[geocentrism] Re: The Big Bang
- From: "Glover, Rob" <Rob.Glover@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:34:11 +0100
Jack Lewis wrote:
"The real key point is that the most obvious conclusion to come to is that
there was a creator. But if this is disallowed as a priori, no wonder
science gets itself tied in knots trying to figure it out. No matter how
close or often the research gets to this conclusion, it is rejected and a
new idea is formulated. Sooner or later rationality will have to prevail and
ad-hocs will have to cease. As I have said before it is irrational to
believe that something happened from nothing without a first cause. I much
prefer to stay rational and accept that it was created. Meanwhile I will
continue to question the assumptions science puts forward as an explanation
for origins."
The problem with this approach is twofold. Firstly, if there is real
intelligent design there, scientific research will verify it. Archaeologists
can tell, usually quite easily, if a block of stone is artificially shaped
or not. If God hid an unambigious message to us in DNA, drew a blueprint in
the cosmic microwave background, or hid a passage of the Bible codified
inside PI, that would be unambiguous evidence. But of course that would deny
faith.
The second problem Im sure you're familiar with. If a designer's signature
was found inside DNA, confirming intelligent intervention beyond a shadow of
a doubt, then I will say - this proves life on Earth was intelligently
designed. But that does not leave divine creation as the only remaining
hypothesis. How about the possibility it was designed by aliens, and the
Earth was seeded in the remote past. We then have a new problem - where did
the aliens come from. Did they evolve, or were they created - by God (why?)
or by even older SuperAliens... endless loop.
Plese don't misunderstand me. I don't buy the aliens hypothesis as to how
life got here. My point is, debunking a single scientific theory does not
leave God as the only other hypothesis. Even proving intelligent design does
not leave God of the Bible as the only hypothesis.
I read the ICR article. It's out of date, why does Gish not cite any
scientific paper later than 1991? Ripples in the cosmic microwave background
were discovered in 1992 by the COBE satellite. (
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/Footprints.html ) Why did you
not check this out for yourself first?
Anyway, It's getting very lonely on this board. Are there only the 4 of us
here? How are you getting on with reconstructing a Bible-based cosmology
from the ground up, starting from the Babylonians? I haven't seen much
activity on that, or indeed any at all. Let me know when you reach the level
that the Greeks had got to two thousand years ago, and I'll join in. In the
meantime, have a read of Allan Chapman's book 'Gods in the Sky' (
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0752261649/202-3254792-1538244 ) to
give yourself a few pointers.
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential
information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied,
disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended
recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all
copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
Other related posts:
