Boaz, as someone who by their own admission leans towards Creationism, how are you able to use as evidence of your latest crackpot ID theory, an article that specifically describes an event thus:

"The existence of dark matter has been proven, according to Doug Clowe of the University of Arizona in Tucson, Ariz., due to a 4,700-kilometer-per-second collision between two clusters of galaxies 100 million years ago that created an object referred to as 1E0657-556."

You hop about with glee that:

>>the atheist scientist has to conclude the 'Disturbing' results of establishing the existence of dark matter DEMAND that a miracle working God created the universe... So, rather than admit this, he simply denies the proven fact of darkmatter""

Which is it to be, Boaz?

Does dark matter exist? If it does, where does that leave your Creationist views?

If it doesn't, then the "atheist scientist" is clearly getting his knickers in a knot needlessly, worrying about how it came into being.

The problem that this creates for you Boaz is that if you believe in the colliding galaxies, and you are comfortable that this occurred 100 million years ago, then presumably you can use the same techniques to trace the universe back to some singularity, just a teeny tad before the age of Noah.

If you don't, of course, then your entire thread-starter is totally and utterly pointless.

But then, that wouldn't be unusual, would it?

Hoyle, while having recognition for his contribution to astrophysics was also an eccentric. Albert Einstein also tried to introduce a gravitational constant because relativity predicited an expanding universe. The fact that the greatest minds are not always correct does not detract from their contribution.

There is no unified field theory yet, and the indications that there was a singularity in the past conforms to relativity but not quantum mechanics.

The concept of a Creator does not require dark matter, singularities or any other phenomenon. Neither are any of these phenomenon proof of ID or disturbing proof of a creator, they are simply yet unexplained or undiscovered as was relativity a century ago.

If dark matter/energy and the big bang are disproved in 30 years, does this prove that God does not exist? Creationism has been fighting a rear guard action from 6000 years ago to 14b years ago.

ID is a patch up job of creationism that has crumbled in the face of physics and biology.

Well said Pericles. If you're going to use scientific principles to try and back your case, then you can't just pick and choose where convenient.

As an aside, when I read the title for this thread, I couldn't help but think "of course there is... at least, they'll say there is."
Which is exactly the problem.

The thing about the 'god' concept is that it's so broad you can tie it all together.

Allow me to demonstrate: this thread could have just as easily been titled:

"Puppies, postmodernism, cheesecake, Adelaide and GOD - any connection?"

Presumably there is. Which just goes to show that you can get so intangible it becomes utterly meaningless.

Pericles and Shadow minister... the point about the proof of dark energy and 100,000,000 years... is not a problem, but glad you noticed it. You have highlighted a major point about why I personally don't seek to use science as a final 'proof' of the existence of the Almighty. You would need to read Gen 1:1-2 very closely to see exactly what it IS saying..and what it is not.

It is always only 'suggestive' at best, and due to the changing nature of scientific conclusions, it may point more or less strongly at different times.

-No argument from me there.

Pericles, you don't really have to use words like 'crackpot'... your arguments have, or don't have merit without those little morsels.

On the issue of Quantum mechanics and the Singularity/Big Bang reconciliation.. the talk gives some background to that, and it's a bit beyond me to capture it all well enough to bring it out here.
Have a listen :) The speaker is world class, and if his audiences can include well mannered Russian Scientific atheists, why not well mannered OLO posters ?

Paul Davies:

version 1.1 ... >>argues against God's agency in the creation of the universe.<<

Version 1.2 (regarding the progression from chaos to order)

>> has been revising his position. He (now) concludes that we have "powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind it all."<<



TRTL..not really. But given that Adelaide is called 'The City of Churches'...hmmm might be a connection there afterall 0_-

KATIE_0 yes, its a good link, but given the essense of many of your posts, I know that your (as mine) faith is in the unchanging Risen Lord, and not the oft changing face of science :)

One major point of the talk is that the current state of the evidence, suggests that there had to be 'something/one' outSIDE space time, in at least 2 dimensions.. (if I heard right) for the universe to be brought into existence.

Boaz, it is stating the obvious to say that science will never prove the existence of a God - of any kind - simply because it is not designed to do so.

Science explains, as far as it is able at the time, the various phenomena around us - space, time, mankind - in as logical and testable manner as possible. If we do ever get "proof" of a God, it will be because he (she?) will reveal themselves in an unambiguous and unmistakable way.

And given that the essential ingredient of religion is faith, that ain't likely, is it?

But I'm afraid I will continue to use the word "crackpot" next to the word "theory" when talking about ID. It only exists as a spoiler theory anyway, and relies on negatives (how else could this happen except for...) as its main argument. The word crackpot isn't referring to you, of course, only the theory.

As I've mentioned before, I have absolutely no time in my day to sit and listen to religious apologists. Of any persuasion.

BD, Yes! But my husband (chemical engineer/economist/banker) is not, and he is increasingly compelled by the complexity of design in our universe. Pericles et al help me in anticipating what his logical objections might be. Thanks folks! Great discussion in our household over this weekend, guaranteed.