{"id":30419,"date":"2016-10-13T17:11:53","date_gmt":"2016-10-14T00:11:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/allsolutionsnetwork.org\/blog\/?p=30419"},"modified":"2017-07-12T12:56:50","modified_gmt":"2017-07-12T19:56:50","slug":"how-science-points-to-god","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/allsolutionsnetwork.org\/blog\/how-science-points-to-god\/","title":{"rendered":"HOW SCIENCE POINTS TO GOD!"},"content":{"rendered":"

A LITTLE KNOWLEDGE IS A DANGEROUS THING shortlink\u00a0http:\/\/wp.me\/p2EGlL-7UD<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Why did Nobel Laureate WERNER HEISENBERG, say, \u201cThe first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will create an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass GOD IS WAITING FOR YOU\u201d?<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Because, with the <\/span><\/span>basic information<\/em>\u00a0we are all taught about evolution, adaptation, antibiotic resistance, over a hundred years\u00a0of believing that a living cell was no more than a simple \u201cbag of cytoplasm\u201d, etc\u2026<\/span><\/span>\u00a0Whether intended or not (I think it’s intentional), this limited teaching provides an\u00a0<\/span>atheistically<\/span>\u00a0biased view of the natural world.. This bias has converted and continues\u00a0to convert hundreds of millions of the world’s Christians to\u00a0atheistic beliefs. \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/em>But for those who are willing to look deeper,\u00a0for those who continue down the road of knowledge and discovery, what they find, deals the certainty of atheism a death blow… \u00a0<\/span><\/strong>and that is the overarching purpose of this and other<\/em><\/span> “<\/span><\/span><\/strong>science of religion<\/a><\/em><\/strong>” <\/span><\/span>articles; to provide the\u00a0<\/span>scientific<\/span>\u00a0tools to protect and support Religious faith.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/em>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

There is an old saying \u201cA little knowledge is a dangerous thing\u201d<\/em><\/strong>. In today’s world, it’s a simple, unfortunate fact that the vast majority of society is now afflicted with either \u201clittle knowledge<\/em>\u201d or \u201can overabundance of outdated<\/strong> knowledge\u201d<\/em>. Consequently, even though, current\u00a0information is available, society continues to be taught “outdated \u00a0facts”\u00a0that persist in\u00a0undercutting\u00a0Christianity…\u00a0\u00a0even though, as will be shown, many of those “facts” are provably wrong.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

When considering the accumulated\u00a0knowledge of\u00a0the past few decades in all scientific fields, the only way to abjectly refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of God is by remaining purposefully uninformed<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0or to by simply refusing to acknowledge the inescapable inferences and reasonable conclusions\u00a0to which they lead.<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0Let me be clear…\u00a0God can scientifically neither be proven nor disproven.<\/strong> <\/em>\u00a0However,\u00a0it can be shown\u00a0that many\u00a0scientific\u00a0teachings that, for over a century were and still are used to undercut belief in God,\u00a0<\/em>are probable\u00a0wrong and many others, very questionable… That is the purpose of\u00a0this and other “science of religion<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/strong>” articles. \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

We make our case,\u00a0not by providing\u00a0the thoughts and opinions\u00a0of hundreds of biased theologians, but rather direct quotes of agnostic and even anti religion, atheistic<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0worldwide scientists, researchers and Nobel laureates from many fields.<\/span> \u00a0Their recent discoveries in biology, zoology, physics, astronomy archaeology, and more are simply changing\u00a0our views of the universe!<\/em><\/strong><\/span>\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Over my years of many debates in various forums I\u2019ve found that countless individuals\u00a0prefer to bury their heads in the sand, rather than learn uncomfortable truths.<\/em> \u00a0That is everyone\u2019s right, but what follows is meant for those who prefer truth and knowledge over outdated dogma.<\/strong> <\/em>\u00a0<\/span>As to any of information we present, if something is unclear, or simply not believed, please feel free to comment and tell us why. I promise, we\u2019ll get back to you.<\/span>
\nEven better, if anything here can actually shown to be shown to be wrong, please, let us know… we will change it. Our goal is not to when an argument or proselytize,\u00a0or goal\u00a0is truth.<\/span><\/p>\n

