Artwork

Contenuto fornito da Ronald. Tutti i contenuti dei podcast, inclusi episodi, grafica e descrizioni dei podcast, vengono caricati e forniti direttamente da Ronald o dal partner della piattaforma podcast. Se ritieni che qualcuno stia utilizzando la tua opera protetta da copyright senza la tua autorizzazione, puoi seguire la procedura descritta qui https://it.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - App Podcast
Vai offline con l'app Player FM !

Season 2 Podcast 70 DNA and Freewill

20:40
 
Condividi
 

Manage episode 308050122 series 2915118
Contenuto fornito da Ronald. Tutti i contenuti dei podcast, inclusi episodi, grafica e descrizioni dei podcast, vengono caricati e forniti direttamente da Ronald o dal partner della piattaforma podcast. Se ritieni che qualcuno stia utilizzando la tua opera protetta da copyright senza la tua autorizzazione, puoi seguire la procedura descritta qui https://it.player.fm/legal.

DNA and Freewill

One of the great scientific breakthroughs of our day is the discovery of the genetic code. However, rather than seeing the exquisite information system as evidence of intelligent design, evolutionists delight in using DNA as evidence that God is unnecessary. There is a parallel. All the arguments against the existence of God follow the same pattern:

· Laws exist; therefore, we don’t need God.

· Earth exists by necessity therefore we don’t need God

· Evolution exists, therefore we don’t need God

· The Goldilocks zone exists; therefore, we don’t need God.

It depends entirely upon the anthropic principle which is a low point in scientific logic. The subtext is this: God does not exist. Intelligent design does not exist. However, creation exists, intelligent life exists, man exists, therefore, they had to come from somewhere. I know, say the theorists. They must exist by necessity. That is effectively what the anthropic principle is saying.

No matter how many times I study the anthropic principle, trying to understand it, I come up with the same conclusion. ‘Life exists; therefore, it must exist by necessity.” It is a tautology, a circular argument, begging the question, and explains nothing. We already know that life exists. We are that life. We observe the universe, and we know that for life to exist certain conditions are necessary. We learn that because we understand the conditions of temporal law, but how can that be touted as an explanation of anything. Temporal laws exist; therefore, temporal laws exist by necessity. Try that argument on any creation by man and see how far it goes. The automobile, airplane, computer, etc. exist; therefore, they exist by necessity. No. They exist because they were created using known laws of physics.

It is tied in with the Goldilocks zone, the idea that everything is perfect for life; therefore, life exists. Life could not exist if there were the least variation. That, of course, is also tied in with the cosmological constants that are essential for life such as the gravitational constant, the speed of light, and so on. All arguments against God take the same pattern.

Ultimately science still must revert to origins. Science reasons, the universe has an end via the expanding universe; therefore, it must have a beginning via the big bang.

That leaves the question, what occurred before the big bang? How was all the matter of the universe organized into a singularity small as an atom? Where does life come from? Where do laws come from? Where do the four forces of nature come from? What closed the gap between the weak nuclear the strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force and gravity? Science will say chance! accident! coincidence! serendipity of circumstances! That is not a scientific answer. That is accepting paradox as the answer rather than as the problem. You cannot have probability without absolute numbers. There must be a track record and there must be predictability. Nothing can be falsified. You cannot have something from nothing.

  continue reading

662 episodi

Artwork
iconCondividi
 
Manage episode 308050122 series 2915118
Contenuto fornito da Ronald. Tutti i contenuti dei podcast, inclusi episodi, grafica e descrizioni dei podcast, vengono caricati e forniti direttamente da Ronald o dal partner della piattaforma podcast. Se ritieni che qualcuno stia utilizzando la tua opera protetta da copyright senza la tua autorizzazione, puoi seguire la procedura descritta qui https://it.player.fm/legal.

DNA and Freewill

One of the great scientific breakthroughs of our day is the discovery of the genetic code. However, rather than seeing the exquisite information system as evidence of intelligent design, evolutionists delight in using DNA as evidence that God is unnecessary. There is a parallel. All the arguments against the existence of God follow the same pattern:

· Laws exist; therefore, we don’t need God.

· Earth exists by necessity therefore we don’t need God

· Evolution exists, therefore we don’t need God

· The Goldilocks zone exists; therefore, we don’t need God.

It depends entirely upon the anthropic principle which is a low point in scientific logic. The subtext is this: God does not exist. Intelligent design does not exist. However, creation exists, intelligent life exists, man exists, therefore, they had to come from somewhere. I know, say the theorists. They must exist by necessity. That is effectively what the anthropic principle is saying.

No matter how many times I study the anthropic principle, trying to understand it, I come up with the same conclusion. ‘Life exists; therefore, it must exist by necessity.” It is a tautology, a circular argument, begging the question, and explains nothing. We already know that life exists. We are that life. We observe the universe, and we know that for life to exist certain conditions are necessary. We learn that because we understand the conditions of temporal law, but how can that be touted as an explanation of anything. Temporal laws exist; therefore, temporal laws exist by necessity. Try that argument on any creation by man and see how far it goes. The automobile, airplane, computer, etc. exist; therefore, they exist by necessity. No. They exist because they were created using known laws of physics.

It is tied in with the Goldilocks zone, the idea that everything is perfect for life; therefore, life exists. Life could not exist if there were the least variation. That, of course, is also tied in with the cosmological constants that are essential for life such as the gravitational constant, the speed of light, and so on. All arguments against God take the same pattern.

Ultimately science still must revert to origins. Science reasons, the universe has an end via the expanding universe; therefore, it must have a beginning via the big bang.

That leaves the question, what occurred before the big bang? How was all the matter of the universe organized into a singularity small as an atom? Where does life come from? Where do laws come from? Where do the four forces of nature come from? What closed the gap between the weak nuclear the strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force and gravity? Science will say chance! accident! coincidence! serendipity of circumstances! That is not a scientific answer. That is accepting paradox as the answer rather than as the problem. You cannot have probability without absolute numbers. There must be a track record and there must be predictability. Nothing can be falsified. You cannot have something from nothing.

  continue reading

662 episodi

Все серии

×
 
Loading …

Benvenuto su Player FM!

Player FM ricerca sul web podcast di alta qualità che tu possa goderti adesso. È la migliore app di podcast e funziona su Android, iPhone e web. Registrati per sincronizzare le iscrizioni su tutti i tuoi dispositivi.

 

Guida rapida