have refuted all of yours. who is the one with foolish reasoning?

[Guest]

btw, study how mohammad spread the belief of worshiping Allah. It was with a sword.

[Guest]

Scientific discoveries made during the 1920s and 30s changed modern astronomers' understanding of the basic structure and form of the Universe. Up to that point in time, almost all astronomers believed that science had established that the Universe was static; (aware we don't think this now) the steady state Universe had existed forever. (or so they thought) They concluded, naturally, that if the Universe had always existed, if it was never created, then there was no need for a Creator.----RIGHT--------

The French philosopher George Politzer expressed the almost universal prevailing opinion held by intellectuals that the Universe had always existed:

"The Universe was NOT a created object....If it were, then it would have to be created instantaneously by God and brought into existence from nothing. To admit creation, one has to admit, in the first place, the existence of a moment when the Universe did not exist, and that something came out of nothingness. This is something to which science cannot accede." George Politzer, PRINCIPES FONDAMENTAUX DE PHILOSOPHIE, Editions Sociales, Paris, 1954, p.84. ----------------NOT MY WORDS--------------

However, many scientists, such as Sir Arthur Eddington, discovered that Professor Albert Einstein's mathematical field equations (I'm sure you have heard of these guys? being a smarta** now. ) established conclusively that the Universe could not have existed infinitely. ------------AGAIN NOT MY WORDS---------Professor Eddington admitted, in his book, Cosmos and Creator, that the idea of Creation deeply troubled him. HEAR WHAT HE SAID? "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me."Arthur S. Eddington, as reported in S. Jake, Cosmos and Creator, Chicago:Regnery Gateway, 1980.........However, Eddington acknowledged that the discovery of the Universe's creation eliminated a huge barrier to faith.----AGAIN NOT MY WORDS-------- "It will perhaps be said that the conclusion to be drawn from these arguments from modern science,is that religion first became possible for a reasonable scientific man about the year 1927." Arthur Eddingtion, Internet site: www.windowsview.org/science/heerenl.html

These new discoveries produced a revolution in scientific thought as scientists struggled to adapt to this new radical truth that upset all of their previous assumptions. OBVIOUSLY, (and you all will disagree) if the Universe had a definite beginning in time, then it is essential that there must be a Creator who stands outside this Universe. A Universe that springs into existence together with time, space, energy, and mass is OBVIOUSLY a Universe that DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE PHILOSOPHY OF EITHER PANTHEISM OR ATHEISM.

In 1927 a milestone in the advancement of scientific knowledge of our Universe's origin. American astronomer Edwin Hubble---heard of him right?---he used the new Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson in California to discover that the distant light sources he was looking at were not stars but actually ASTRONOMICAL PHENOMENA called nebulae. They were distant galaxies, all containing billions of stars like our Milky Way. he discovered that these enormous galaxies were MOVING AWAY FROM OUR GALAXY and from each other at stupendous velocities.

After Dr. Albert Einstein had personally verified, through Sir Edwin Hubble's 100 inch wide telescope, that the galaxies were expanding away from us at tremendous velocities, that the Universe MUST LOGICALLY have had a definite beginning at some point in the distant past.----Wow guys, this is Einstein talking here, anyone want to call him an idiot?---------Professor Einstein later wrote that he wanted "to know how GOD (yup he said GOD) created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, (as in GOD'S) the rest are details." Albert Einstein Internet site: http://rescomp.stanford/edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html

The brilliant seventeenth-century scientist, Sir Isaac Newton, (another idiot) wrote in his book OBSERVATIONS ON DANIEL AND THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN: "The most beautiful system of the Sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." 400 years ago, Newton stated that "The Creator had placed the stars at immense distances from one another." He acknowledged that the DIVERSITY OF NATURAL THINGS could never have been produced by BLIND METAPHYSICAL NECESSITY, but only by an intelligent supernatural Creator."

Newton wrote that "blind fate" couldn't possibly account for the "wonderful Uniformity" that was demonstrated by the planetary movements. "Gravity may put the planets in motion, but without the divine power it could never put them into such a circulating motion as they have."

ALL IDIOTS !!!!!!---------------------------------NOT--------------------------------------

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

POSTED THIS LATE LAST NIGHT. DON'T WANT TO SEE IT BURIED SO SOON WITHOUT BEING READ. THERE CONCLUSION IS CREATION, COUPLE OF THEM CLAIM OR MENTION OR SAY GOD. THE OTHERS ARE KIND OF PISSED.

[Guest]

the odds that god always existed and had no creator himself are even more astronomical than the universe always being. the china bit is just one more reason that jesus wasnt the son of god. i never brought jesus into this you did. i just point out that the belief that he is divine is silly. Again i have never tried to prove god doesnt exist. Your belief system however is without a doubt wrong (takes the odds you have of the universe just existing and exponetially increase by a factor of 1 to the power of infinity). i am just pointing out that everything you say does not in any way shape or form give any evedince to his existence. As to god sitting in front of me on a throne well i have no idea what my reaction would be, if it happens ill let ya know

You have yet to refute 1 single point i have made, yet i have refuted all of yours. who is the one with foolish reasoning?

you have refuted nothing, you just don't believe in God. Anything you say is rubbish to me, just as everything I say is rubbish to you. So lets just say that the 1 with an infinite number of zero's after it are equal for both of us. Sounds to me like we are both equally brilliant or equally foolish! Unless one of us is right.

[Guest]

With odds like these, In what people much more intelligent than any of us combined have come up with, It is just as easy to believe in a God as to not believe, and actually they (Meaning Einstein too) said it is easier to believe in God. Edited July 14, 2010 by hambone

[Quag]

learn history christianity was spread by the sword as well, even neglecting the crusades, look at what happened in germany.

and yes it is easier to believe in god but that doesnt make god more likely, also belief in god is NOT belief in your interventionist god only in some all powerful being creating the universe. it has been said before many peopel believe in god simply because they cant wrap their brains around the universe just being so they put it off on some other simpler(in the sense 1 single entity) thing having created it. If you base your belief on the fact that smarter people than you say there is a god what about those who are more intelligent than you who say he doesnt?

havent refutred anything?

ive refuted your proof jesus was resurected

ive refuted your denial of evolution

ive refuted your comprehenshion of earths orbit

ive refuted your comprehension of gravity

ive refuted your belief that the bible you read is exactly as written.

hmm what other claims have you made? too lazy to go back and see them all.

oh yeah ive refuted your claim that i beleive god does not exist (though i do KNOW with 100% certainty that god as you believe him to exist does not exist, so if your looking at it that way then ok ill throw ya a bone so to speak.)

what you say is not rubbish to me im just pointing out the flaws in your logic.