It certainly makes the case for design over evolution. Evolution is a nonstarter that even its founder (Darwin) would now be forced to admit is wrong. After 160 years of frantic searching there still are no transition fossils. All the fossils we fin are fully developed distinct species.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Quite the opposite. The scientific method points to inconclusive results. That's very different from a peer reviewed conclusion. I could go on, but I have a feeling little I could say will change anyone's mind. Do consider your source here. FOX news is a known conservative program who's audience is more likely to be religious. They will play things directed at that audience. Preaching to the choir if you will.

Simply by accepting the scientific method you are accepting a rational universe therefore a rational mind behind it. Unless you are one of those irrational people who believes blind chance creates rationality

Yay! I'm back! It's my Second coming! But what the hell is this? Some new Idol I have to contend with, one among many. Christians have a number of Idols and a number of creative ways of denying to themselves that they're idol worshipping. But their biggest Idol is one they needn't even take a single step to find, that is if they could even remove the beam from their eyes!

You can't prove it.... Christian Faith is a a religion not a scientific fact... I'm a believer to but you can't prove what you believe right now....

You can't write a book and say something must be true because it's in the book. And, worse, pretend that science agrees.

The problem with Intelligent Design is that it takes intelligence to recognize it. The non intelligent believe in dumb luck.

Does science point to god?
One Author thinks it does.😏👍


But saying that science points to god is a misrepresentation of the situation.

All it shows is that the universe is complex and we're discovering that complexity and this gives Metaxis an excuse to trot out the logical fallacy known as an argument from incredulity.

Question:

Why are you happy to accept science when it seems to confirm your beliefs but reject it when it doesn't?
The conclusions are arrived at in the same way using the scientific method.

That's a little self-serving, don't you think?
Either science is a trustworthy tool or it is not.

I asked you a simple, direct question. Which of the forty thousand gods humans have worshipped is science pointing to and how do you know its that god?

I believe in God, maybe not as an old man sitting up in the sky, looking at us, but as a supernatural energy that exists in everything and is contained of all... A whole Devine...

But the point is the function of sciense is not to prove anything but to bring facts to disprove a theory ...

what a load of BS!

Which of the 40,000 gods humans have worshipped does it point to and how do you know it's that god?

Who says a life-sustaining Earth 'just happened’?

It happened (obviously), so requires no faith whatsoever. There's no need for any such pretence, because it’s demonstrably true.

Is there anything that suggests it could not have happened? Well, there are at least 150 billion stars in our average-sized galaxy (that’s 150,000,000,000 stars), and we can see at least 200 billion other galaxies in the observable universe (that’s 200,000,000,000 galaxies).

It’s too soon to give a reliable number of exoplanets per star, but even a conservative guess of two immediately results in a staggering number of planets. Rather than being impossible, it’s actually inevitable that some planet would eventually develop life (which is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of darwinian evolution).

There are two options other than ‘it happened’.

One option is that life didn’t happen, and that there is no life on Earth.

The other option is that some magical entity created all this just so it could tell me not to wear mixed fabrics... although that seems rather like overkill (but hey, apparently the magical entity is into overkill).

Notice that this Eric Metaxas muppet, when questioned about creationism, immediately starts taking about the origin of the universe, and then just as quickly skips away to ‘fine-tuning’ .
In fact, the universe is not 'finely-tuned’ for life. If things were different, then they wouldn’t be the same... that’s hardly deep and meaningful!

I’m surprised that Metaxas refers to Hitchens.

Let’s see what Hitchens had to say about ‘fine-tuning’, shall we?

Hitches was debating Davis Wolpe some years ago. Wolpe challenged Hitchens, saying, "The odds that the universe would actually be constituted are .0000 to the billion power, because all these various astronomical constants have to be exactly right, balanced on a knife edge in order for there to be a world. So that's the first piece of evidence that the world knew we were coming."

Unimpressed, Hitch responds,

"Now to this knife edge point, why are people so impressed that it so nearly didn't happen? Some designer. I might mention on the knife edge point, knife edge is exactly the right metaphor as it turns out, just in the little far off suburban slum of our tiny solar system—that's a detail in the cosmos—just the one we know, we know the following: that of the other planets, all of them are either much too hot or much too cold to support any kind of life at all. If they ever did they don't any longer and will never do so again. And that is true of very large tracts of our own planet. They're either the too hot or too cold and it's on a climatic knife edge as it is and is waiting for the Sun to swell up into a red dwarf, boil the oceans, and have done with the whole business, and we even know roughly the date on which that will occur. That's just in our suburb; it's in our hood. So we may have a lot of a little bit of something now but there's a great deal of nothingness headed our way. Some design, huh?"

He continues, showing the absurdity of thinking the whole of the cosmos, including all of its mass extinctions, was all a preparation for us.

“It were waiting for us? It was waiting for us to occur? For you and me to arrive? Well, 98.9% of every species has ever been on earth has already become extinct. So if there's a creator or designer (and I can't prove there isn’t) who wanted that? This designer must be either very capricious, very cruel, very incompetent, or very indifferent. Grant him and you must grant all that. "

What is the use of this?? Honestly, what is the point in proving that you are right, and moreover, what is the point in trying to change what makes others happy inside??

