Evidence for God from Science

sandy_mcd wrote:Thermodynamics and entropy are completely extraneous to Professor Cimbala's argument. Mainstream scientific opinion is that the Universe is ~ 14 billion years old. [This number is not based on some winding down of an entropy clock.] The sole reason for the inclusion of entropy seems to be to show that the Universe cannot be infinitely old. But this is already accepted. So the argument reduces to:

bigmo1 wrote Cimbala wrote:... One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning,... Is this scientific proof for the existence of a Creator God? I think so.

In this case, the Emperor is wearing way too many clothes.
[Edited to correct spelling error.]

I'm old enough to remember when the principle arguement against the "Big Bang" was that it was really an attempt to prove there was a God.
Times change. As to this entropy discussion, evolutionists could cite some examples of self organization as hurricanes and crystals etc. The only problem with these examples is that they are easily understood as resulting ftom known physical laws, while self organization of DNA is definitely not. Attempts to understand how dna could have self organized, are similar to trying to explain "Macbeth" by reference to the chemical bonds with paper and ink. The pressure to accept an intelligent designer becomes overwhelming.

Ignoring the uneducated claims from the original post, there are real concerns with the interpretation of genetic information.

There may to be problems concerning our current understanding of conserved regions of code in DNA.

Click Here

For those who don't understand.
It was understood that conserved code implied that the section of DNA was critical, thus the lack of changes through evolutionary time.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Ignoring the uneducated claims from the original post, there are real concerns with the interpretation of genetic information.

There may to be problems concerning our current understanding of conserved regions of code in DNA.

Click Here

For those who don't understand.
It was understood that conserved code implied that the section of DNA was critical, thus the lack of changes through evolutionary time.

The discussion is also going on the intelligent design forum (arn.org)
here:
http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat. ... st30328101

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Click Here
For those who don't understand.
It was understood that conserved code implied that the section of DNA was critical, thus the lack of changes through evolutionary time.

That was then (June 2004). What is now regarding what appears to involve 'Junk" DNA research?

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/ ... 0_54-08_00

Analyzing "Junk DNA" through an ID perspective