You are doing the great awakening a disservice by engaging in petty feuds over semantics.
I wonder how long it's going to take for people to realize that science and religion speak of one and the same using vastly different language.
Science and Scripture both speak of the same methods for reaching the truth.
Which is why dumbasses like Dawkins and other atheists are no and never will be scientists. Successful career academics, sure, but certainly not scientists.
Several of the books I've read lately politely shit all over Dawkins and make him look like an arrogant and bitter child.
Science is the slow realization of God's work in the universe. Atheists don't want to admit it but the workings of our universe are so complex and precise that there's no way it came about randomly.
If we're just a random lighting strike in a giant mixing flask then I challenge anyone to take the building blocks, wood, wires etc of any house and drop them from the sky A LOT and then tell me how many times it took for the house to be assembled properly. After that tell me how long it takes the house to duplicate itself. And someone please explain entropy to me other than the maths and the tendency to disorder.
Gerald Schroeder makes a good analogy when he says what are the chances that a tornado moving through a junkyard will end up building an airplane.
Nothing supports the idea of random or gradual evolution. The mechanics of natural selection don't favor it. The time that earth has existed doesn't favor it. Events like the Cambrian explosion invalidate it completely.
Modern secular science has a bias against anything related to God or the supernatural. They will go to any improbable length to keep God out of their clubhouse. Look at the multiverse theory. In order to not have to ponder the existence of one unobservable God they instead decided to theorize the existence of an infinite number of unobservable universes. Which one of those two options is a bigger leap of faith lol?
There is no such person as "Mother Nature". I think you mean GOD./
You are doing the great awakening a disservice by engaging in petty feuds over semantics.
I wonder how long it's going to take for people to realize that science and religion speak of one and the same using vastly different language.
Science and Scripture both speak of the same methods for reaching the truth.
Which is why dumbasses like Dawkins and other atheists are no and never will be scientists. Successful career academics, sure, but certainly not scientists.
Several of the books I've read lately politely shit all over Dawkins and make him look like an arrogant and bitter child.
Science is the slow realization of God's work in the universe. Atheists don't want to admit it but the workings of our universe are so complex and precise that there's no way it came about randomly.
If we're just a random lighting strike in a giant mixing flask then I challenge anyone to take the building blocks, wood, wires etc of any house and drop them from the sky A LOT and then tell me how many times it took for the house to be assembled properly. After that tell me how long it takes the house to duplicate itself. And someone please explain entropy to me other than the maths and the tendency to disorder.
Gerald Schroeder makes a good analogy when he says what are the chances that a tornado moving through a junkyard will end up building an airplane.
Nothing supports the idea of random or gradual evolution. The mechanics of natural selection don't favor it. The time that earth has existed doesn't favor it. Events like the Cambrian explosion invalidate it completely.
Modern secular science has a bias against anything related to God or the supernatural. They will go to any improbable length to keep God out of their clubhouse. Look at the multiverse theory. In order to not have to ponder the existence of one unobservable God they instead decided to theorize the existence of an infinite number of unobservable universes. Which one of those two options is a bigger leap of faith lol?
Disorder is a particularly poor interpretation of entropy, and physicists are bound to learn that one day.
Unfortunately they all study from the same material and just memorize the same nonsense instead of rigorously working through the maths.
Either way, increasing entropy means little more than increasing complexity of a system.
Which is precisely what you observe no matter where you look and unsurprising to anyone but physicists.