Music1 min ago
Jesus Christ Is Lord.
63 Answers
In spite of all of the alleged evidence to the contrary, I am convinced that the atheistic view of the world is totally flawed, and unworthy of serious consideration.
We all have a duty to revise our beliefs in the light of new evidence, and I have revised mine accordingly as I learn more about my faith, and the misleading statements coming out of the world of science.
Science is depicted as noble and impartial, but scientists are also full of human failings, and will promote their own best interests even if this means ignoring or fabricating evidence.
How can the layman get through to the truth?
A lack of integrity and honesty is as apparent in scientific circles as it is in religious circles where each camp, on occasion, promotes its own agenda.
My faith is strong enough for me to declare, "Jesus Christ Is Lord."
So, hasn't science misled us, the very thing that religionists are often accused of?
We all have a duty to revise our beliefs in the light of new evidence, and I have revised mine accordingly as I learn more about my faith, and the misleading statements coming out of the world of science.
Science is depicted as noble and impartial, but scientists are also full of human failings, and will promote their own best interests even if this means ignoring or fabricating evidence.
How can the layman get through to the truth?
A lack of integrity and honesty is as apparent in scientific circles as it is in religious circles where each camp, on occasion, promotes its own agenda.
My faith is strong enough for me to declare, "Jesus Christ Is Lord."
So, hasn't science misled us, the very thing that religionists are often accused of?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Big Bang - if true, was said to have left detectable background radiation that would be detectable. This radiation was supposed to beuneven or, 'lumpy', if ever disceoverd. Eventually, a backgound radiation was discoverd but the results witheld because of the evenness of it. It was not what had been hoped for, but nevertheless, results were released, and the miniscule variations reasonable due to instrumentation were hailed as the 'lumpiness' that had been predicted. There is no other evidence for Big Bang other than to transpose a reversal on what is observed today, an expanding universe.
I agree with the above point. They were looking for lumpy radiation, it is even, so the radiation should be discarded as any kind of evidence. Also the expanding universe stuff, that should be discarded also. If it's expanding, and you reverse that back in time, it's probable that you come to a denser, less expansive state, and maybe go back some more, you get a single point. But apart from that, radiation pointing to a 'bang', and expansion pointing to a 'point', the idea of a BIG BANG as it is ludicrously called, should be abandoned in favour of the the other theory, namely, creation 'ex nihilo', as we see it today, by an Omnipotent Creator (God). As yet we have no direct evidence for Him or his creation ex nihilo, other than that there is a universe today, and the bible. However, both were expected to be lumpy, but are in fact uniform. This is called the 'ex nihilo porridge' theory.