I WAS AN ATHEIST-<\/strong><\/span> \u00a0Science had turned me into an atheist; but a curious one<\/em>. \u00a0As I learned more, the more it became apparent, there was a problem.\u00a0 \u00a0As science has progressed, not only haD it found many answers to deep and vexing questions, but many of the new answers had obvious Theistic implications. \u00a0The science made it clear that the teachings that seemed to so completely support an atheistic worldview were\u00a0simply wrong.\u00a0<\/em> <\/strong>Amazingly,\u00a0<\/strong>this mountain of new and exciting knowledge, does not seem to make its way into our children\u2019s middle schools or even high school text books.\u00a0 Consequently, these destructive Half Truths, continue to be taught and undermine faith.<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A FEW EXAMPLES:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The manner in which Darwinism has been taught was as a hammer to destroy believe in God.\u00a0 <\/span>Many simply assert, with no logical argument that Darwinism\/Evolution is simply true; Case CLOSED! \u00a0<\/span>However, anyone looking at the issue logically and honestly for even a moment will see that statement has many issues as we will discuss.<\/span><\/p>\n

FIRST- Not even the most ardent Theist <\/strong>argues that life does not change over time. \u00a0Everyone acknowledges that life adapts and changes. \u00a0Even many brilliant Theists agree<\/em><\/strong> with the full concept of \u201ccommon descent\u201d that we all descended from an original cell. \u00a0The issue has never been DOES CHANGE OCCUR?<\/em> <\/span>\u00a0 The question is what is the mechanism that\u00a0causes the changes? <\/strong>\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0It’s either random chance or purpose. \u00a0If purpose, whose purpose? \u00a0Can\u00a0these changes really solely the result of *wholly undirected, chance variations based on nothing other the accumulation of randomly mutated genes?*. \u00a0As discussed later, current science indicates, no. So,\u00a0is the atheistic Neo Darwinism the whole story?<\/span><\/p>\n

And for those who do not agree with evolution,\u00a0i.e. from cell to man, what they want to see is evidence of a\u00a0mechanism sufficient to job.<\/em> <\/strong>\u00a0As will be shown below, with the advent of the last 20 years of research and accumulated knowledge, it is now believed by a large and growing number of top researchers, that the darwinian mechanism\u00a0simply is not. \u00a0 Many go further saying:\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span>Darwinism was\u00a0right about many things, including small adaptions, skin color, hair length, eye color, etc… but as a mechanism for common descent, it is wrong.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Throughout our lives, we’ve all been taught \u201cfacts\u201d that effectively disproved<\/em> the possibility of God. \u00a0We now know that many of those Religion destroying facts were absolutely WRONG! \u00a0This article will discuss a number of them.<\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/allsolutionsnetwork.org\/blog\/what-if-the-facts-are-wrong-facts-that-destroyed-faith<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

*If religion destroying facts are proven wrong, is that the same as proving\u00a0that God exists?*<\/strong><\/em><\/span> \u00a0No, but it removes many of the road blocks that have prevented many from coming to God… and more to the point, helps keep believers from being drawn away from God. \u00a0I started as a Christian, then science showed me that God DID NOT\u00a0exist… but I kept studying…<\/em><\/strong><\/span> \u00a0<\/span>\u00a0 See how science created an Atheist, then built a Christian!<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

*WHY NEO DARWINISM IS NOW ALMOST CERTAINLY WRONG!*<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

There are now many of our most brilliant chemists, biologists, paleontologists who, even though, still theists, now,\u00a0insist that Neo Darwinism is wrong.<\/span><\/p>\n

