Or set this entire universe into motion with all its laws fine tuned for life. But no, it goes against the words of the Bible, which supposedly speaks for the hypothetical Creator. Such arrogance.
While I can't argue that I understand what it is you describe, I will add this: the definition of life is quite intriguing in some ways. Many scholars state that viruses are not technically life, and I find that to be quite hysterically inaccurate. I do not have the credentials to truly argue one case or the other, but viruses are quite the awe-inspiring little shits when you take all of biological matter into perspective. I mean, they seem to simply exist to cause as much damage to the animal way of life as possible. And their methods of operation are ludicrous; they swap and combine strands of DNA, and only do so to further their chance at wrecking havoc amongst the animal kingdom.
Not at all. You can't touch my faith because it isnt blind.. it's based on FACTS. I don't believe in creation because someone told me to and I have no doubts.
I didn't find it worth it because you are making assumptions. You talk like as if God is weak because he didn't create matter to self-replicate into a universe. That wouldn't make God weak... if there really is a God who is so powerful he created everything, he would be able to make a CHOICE as to what he wants to do with that power and reasons. Just because He didn't do something doesn't mean he COULDN'T have.
Farday's work propelled him into the limelight. By 1826 he was head of the Royal Institution, founded... to provide scientific education for the masses. Offered the presidency of the Royal Society, Faraday flatly refused, as he also refused the offer of a knighthood. He did not believe Christ of the apostles would accept these worldly honors...
[page 111] Farada's scientific achievements, among the greatest in history, sprang from his religious faith. As a lifelong member of a sect called the Sandemanians, he believed that nature substantiates the existence of its Creator. Because one God created the world, all of nature mut be interconnected as a single whole, he believed. Therefore, electricity and magnetism must be interlinked. This view of nature was the very view emphasized by the Sandemanians. Key to Faraday's thought was the idea that objective reality must judge every theory, no matter how elegant and sophisticated...
Michael served as a lay preacher in the Sandemanians throughout his life. Sandemanians, an offshoot of the Scottish Presbyterian Church, believed in practicing primitive Christianity (that is, Christianity as the apostles practiced it). They urged separation of church and state. They observed communion in conjunction with footwashing and love feasts. They were so strict that when Faraday appeared before Queen Victoria at her request, he was temporarily excommunicated because his attendance had been required at church.
His faith gave him the courage to turn down a government request that he develop poison gases for use in the Crimean War. He refused to buy insurance, believing that to do so was to show lack of faith...
[page 112] Although he was happily married to Sarah Bernard, a fellow Sandemanian, the Faradays had no children. When he died, he was buried, at his own request, beneath a simple headstone.
Two great British scientists dominate the intellectual landscape of electrical science, and indeed all of physics, in the nineteenth century, Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell. It would be hard to imagine two more contrasting personalities.
Faraday was English; Maxwell Scottish. Faraday was the son of a poor blacksmith; Maxwell's father had inherited a substantial estate and hardly needed to practice the law in which he had been trained. Faraday had no formal education; Maxwell had the finest education available. Faraday never held a university position; Maxwell held professorships at three of the major British universities. Faraday was one of the most popular scientific lecturers of his day; Maxwell gained a poor reputation in the class-room. Faraday knew practically no formal mathematics; Maxwell was one of the finest mathematicians of his time. Faraday's research dominated electromagnetic experiments; Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. The contrasts between these men could be multiplied on and on. Yet they had one experience in common. Both were committed Christians. It is the purpose of this brief study to outline how the faith of James Clerk Maxwell and his science were combined and how they may have influenced one another.
We should recall Maxwell's major contributions to science. They extend over a wide variety of fields, including optics, color vision, elasticity, and the behavior of the dynamical top. The work that established him as a foremost natural scientist was his analysis of Saturn's rings, in which he showed that they could not be rigid but must be made up of swarms of particles whose stability he analysed. Perhaps inspired by this earlier work, Maxwell was also the first person to apply the methods of probability to the analysis of the properties of gases. He invented the idea of a "distribution function" governing the velocities of the individual molecules of the gas, and proposed the "Maxwellian" (or sometimes "Maxwell-Boltzmann") expression for its equilibrium form. Maxwell went on to work out concrete predictions that could be obtained from this kinetic theory of gases, for example concerning the behavior of the viscosity, and he performed experiments to confirm the predictions. However, the work by which he is most remembered is his formulation of the equations that govern electromagnetism: Maxwell's equations. These led immediately to the prediction of electromagnetic waves and the consequent unification of electromagnetism and light. Maxwell's formulation of electromagnetic theory in differential form and his championing of the fundamental nature of the field in contrast to the action-at-a-distance theories of his day is, of course, the basis of essentially all of modern physics.
Besides his personal contributions, Maxwell founded and built the Cavendish Laboratory of experimental physics at Cambridge University, which was to be arguably the most prolific physics department for at least the next fifty years.
The collective properties of nanoparticles manifest in their ability to self-organize into complex microscale structures. Slow oxidation of tellurium ions in cadmium telluride (CdTe) nanoparticles results in the assembly of 1- to 4-micrometer-long flat ribbons made of several layers of individual cadmium sulfide (CdS)/CdTe nanocrystals. Twisting of the ribbons with an equal distribution of left and right helices was induced by illumination with visible light. The pitch lengths (250 to 1500 nanometers) varied with illumination dose, and the twisting was associated with the relief of mechanical shear stress in assembled ribbons caused by photooxidation of CdS. Unusual shapes of multiparticle assemblies, such as ellipsoidal clouds, dog-bone agglomerates, and ribbon bunches, were observed as intermediate stages. Computer simulations revealed that the balance between attraction and electrostatic repulsion determines the resulting geometry and dimensionality of the nanoparticle assemblies
be honest...you're only bumping this b/c it's part of the public skewering and unmasking of KK.
He acts like 1 in a trillion are bad odds. The universe is huge and there's more than a trillion stars, with trillions of other planets. I think the odds look pretty good.
I want the truth to be told.
I also want people to know that George Lemaître, who was a roman catholic priest, came up with the big bang theory to satisfy his believe in the roman catholic god (idol) and that the universe must be fitted into the roman catholic creation theory. Hence he proposed the big bang theory...
but that's not accurate.
Lemaitre came up with the theory, but it was the pope that hijacked his theory as proof of the Roman Catholic central creator. He actually protested this misuse of the theory. He was rather adamant that his work should be separate from a religio-centric worldview.
Yes I do sir, evolution is inseparable from the notion that life created itself by mere chance, it's a by-product, denying it would be like saying that Vista OS has no correlation to Windows 3.1, even the suggestion is preposterous.
Therefore those that believe that life was formed in a prehistoric amino soup billions of years ago are evolutionists not creationists.