The blog That's Cooler than Yours!!!

I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again. Even secular scientists agree that everything in the universe has a beginning. Well, if there was ever a time when absolutely nothing existed, then nothing ever could exist. Something cannot appear from absolutely nothing. So, in order for something to exist at all you must start out with something that is ETERNAL and SELF-EXISTENT. It must be self-existent because, if it relied on something else for its existence, like we rely on food and air, whatever that something is must exist before it does or you’re right back to square one again. Where did those things come from. It must also be eternal because, if it had a beginning you’re back to square one again. What created it. It could not create itself. To do that it would need to exist before it created itself and that is a logical impossibility. So, what is this self-existent and eternal thing. The only thing that fits the bill is God. Secular scientists can’t explain where everything came from without this eternal and self-existent thing. They certainly don’t want to give God the credit, so they’ll ignore the question. They’ll go back to a point in time, like the Big Bang, and stop. But they never explain where the energy and matter came from for they’re Big Bang to occur. I believe that the scientific evidence supports the six-day creation account in Genesis.

A life with out contemplation is like unto that of an animal. To live and not question is the very heart of Marxist teachings, the soul of Liberalism. It leads to nothing and does not threaten the “state”.
Creation teaches that God created the universe , Science teaches that the “Big Bang” created the universe.....both fall short of answering the same question ; What came before God/Big Bang ?? Any answer you can apply to one works equally as well for the other............. : )

jfore, I appreciate your explanation of the nothingness of nothing. We should start at square zero. I too wish scientists would not stoop to calling the big bang a true "beginning", and calling the visible area around us "the universe". As you say, we are here. This alone would seem to be evidence of eternity. If there is eternity in time, then why not in space as well. I will leave the spiritual ramifications of these hypotheses to the readers.

No, those are not the questions. These are the questions. What is eternity? What is the difference between free will and self compulsion? Is "advanced", "inorganic", or "artificial" intelligence just another function of organic intelligance? Does intelligence exist naturally on a group level, on a stellar or galactic level, or even on a universal level? If so, what shred of evidence exists that would indicate the intelligence's need or desire to hear your pleas for forgiveness of imagined sins? All in all, life seems to be a cooperative effort in which the needs of the host and of the individual parts must both be met. As the host adapts, so must the members, and vice-versa. The universe is in no way confined by our narrow thought waves about what we are, where we are, or who we are. Because of, or in spite of, our actions. As a group, we will probably continue to remain here until we fail to keep up with our host. As individuals, we will remain until our guests fail to keep up with us.

Hiow do u believe the earth was made? i believe everything happens by the grace of God. But do u believe the scientific explination or the religious explination!!??

This was your question and I beleive that I addressed that query to the best of MY ability from strictly MY point of view...
Now you wish to define GOD and the meaning of life..Once aain I can ONLY respond with an answer that reflects only MY opinion.
When I look to the Heavens to gaze upon the nearest star ( not the sun) and KNOW that what I see is not as it is today but as it was 4.5 years ago, I then come to realize that when it comes to the ultimate TRUTH of things, We ARE, and always will be, playing catch up with the TRUTH.....

I'm very familiar with Hugh Ross and his writings are very questionable. If you'd like to read the other side of the argument go to www.answersingenesis.org and do an article search on Hugh Ross and you'll find a point by point rebutal.

Not saying that what Ross is correct, but some points he does make concerning dimensions in both space and time do make sense. Plus these theories have been fond by scientists. Where many people have a problem with Ross is the correlations he makes as it pertains to God.

I always find it baffling that there's such a schism between scientists and believers.

First, why do so many believers take SUCH a LITERAL interpretation on the creation story, to the point where they cannot accept any sense of metaphor in the story. They insist that there was NO evolution and that the universe was blinked into existence in a literal 6 days.

Likewise, I don't understand why so many scientists claim that the scientific explanations DISCOUNTS the force of "God", by whatever name, in the process. As has been mentioned, how did these processes get started?

Considering the Genesis story actually so closely parallels the scientific explanation of creation (except for the 6 days), you'd think they would find more a common ground...