ONE EXAMPLE:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

*For years, the Evolution Paradigm was in trouble*<\/span><\/p>\n

_In 2009, Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information_ stated in Trends in Genetics that due to breakdowns in core neo-Darwinian tenets such the “traditional concept of the tree of life” or the view that “natural selection is the main driving force of evolution” indicate that “*the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair*” and “all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0I could write a book on the subject but the few links below, should make the point. \u00a0<\/span>For anyone who actually cares about facts, please take a few moments to examine the following links and videos. \u00a0<\/span>This post is not to convert anyone to Christianity, only to inform those who care about facts<\/span><\/p>\n

SEE Hundreds of scientists including _Nobel laureates_ who disagree with neo Darwinism. \u00a0<\/span>http:\/\/www.thethirdwayofevolution.com\/people<\/a> \u00a0<\/span>see specifically the 6 and 28 minute mark.<\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=MzD1daWq4ng&feature=youtube_gdata_player<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.dissentfromdarwin.org\/scientists\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Top World Chemist doesn\u2019t understand \u201cevolution\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/span>https:\/\/youtu.be\/_TAUw4pvbug<\/a> \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/allsolutionsnetwork.org\/blog\/what-if-the-facts-are-wrong-facts-that-destroyed-faith<\/a> \u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

PROBLEMS OF FIRST CELL- ORIGIN OF LIFE<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The RNA world hypothesis for YEARS was considered the _best_ option for a the \u00a0naturalistic cause of life from random combinations of chemicals and amino acids.\u00a0 But _it is now widely believed to have never *even* existed_.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

See *Nobel laureate Sidney Altman at 49 minute mark*.\u00a0 <\/strong>https:\/\/youtu.be\/IhQcK4PsStk<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Additionally, the cell is not the simple blob of protoplasm as was believed when Darwin\u2019s theory came on the scene.\u00a0 We now know it is impossibly complex<\/em> <\/strong>and its DNA is comprised of much more than\u00a0complexity but of specific information\/instructions<\/strong> the equivalent of 1,000 encyclopedia Britannica\u2019s.\u00a0 This\u00a0<\/em>doesn\u2019t prove God, but the question of \u201cfrom where did the information arise\u201d poses what appear to be insurmountable naturalistic issues.<\/em> <\/span>\u00a0See\u2026\u00a0<\/span>http:\/\/allsolutionsnetwork.org\/blog\/the-origin-of-life-who-wrote-the-manual<\/a> \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

*Was it actually chance?*<\/span><\/strong><\/span>
\n That the first living cell came about by random chance is, literally,<\/em> less likely than taking 10 million die, casting them into the air and having each of them land as number one.<\/span>
\n \u00a0(Virtually no one any longer believes in random chance)\u00a0 Again, see Eugene Koonin.\u00a0 http:\/\/www.biologydirect.com\/content\/2\/1\/15<\/a> \u00a0<\/span>
\n \u00a0<\/span>
\n The fact is that each cell, via DNA, contains the precise equivalent of a highly advance computer code (computer codes don\u2019t build themselves<\/em><\/span>) *and* INSTRUCTION MANUALS<\/strong> for the building of proteins that are then instructed<\/em> <\/strong>to create biological machines<\/strong><\/em> and cellular manufacturing plants<\/em><\/strong>, complete with transport systems<\/strong>, self assembling<\/em><\/strong> and dissembling internal highways<\/em><\/strong>, power plants<\/em><\/strong>, defense mechanisms<\/em><\/strong>, virtual laborers<\/em><\/strong>\u2026<\/span><\/span> *In short each cell contains feats of engineering that are 100\u2019s of times more complex and sophisticated than anything built by GM*.<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n \u00a0<\/span>
\n So, contrary to naturalistic assertions, getting amino acids naturally does not come close to solving the problem of the origin of life.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

*The REAL question is how, who or what ASSEMBLED\u00a0the amino acids into functional\u00a0<\/span>proteins<\/span>?*<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/em>
\n To anyone who reads this, I’m not keeping my religion out of it. \u00a0This is not about God. \u00a0<\/strong>I’m factually presenting the facts of a naturalistic dilemma that so far has no reasonable solution;<\/span><\/span> only a huge mountain of conjecture and wishful thinking.\u00a0 The fact is, our brightest materialistic minds are ALL stumped. <\/strong><\/span>
\nhttp:\/\/allsolutionsnetwork.org\/blog\/the-origin-of-life-who-wrote-the-manual<\/a>
\nhttp:\/\/allsolutionsnetwork.org\/blog\/what-if-the-facts-are-wrong-facts-that-destroyed-faith<\/a><\/p>\n

