Deist response to 12-7 "Science and Apologetics"

1) Something from Nothing?: From where did the Big Bang singularity come into existence? To say it arose purely by chance from nothingness is a violation of scientific law.

>>"Something from nothing" happens all the time in science. It is a staple of Quantum Physics.

2) Inertia: Even granted the free lunch of point #1, how did the Big Bang singularity remain in organized stasis for eternity, and then all of a sudden change states without being acted upon by an outside force? This is an effect without a cause, and is therefore another violation of scientific law.

>>Recent mathematical resolutions point very strongly to outside forces (11 dimensions worth, read M-Theory). As well, it >>did not remain in an "organized stasis" for eternity. It blew up, didn't it? Internal pressures, rather than "non-existent" >>external influences, may have also been a culprit for the Big Bang. Recent science has never suggested that the singularity >>was without beginning. Physicists have never assumed that this was the "beginning of all things".

3) Mathemtical Probability in Evolution: Sir Fred Hoyle of Cambridge said that the chances of a living cell appearing somewhere in the universe spontaneously are 10 to the 40,000 power (yes, count 'em, 40 THOUSAND!). It is accepted among all mathematicians that anything greater than 10 to the 50th power never occurs. And, the amount of time required would be trillions of billions of years, compared with the scant 12 to 20 billion years currently speculated to be the age of th universe.

>>Fred Hoyle was an Astronomer, not a mathematician or statistician or biologist. He was not qualified to generate any such >>estimates. He was also an atheist. I think it would do some good to break down his numbers, see how he acheived them, >>and present his work to the rest of the scientific world. I'll bet this study would come up wanting. Considering that the >>scientific world estimates that there are Earth-like worlds in this galaxy alone numbering probably in the millions, what, >>with the necessary temperature band and quantity of liquid water, complex hydrocarbons to form proteins, the chances >>were actually astronomical. One jackass speaking outside of his area of expertise does not a debunker make.

4) "Science doesn’t feel the need to get into answering the problem of the origin of the Big Bang Singularity or how the Big Bang actually occurred." "What kind of science is this that arbitrarily stops before answering its main question?"--RC Sproul to Carl Sagan’s position that science doesn’t feel the need to go back that far.

>>This is irrelevant. Physicists, Cosmologists, Astronomers, and Mathematicians have been wrestling with that very issue, >>with some startling results (again, read M-Theory). As well, I doubt that Carl Sagan's actual position does "not need to go >>back that far." I would take a closer look at Carl Sagan's work before blithely accepting a critic's assessment of them. Even >>if that were the case, which I doubt, , I would not perceive a criticism of one astronomer as an infallible indictment of the >>science itself.

Through the scientific elements of mathematical probability, entropy laws, thermodynamics, & the fossil record, science proves that it would have been utterly impossible for life on earth would be to arise by pure chance. Science tells us that the existence of a Creator God is unavoidable.

>>According to the starkest forms of science, there is no such thing as mere chance, although there is probability. Science >>has never demonstrate that life could never have arisen by chance, nor has it asserted that life could only have arisen by >>chance. They go where the evidence takes them. As well, most of the great scientists are not atheists. They are usually, on >>a personal level, best described as Deists. So when it come to what begat life here, they are open to a lot of ideas, just not >>usually ones involving dust and ribs and gardens.

History / archaeology has shown that the aforementioned Creator God is Christ, Who was prophesied in the Old Testament, joined Himself to mankind by being born of a woman, died for our sins, was resurrected, and now sits incarnate in heaven ruling His Universe.

>>History and archeology have also shown that Buddha is divine, Allah is the only God and Muhammed is his prophet, and >>that our lives are governed by the twelve Zodiacal constellations. Just ask any adherent to any predetermined, mystical, >>ready-to-serve model of the Universe: they will point at all perceivable phenomenae, historic or current, and hail it as >>validation of their belief system. If it fails the consistency litmus test, then it is either the work of (insert-evil/fallen-diety->>here) or ahs yet to be properly construed. Sorry, I kinda sounded like a smartass on that one.