Why can't we accept each other with different beliefs??

I am not against progressive debating, but this useless discussion has been going on for centuries, and there is no point in it... or there is no use in the end result anyway??

If I am happy with my own whole Devine, why would anyone want to supposedly educate me, to take that happiness away from me...

Or for those scientists who have proven evolution, or not, to put their foot down just to take the happiness of those believers away from them...

Science's function is not to prove anything... science function is to bring facts to disprove the older theories...

Okay, I watched the video, and here's my analysis:

In his quest for wealth through proselytizing he has shown his willingness to false portray science and corrupt reason. His argument is basically a take on intelligent design: focused on bashing the ability of chance and nature to do the same things as God might. Perhaps the worst oversight he makes is failing to mention that the 'right' conditions for a planet represent a range and that this range is regularly fallen into by many planets outside our solar system.

This guy should be ashamed of misinforming people.

Oh well...
I finally got it!!!!
What is left is to choose between to competing views.

Hippy one.
He says, read it, that all data collected by scientists are corrupted on purpose.
So, to hell with scientists!
BUT the other guys he knows HAVE collected good reliable honest data.
The problem is that, somehow, they left them somewhere and can´t remember their location.
Or, may be, were stolen by the bad guys, the evil scientists.
Don´t worry, hippy. I´ll wait. Bring also some popcorn.

Speedy one.
That is different.
A more traditional one based on a serious medieval standard.
Scientist MAY have good data.
And know their boring math.
But they don´t know a shit on how to explain them.
Nor should be allowed to at risk to be sent early to bed (a pitty we can´t burn them like in the good ole times).
No, no.
It should work like this:
Archeologist say that have not found traces of telephone wiring in Yucatan.
Now it´s the turn of the philosopher / preacher to say:
Mayas used celular phones!
Amen bro!

I hope that Speedy and Hippy agree with something in common.
Else, my friends, we are damned.

If you ignore the science part entirely and start making things up, sure.

On a side note, I observe things such as the Crotalaria Cunninghamii. Flowers that look incredibly identical to hummingbirds. This marvelous plant isn't chance and probabilities but rather the product of an infinite mind; A creator. I am in utter and constant astonishment of his great works and creations.

Hmmmm...the problem with this report is that Mr. Metaxas doesn't understand information he heard/read/was told about which makes the real point he ought to be making...

He says that the special conditions for a _planet_ to have life in this universe are far more special than we once thought, which is wrong, AFAIK.

The REAL point is that the particular set of parameters which DO exist in THIS universe--and which allow for enough long-term stability for life to not only form/emerge, but also long enough for intelligent[ish...😉] life to arise and even travel into.and observe space in such a way as to try to investigate comological questions--are seemingly very unlikely, from one point of view which has taken hold of the scientific imagination of our era.

The fact is that reality is very well explained by our mathematical models of it, informed by physics and our investigations of natural phenomena. The math is so real that numbers which fall out of, e.g., solving for the energy levels of hydrogenic [1-electron] atoms end up being real "quantum numbers", and all manner of other mathematical info also is validated in reality.

So some ppl have gotten really excited about the idea of a "multi-verse", not in the Marvel Cinematic Universe sense, but in the "honest-to-God, we REALLY think this might be the case" sense...

It starts with quantum-based notions but then generalizes to the fact that we have a set of parameters--the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, etc.--which effectively describe our Universe, and so, if altered, would describe different Universes... If these parameters are able to vary, then being a set which results in us isn't a surprise for our given Universe, but it makes our given Universe _very_ special, since most arbitrary values of the parameters simply won't allow for life to emerge, etc.

THAT is the point he SHOULD have made. His inability to understand what he read/saw/was told really calls into question his legitimacy regarding any "science" on which he reports.

It would be surprising if one could NOT find at least one author with such an opinion, regardless of it being based in fact or misunderstood fact.

but which god ? all hail odin

It is only when we kneel at the cross, that we are able to see where love and mercy meet. Jesus’s disciples died for what they believed in. They were there when Jesus was nailed to the cross. They were eye witnesses to His resurrection, praise God!! Many a believer, even into this age, has done the same, but not in vain. Time will show that. As we always say....To them which believe, no explanation is necessary; to them which believe not, no explanation is possible.

This post has been extremely interesting and entertaining. Godspeed63, you deserve lots of kudos for starting such a mother of a discussion. Well done !

I would just like to congratulate you on spinning a thread out into over 5000 replies simply by repeating that god is real and you can't prove he isn't!
Amazing lol

@CharlieZ
Are you saying that God's intelligence is nonexistent?

It really doesn't tho

That is because God gave human beings scientific knowledge. Humans would have Never been able to do this all on their own

The god particle?

I am afraid not.. but no matter what anyone says, however much they point out the horrendous and glaring holes in your *evidence* you won't even consider it..

I'm glad 'science' is getting on board with God.

I think common sense has pointed to God.

😂 total B.S