The origin of life*, the emergence of the first living cell is at an absolute dead end.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 Yes, there is still plenty of conjecture within the scientific community, but the fact is that EVERY naturalistic account<\/em><\/strong><\/span> has hit a brick wall, with no doorway apparent\u2026 see\u00a0http:\/\/allsolutionsnetwork.org\/blog\/the-origin-of-life-who-wrote-the-manual<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0In fact, one of our *leading origins of life researchers Eugene Koonin*,<\/strong> (a materialist) has now concluded.<\/span><\/p>\n

“Biological evolution *cannot* take off before there are polymers (most likely, *RNA* molecules) and means for their sustainable replication.”\u00a0 _*without sustainable replication, there is no life*_<\/span><\/p>\n

“… In particular, the emergence of a coupled replication-translation system (the first living cell<\/em><\/span>), is unlikely, to the extent of being, *EFFECTIVELY IMPOSSIBLE<\/strong>*. \u00a0 For such a complex system to be a _viable candidate_ for the breakthrough stage, an *infinite multiiverse*<\/strong> , such as the one depicted by MWO or, in the very least, a universe with a vast number of O-regions, i.e. _10 to the power of 500 universes_ is, indeed, a must.<\/span>
\nhttp:\/\/www.biologydirect.com\/content\/2\/1\/15\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n

*In other words, in his opinion abiogenesis (the emergence of life from non living matter<\/em>) is impossible unless there is a multi verse*.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 Essentially, his opinion is that a naturalistic cause of origin of life is *impossible<\/strong><\/em>* unless<\/em> <\/strong><\/span>we posit that we live in a many worlds universe, and that<\/span> we just happen to be lucky enough to exist in a universe, in which, the impossible can happen.<\/strong><\/em><\/span> \u00a0\u00a0(Maybe this is also the one in which God can exist?)\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0*The problem, however, is that there is<\/em> ZERO empirical evidence of a multi verse<\/em><\/strong>*; although, to be sure there is much\u00a0conjecture and several theories re multiverses\u2026\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

What Koonin\u00a0does is to preserve his FAITH\u00a0<\/span>in a naturalistic cause for Life\u2019s origins<\/em><\/strong><\/span>, by assuming the existence of a hypothesis that is totally bereft of even one shred of verifiable evidence.\u00a0<\/em> <\/strong><\/span>In other words, he depends on an unfounded hypothesis to sustain his certainty in the existence of what even he says empirical evidence pronounces as impossible!<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0*That is the problem with worldviews<\/strong>.\u00a0 It is easy to ignore or even create interpretations of contrary facts in order to support a\u00a0preferred paradigm<\/em>… even if\u00a0all empirical evidence is\u00a0against them!. \u00a0<\/span>Is that really rational? \u00a0No, but it happens all the time. \u00a0http:\/\/allsolutionsnetwork.org\/blog\/the-problem-with-worldviews-are-you-trapped<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

See also “Atheism opiate of the masses” \u00a0http:\/\/wp.me\/p2EGlL-6kI<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

*Then came the GENOME project and it Gets WORSE*<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

For about the past 20 years, it was apparent that something was dreadfully wrong with the Neo Darwin paradigm, literally right to the core. \u00a0\u00a0<\/span>*The concept of Junk DNA had become a core tenet of the Paradigm and was used as continuing proof of the randomness of life, therefore, no need for intelligence or God.*<\/span><\/p>\n

