Comment: godsfavson New Comment Here

(See in situ)


godsfavson New Comment Here

"You just claimed that you could speak to God, but now you say he chooses to communicate only through prophets. Are you a prophet? Would you like to be?"

No, that is not what I said. Use quotes please instead of saying I said something that I did not say.
There is a difference between talking TO God and God talking THRU a prophet.

To your new questions: No I am not a prophet. No, I would not like to be a prophet.
-----------------
"A points that no scientist with agree with the bible:

Age of the earth."

No, that is not true. There are scientists that hold to literal creation and a young earth.
----------------------
"The list of scientists you gave above contains exactly 1 astrophysicist, which is the relevant field when it comes to creation of the universe."

I could ask you how many true statesmen have been in the US federal government since its inception. You could reply with an answer and we could decide the rest are mere politicians tainted by lobbyists and self-interest.

Or I could give you a few more to look at
http://www.northpark.edu/News/2013/Astrophysicist-Reflects-o...
http://www.gci.org/science/astrophysics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist)
http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/advanced/astr...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_lisle.asp


These folks are not necessarily Christians, but they indicate a supposition of God. http://www.christian-astronomers.org/?s=astrophysicist
“Question Posed – Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.” (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming”. (4)

Paul Davies: “The laws [of physics] … seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose”. (5)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.” (9)

...