I’ve been watching a debate between John Lennox a Northern Irish mathematician specializing in group theory, philosopher of science and Christian apologist. and Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford’s Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
Two of the brightest men in the world debating God, or I guess I should say the origins of man. Dawkins in reality offers no solid evidence, and in the end you realize his whole argument is based on personal opinion. On the other hand, Lennox, in my worthless opinion falls short of defending the reality of God, he simply doesn’t put forth the facts that are available that support the fact that God does exist, He (or a higher power or higher intelligence if you prefer) created the all. One interesting fact that Mr. Lennox put forth that God created order, so we would/ could recognize the miracle.
In another interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxvrCR28XWY Mr. Dawkins once was asked if he could give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process Which can be seen to increase the information in the genome? In simpler terms a mutation that increases the intelligence, or improves the species, and of course the true answer is no, mutation always “lessens” the species. (Can you imagine the possibility of a highly complex organism such as the eye with it’s many parts, each of which is needed for the eye to see to develop before the design was created or before there was a need)? He goes on to tell us that all things are modern and evolved from something else, but not one modern form from another modern form, however, remember this; there is no evidence… none. Of all the fossils we have now there is not one example of kind changing to another kind.. not one. Even in the Cambrian Explosion we find highly developed animals, not just simple forms of life (they are there as well). (by the way, one organism was found with an eye that was more complex than today’s human eye)
I would think it should be a simple scientific process to “prove God” or at least the impossibility of the earth and cosmos to exist without the existence of a creator.
Scientific method -Method of research with defined steps that include EXPERIMENTS AND CAREFUL OBSERVATION. And, -Tests the hypothesis
Hypothesis -suggested explanation for an event, WHICH CAN BE TESTED.
Scientific Theory= A scientific theory is a generally accepted, THOROUGHLY TESTED AND CONFIRMED explanation for a set of observations or phenomena.
Laws= concise descriptions of parts of the world that are agreeable to formulaic or mathematical description.
The Anthropic principle; everything is so finely tuned in the cosmos that if even one of the fundamental characteristics were even slightly changed life could not exist as we know it.
1st law of Thermal dynamics: The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed.
2nd law of Thermal dynamics says, in simple terms, entropy (Entropy is the general trend of the universe toward death and disorder …) always increases. This principle explains, for example, why you can’t unscramble an egg. In other words, it is dying…
Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, HAVE ALWAYS OPERATED in the universe in the past and APPLY EVERYWHERE in the universe.
So in my simple view according to these principles There is a set amount of energy in the universe, nothing can be added, nothing deleted but can be changed. It is being changed due to the fact that it is moving away from order to disorder and is dying. Everything can be measured; space dust, gravity, the weakening of the sun, the moon moving away from the earth, and etc. and all these things are weakening at a uniform rate throughout time. So, it is merely a matter of reversing the projector, and as we go back in time we can easily see that within just 20,000 years life would not be possible, and nor will it be in another 20,000 years (that is; life as we know it).
The fact that billions of years are necessary for evolution to be possible, itself eliminates the possibility of evolution, demanding the requirement of a creator.