However, Junk DNA\u00a0is now shown not to be JUNK!\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/span> This surprising result was so destructive to atheism\u2019s most powerful tool for destroying Theism that i<\/span>n the *Journal \u201cNature\u201d* University of Houston\u2019s Dan Graur, a vehement opponent of intelligent design stated,<\/span> *\u201dif encode is right, evolution is wrong!\u201d*<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Guess What? \u00a0Encode is Right.\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/span>*We will soon be posting more about the genome project and what Junk DNA really is. \u00a0But for now, understand, the more we learn, the more it appears the naturalistic paradigm is WRONG!* \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

*Nobel Laureate Sidney Altman*,<\/strong> Professor of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology at now agrees with \u00a0ENCODE most DNA _is not Junk_.\u00a0 In fact this Nobel Laureate said there is no Junk DNA, to speak of. \u00a0see\u00a0<\/span>Yale University\u00a0 https:\/\/youtu.be\/IhQcK4PsStk<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As was stated by Steve Laufmann,<\/strong><\/em><\/span>
\n Evolution\u2019s grand challenge:\u00a0The complex programs and amazing molecular machines at the heart of life simply cannot be explained by any current or proposed theory of evolution,\u00a0nor by any other completely material cause.<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Rarely has any field of science had to deal with questions so difficult, or that\u00a0cut so deeply into the worldviews<\/strong>, minds, and hearts, of thoughtful men and women.<\/span><\/p>\n

Evolution sits at the center of a front-and-center debate \u2014 with too much to explain, in too little time, with insufficient causal power, and with so many watching and so much at stake.<\/em><\/span><\/span>
\n http:\/\/allsolutionsnetwork.org\/blog\/category\/religion<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

*COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS- GOD?*<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

*Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness* – May 27, 2015<\/strong> \u00a0Cosmic Consciousness? \u00a0<\/span>Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory _has survived another test_, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that *_reality does not exist until it is measured i.e. has an observer_*.<\/span>\u00a0 So, who is the Observer?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

*This conundrum is similar to the _who created the creator_*\u00a0 Quantum physics now infers the existence of a \u201cPrime Observer<\/span><\/strong><\/em>\u201d Who or what is this ultimate observer of those things which cannot be observed?<\/em><\/span> i.e. photons, atoms, etc\u2026\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Just as we know there is a first cause (even if we can\u2019t prove who or what it is<\/em>), there now appears to be a first and ultimate observer<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0<\/span>http:\/\/phys.org\/news\/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

*SEE THESE INFORMATIVE QUANTUM THEORY VIDEOS*<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

https:\/\/youtu.be\/V9KnrVlpqoM<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

https:\/\/youtu.be\/DfPeprQ7oGc<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

also see…<\/span><\/p>\n

https:\/\/youtu.be\/N7HHz14tS1c?t=48m50s<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

FINE TUNING AND WORLD VIEW<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0 <\/strong>https:\/\/youtu.be\/VDMpWcf4ee0<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The incredible fine tuning of the universe has been problematic to naturalism from the moment it became apparent.\u00a0 For those unfamiliar with fine tuning, it is the fact that even slight alterations in any of the settings for gravity, strong force, weak force, dark energy, etc\u2026 had to be set EXACTLY as they are.<\/em>\u00a0 Even the slightest variations would cause changes to the architecture of the universe such that life and even chemistry or matter<\/em> as we know it would cease to exist. This is a fact, not conjecture.<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

As a matter of fact, it was Lawrence Krauss,<\/strong><\/em><\/span> chairman of the physics and astronomy department at Case Western Reserve University who said that dark energy would involve the most extreme fine tuning problem known in physics,<\/em> because you would have to fine tune the dark energy parameter so very closely in order to get the universe to expand at the just right rate. In fact, for physical life to be possible, it has to be fine-tuned to within one part in 10122<\/sup>. That\u2019s 122 zeros after the one.<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

AND the answer is<\/span> NO,<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0to\u00a0anyone inclined to argue against fine tuning as posing an issue to atheism<\/span>. \u00a0<\/span>Some assert that we have but one universe to study, so we can\u2019t know it\u2019s fine tuned\u2026 or that it might not even be possible that the\u00a0\u201cdials\u201d could have been set in any other way.\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/span> Neither, even remotely obviates the FACT<\/em> <\/strong>of the fine tuning.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Additionally, there is nothing in nature that indicates that any of these \u201cdials\u201d had to be set as they are. \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

IN FACT, SIR FREDERICK HOYLE<\/strong>, who was the first to realize that all chemical elements are created inside stars by nucleosynthesis, made this startling comment, \u201ca common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature The numbers one calculates from <\/span>the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question<\/span>.<\/span>” (1982:)<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Contrary to what one might assume based on this statement; he remained an ATHEIST until his death in 2001.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author)<\/strong>: “I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist):<\/strong> “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics)<\/strong><\/span>: “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist.<\/em> <\/strong>I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them.<\/span> I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist):<\/strong> “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming”.<\/span><\/p>\n

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy):<\/strong> “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle.<\/em><\/strong><\/span> God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab:<\/strong> “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:<\/strong> “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe<\/strong> is balanced on a knife-edge and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly.”<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford<\/strong>, writes that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at its creation is “one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123.<\/span>” That is “a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Steven Weinberg, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, and an anti-religious<\/em> <\/span>agnostic,<\/strong>\u00a0admits\u00a0that “the existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places. This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not: 10000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000\u00ad0000000000, but instead: 1000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000001, there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe.”<\/span><\/p>\n

THE\u00a0ATHEIST<\/span>\u00a0AND THEIST AGREE ON FACTS<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The argument is not over the \u201cfacts\u201d the argument is over what the analysis of those facts mean.<\/em> On this point the most brilliant of our scientist see the very same information\u00a0but\u00a0disagree on the meanings. \u00a0How can the same facts be examined by our most brilliant scientists but come to diametrically opposed conclusions?<\/span> \u00a0Obviously, the issue has nothing to do with intelligence… the issue is their commitment to world view.<\/em><\/strong> \u00a0\u00a0<\/span>See How Worldview Often Kills Discovery.\u00a0<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

ARE THEISTS AND CHRISTIANS JUST\u00a0IGNORANT?\u2026<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The often made assertion that those who believe in God are lacking in intellect is itself a provably absurd proposition, but it is made all the time! \u00a0It is demonstrably untrue\u00a0that the intelligent are atheists and ignorant Theists. \u00a0<\/span>MANY\u00a0EXAMPLES:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

John Hulley, a\u00a0former senior economist<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0with the World Bank in Washington, D.C., made an analysis and found that 86% of Nobel Science prizes from 1901 through 1990 have been won by Jews and Protestants.\u00a0 These religious nobel laureates, probably weren\u2019t morons, nor were those with atheistic leanings.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

CHARLES TOWNES,<\/u>\u00a0<\/strong>Nobel Laureate in Physics.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00ad<\/u>\u201cI strongly believe in the existence of God, based on intuition, observations, logic, and also scientific knowledge.\u201d (Townes 2002a).<\/span><\/p>\n

ROBERT MILLIKAN<\/u>,<\/strong> Nobel Laureate in Physics<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cTo me it is unthinkable that a real atheist could be a scientist.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

ERWIN SCHR\u00d6DINGER<\/u>,<\/strong> Nobel Laureate in Physics:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026God and eternity, Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a8\u00a0In the presentation of a scientific problem, the other player is the good Lord. He has not only set the problem but also has devised the rules of the game\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0MAX PLANCK<\/u>,<\/strong> Nobel Laureate in Physics<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cBoth religion and science need for their activities the belief in God\u2026\u00a0 God represents the basis, for the latter – the crown of any reasoning concerning the world-view.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Apologists for materialism cannot hide these facts much longer.\u00a0Neither the volume of their arguments nor any level of vitriol can change the fact that the empirical data is skewing against them.<\/em><\/span>
\n *None of the above FACTS or OPINIONS PROVE that God exists\u2026 _ but for any objective mind, they can not help but strongly infer that there is, a powerful\u00a0something that is similar to what we all God. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The most recent scientific discoveries have put the materialistic view of reality, down for the count. <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Truth About Religion<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n